UNREASONABLE DEMOLITION

Published: Wednesday, August 31, 1994
Edition: THIRD
Section: METRO
Page: B6
Type: LETTERS

Text:

New Orleans

In reference to the land-based casino, it is beyond my comprehension why an award-winning building of distinction is to be demolished and replaced by what New Orleans would normally consider a monstrosity. I am in favor of the land-based casino, but the city does not need a Las Vegas-styled casino.

As a born and bred New Orleanian, I love my city because of its cultural uniqueness; I am vehemently opposed to anything that would destroy our traditions.

Why would you allow a building like the Rivergate that has attracted architects from all over the United States and Europe to view its uniqueness of design and construction be totally destroyed?

I have personal proof of this statement; my own son-in-law (Bob Hunt, who is an architect) made a trip to New Orleans from Tempe, Ariz., to take pictures of the Rivergate to show to the firms in Arizona.

Our pursuit of a land-based casino is for revenue - the demolition of the Rivergate will increase the cost approximately $100 million plus, and delay revenue for the city in excess of one year.

Is this a reasonable assessment? I do not believe so. Be reasonable and reconsider your options.

Rosemary V. Perrone


Copyright The Times-Picayune Publishing Corp.