May 11, 2015
MUNICIPAL COURTHOUSE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MASONIC TEMPLE BUILDING RECOMMENDATION & OPINION
Committee
Member

Committee Member Recommendation/Opinion
#1: Use
Temple for
new Court

#2: Demo
the Temple

#3: Demo the Temple
but re-use certain
items in new project
YES

Comment

#4: Other

Judge Chase

YES
Lori Henry

YES
Nancy Abbott

John Coyne
Bill Lamb
Jim Shields
Dennie Simpson.
Dan Gladish
Matt Lanier
Patrick Patton
Nino Piccoli
SUMMARY

YES
YES
YES

1

0

YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
8

#3 best summarizes my opinion. I am very interested in creative reuse of salvageable items, both
interior and exterior (e.g., using brick and stone for paths and/or landscaping elements). I remain
willing to consider a free standing court building if attachment is not feasible, is not cost effective,
does not create significant savings and efficiencies, or does not fit well with parking development
(which I believe is essential to one of the total project goals of creating synergies for additional
private projects in the area).
#4 - I believe the Temple should be demolished, items salvaged and repurposed and a new court
building built. It was my understanding that once the decision about the Temple was made, the
location of the court would be discussed. I am not convinced that connecting the court to city hall is
the most efficient design. It just may be, but if the committee votes to tear down the Temple and
Council agrees, I think the committee should consider all “scenarios” as to the most efficient use of
the space.
I really was impressed with Tom Potts's presentation on using the best parts of the Masonic Temple
for a new courthouse. However, I wouldn't want to spend 10 million dollars moving from one
inefficient building to another inefficient building. I guess that means that I would recommend
that the building be torn down. I could see an "urban park" in part of the new space using elements
from the Masonic Temple to retain its history and memories. I don't have an opinion yet on
whether the new courthouse should be a standalone building or connected to city hall. I would
need more information on those two plans.
Item 3 for me—the salvaging part depends on cost.
I support number 3.
I personally like number 1 and would like to at least discuss the option before I settle on option 3. I
realize it is an uphill battle with the extra costs, but I am not ready to say I am completely at #3 yet.
With the cost in mind I would have to select option # 3!
In my opinion, #3.
Tempted by option #1, but due to significant cost difference recommends option #3
I like the mini-park/green space idea with structural elements from the Temple.
I am in favor of number 3. Take it to the ground.

2
OPTIONS PRESENTED TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS

#1: I support the plan presented in the repurposing study and would like to move forward with the idea of using the Temple as the new Muni Courthouse.
#2: I think the Temple should be demolished and the new Courthouse should be constructed abutting City Hall as discussed.
#3: I think the Temple should be demolished and the new Courthouse should be constructed abutting City Hall as discussed, but I think a concerted effort should be made to
salvage significant items or fixtures from the Temple with the idea to reuse them within the new project. This may mean using these items within the new courthouse, the
new parking deck, or perhaps within a new mini park or green space area on site. The idea would be to pay tribute to the Temple and memorialize it somewhere within the
new project.
#4: Other – Feel free to submit any alternate idea or opinion that you may have.