05-31-2016, 05:34 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-31-2016, 05:36 PM by panamaniac.)
(05-31-2016, 03:50 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(05-31-2016, 09:45 AM)panamaniac Wrote: I really enjoyed that article when I stumbled across it - it gives a lot more depth and context to what wasea going on at the time and the kind of thinking that justified the construction of Market Square. It adds a lot to the usual "stupid decision" that is the usual beginning and end of the local perspective on althe demolition of the old City Hall. And, as you note, we were hardly alone at the time.
There was also a comment posted by someone whos father worked at the old city hall, and who described it as a "decrepit fire hazard", surrounded by alleys "Dickensian in their filth". Apparently there was little sentiment attached to the old city hall at the time.
That can definitely be called overstatement. As I recall, the City Hall needed renovation, but it was nothing that couldn't have been tackled. The old Market was definitely old school, down to the live pigeons, and tired but the area was not actually that bad and the Cenotaph Square was quite nice. As for sentiment, time has made many folks recall the City Hall more fondly than what they felt at the time, imo, but the vocal minority who opposed the demolition (the heritage advocates of the day) were passionate about it.
It is hard now to separate nostalgia for the old City Hall from disappointment over the failure of Market Square as a shopping destination.