There are some vary serious questions regarding the effort to build a "replica" of the hotel on the Hotel site for a new City Hall.
1. The biggest question is: should a city the size of Patterson be spending $2 million for a city hall?
2. If they are going to build a new building, is that the best site considering there is very limited parking and there is no area for future expansion?
3. While many of us agree that we want City Hall downtown, because the city staff could see how to use the fire damaged building, is that a good reason to build a bastardized "replica" on the site?
4. All of a sudden people have been convinced that the city can some how prevent a bad building on that site by using it them selves. But is that really logical? The city already controls what buildings will look like in that area, especially through the new historic district, and also through provisions in the General Plan about the architectural look of commercial buildings in Patterson. (This part of the general plan appears to be a total failure given the recent approvals -- a metal building on West Las Palmas for Hillview Mortuary and the rebuilding of Hank's Deli are but two examples.)
5. Why hasn’t the city staff, or council, pursued some of the other downtown sites that were available, but are no longer?
6. Why did the city taken so long to enter into negotiations to purchase the property? Did they hope the hotel building would deteriorate further? Did they hope that public opinion would change in favor of demolition? Negotiations with the Historical Society started in December of 1996 and yet staff took no real steps until last fall (97). Why? Did they favor demolition all along and hoped that the longer they waited, the better the chance to get the property without the building?
7. Why was the city appealing to the Historical Society to continue to own the Hotel while they work out there financing?
Was this a further delay to allow the building to fall into further deterioration before it was demolished at Vee Hooper's expense?8. Why would a historical society favor a replica? The plans clearly show deviations from the design of the Hotel that would make a replica look like a sham. Do residents really prefer a new building without blemishes? (City Manager George Lambert made such a statement) What about the people who appreciate old buildings for their character, indications of age and most important, their memories.
9. What about new generations, that like current generations, ask: "Why didn’t we save it?" Who’s going to take responsibility for answering that question? What will the Historical Societies records show? That they favored and participated in creating a replica? Would a replica of the High School satisfy anyone?
10. What if we get national attention for demolishing a savable building? How will that reflect on Patterson’s understanding of history? (this didn't happen) How will those knowledgeable about restoration react to the architects proposals — which have driven up the restoration costs — which are not the standards applied by the National Park Service or those experienced with restoration and rehabilitation issues? Won’t that make Patterson’s decision look suspect to those who know what restoration really is? Don’t forget the millions of people who watch "This Old House" and have learned over the shows years what restoration and rehabilitation are really about. Yes I know they’ve deviated from accepted practices, but still there effort has been positive in showing how old houses and buildings can be restored.