Lakeport Landing's tower of power!

[Descant]

Irwin made a fair bid to buy the other building; Lakeport Landing's bid was way low. That's not a squeeze. When LL needed to stay in the old building while construction continued there was some agreement made and they stayed. I don't recall all the details, but that doesn't sound like squeezing to me.

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by Descant

Irwin made a fair bid to buy the other building; Lakeport Landing's bid was way low. That's not a squeeze. When LL needed to stay in the old building while construction continued there was some agreement made and they stayed. I don't recall all the details, but that doesn't sound like squeezing to me.

I have dealt with and like both establishments. Irwin made a fair bid and squeezed out a smaller competitor. Fortunately for LL, the city, its residents and the consumer LL was able to secure and improve a piece of idle property next door. At the end of the day everyone wins!!!!!

[TiltonBB]

I would have been happy to see the old fire station bulldozed. Saving that old building inside the new building accomplishes nothing and just complicates and adds expense to the process of constructing the new building. For what?

[WinnisquamZ]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

I would have been happy to see the old fire station bulldozed. Saving that old building inside the new building accomplishes nothing and just complicates and adds expense to the process of constructing the new building. For what?

Could not agree more


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

I would have been happy to see the old fire station bulldozed. Saving that old building inside the new building accomplishes nothing and just complicates and adds expense to the process of constructing the new building. For what?

Disagree. It does not necessarily increase costs to keep the old structure. I am sure the way it has been incorporated into the new structure they ended up saving money along the way

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by joey2665

Disagree. It does not necessarily increase costs to keep the old structure. I am sure the way it has been incorporated into the new structure they ended up saving money along the way

By the time you get through working around the existing building the old building offered several challenges that a clean slate (empty lot) would not have.

The architect had to make plans that would incorporate the old building and change everything from the structural support to every segment of the entire layout because of that building. It is different from what a regular new construction design would have required. That additional design time costs money.

Hazardous materials would have to be removed from the old building. That would include any asbestos and any oil that may have leaked from old vehicles in the building. None of the old wiring could be used because it was out of code. The old building had to be completely rewired. The old brick had to be re-pointed and stabilized so that it did not present a hazard in the new building. Any old wood in the building had to be treated for termites and other issues and that will be an ongoing expense.

HVAC plumbing required numerous re-channeling efforts to get around the blockage cause by the old building. That eliminated the opportunity for straight runs typical of most new construction. It also required that additional utility outlets for lighting, heating, and air conditioning be installed so that it would cover and circulate throughout the structure. The old building could only be improved so much and will continue to be an additional expense for years to come.

I will take a clean slate any day. It will cost less and you can design what you want without restriction.

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

By the time you get through working around the existing building the old building offered several challenges that a clean slate (empty lot) would not have.

The architect had to make plans that would incorporate the old building and change everything from the structural support to every segment of the entire layout because of that building. It is different from what a regular new construction design would have required. That additional design time costs money.

Hazardous materials would have to be removed from the old building. That would include any asbestos and any oil that may have leaked from old vehicles in the building. None of the old wiring could be used because it was out of code. The old building had to be completely rewired. The old brick had to be re-pointed and stabilized so that it did not present a hazard in the new building. Any old wood in the building had to be treated for termites and other issues and that will be an ongoing expense.

HVAC plumbing required numerous re-channeling efforts to get around the blockage cause by the old building. That eliminated the opportunity for straight runs typical of most new construction. It also required that additional utility outlets for lighting, heating, and air conditioning be installed so that it would cover and circulate throughout the structure. The old building could only be improved so much and will continue to be an additional expense for years to come.

I will take a clean slate any day. It will cost less and you can design what you want without restriction.

All good points except the hazzardous material. It would have to be removed whether the building is demolished or used as an alteration. Since they used the existing wall system and foundation I still stand by that there was probably no additional cost to use the structure. However I do understand and agree that the contractor would rather deal with a clean slate.

[SAMIAM]

I agree with TiltonBB on this one. They had to design the new building around that ugly brick structure to satisfy some people who thought it had historic significance.

[exlakesregioner]

Nice that they could save a little bit of history within the new building, kudos to the designer. Just about anything new at the intersection is a good thing in my opinion, has been awhile since I have been thru it, but it's a pretty depressing/rundown area.

[fatlazyless]

December, 1955, when this photo was made, was about twenty years before the smoke detector with a battery was available, and it very quickly got wide spread use. Today, for just $4.25, you can get an excellent smoke detector that is about 5"-diameter w/ a 9-v battery, down at Walmart.

Fires can get going really fast, and smoke detectors work good.

When these 1955 photos were made, there were no smoke detectors, by about twenty years.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Top-Water

Not that it matters that much a little history from some old news paper articles from December 1955. (New Hampshire Sunday News)

Bet you didn't know about the "Marble Floors" I didn't .... Good luck .... Lake Port Landing nice to see the area getting a make over.

The church steeple in the background looks like a robot on the station roof.