Today's Republican-American ran an article about the city hall building, written by D.A. Narducci III, an architect from Southbury. He proposes a partial demolition of the building, keeping the front courtyard, the front facade and the clock tower, and replacing everything else with a big box office building. His plan would reinstall certain interior elements, but replace most of the building with generic modern construction.
Is he a total idiot, or was this supposed to be sarcasm? You can't save just parts of the building and then reconstruct the rest. That's probably more expensive than a straight-forward restoration, and it is in direct conflict with restoration. If a building is worth restoring, you restore the entire building, maintaining its integrity. What he's proposing is, in fact, a total demolition with decorative bits and pieces of the original building tacked onto the new building.
Narducci's plan would require the city to hire an architect to review the costs and feasibility of the plan. Narducci is an architect. Is his article an effort to get the city to hire him?
I can't believe the newspaper ran this article, and I can't believe they ran it as a major piece in the Sunday Commentary. It's probably going to add a full month of debate to the issue, because at least one alderman is going to read it and think it's a good idea.