The old PG
&
amp;E building at Sixth and Railroad streets, which became the
Gilroy Youth Center thanks largely to the efforts of former mayor
and now Santa Clara County Supervisor Don Gage, may not be an
architectural gem, but restoring it seems to be a better option
than tearing it down and replacing it
– temporarily – with used portable buildings.
The old PG&E building at Sixth and Railroad streets, which became the Gilroy Youth Center thanks largely to the efforts of former mayor and now Santa Clara County Supervisor Don Gage, may not be an architectural gem, but restoring it seems to be a better option than tearing it down and replacing it – temporarily – with used portable buildings.
The City Council should quickly and thoroughly review the determination to shut down, relocate and demolish the youth center building.
The most obvious questions are:
– Wouldn’t having a restored 1930s building be far better than placing “throw away” buildings on the site?
n Why not consider saving the $5 million projected cost instead of building a fancy new youth center sometime in the far, far future – if ever?
– In comparing costs, does the city’s evaluation of the building take into account all the costs related to the portable buildings – moving, architects, engineering, bathrooms and ADA requirements, paving and landscaping?
– Is it absolutely certain that all the energy, time and money which would be spent on a temporary solution is better than a retrofit?
The center is in a wonderful eastside location for its mission – to provide a place for Gilroy children after school, a safe haven where play and educational opportunities are made available. The Mexican American Community Services Agency ran the operation and plenty of youngsters made it their after-school hangout until their working parents made it home.
In 2008 the city commissioned a building evaluation and the “conclusion” outlined in a city fact sheet said:
” … 8. Gilroy URM Ordinance 2006-19 was adopted in late 2006.
9. The affected buildings were posted on Sept. 10, 2008 in conformance with state law.
10. State law does not require abatement or relocation of programs, however the City of Gilroy, is aiming at a higher standard.
11. Due to the stucco exterior, Building B is not readily recognizable as being constructed of unreinforced hollow clay tile and brick masonry.”
So, while there’s no doubt the building has issues – what 1930s building wouldn’t? – the conclusion the city reached to withdraw from the building should be revisited.
Every attempt should be made to research the options and not just do what is expedient. That the building is not up to current codes isn’t a surprise. That’s true of many buildings. But is it really unsafe? The reports infer otherwise.
Let’s be mindful of the financial, aesthetic and ecological considerations before calling in the wrecking crews.
