http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/01/holmdel-bell-labs-facility-update-it-stays/ Engadget Comments for Holmdel Bell Labs facility update: it stays! http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/01/holmdel-bell-labs-facility-update-it-stays/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/01/holmdel-bell-labs-facility-update-it-stays/Sep 1st 2006 7:33PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/01/holmdel-bell-labs-facility-update-it-stays/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/01/holmdel-bell-labs-facility-update-it-stays/
I remember the Star-Ledger (a big newspaper that I get in New Jersey) ran a small blurb about the original engadget post about preserving the Bell Labs facility, so that's pretty cool.]]>Sep 1st 2006 8:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/01/holmdel-bell-labs-facility-update-it-stays/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/01/holmdel-bell-labs-facility-update-it-stays/ -- Margaret Mead]]>Sep 1st 2006 8:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/01/holmdel-bell-labs-facility-update-it-stays/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/01/holmdel-bell-labs-facility-update-it-stays/]]>Sep 1st 2006 11:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/01/holmdel-bell-labs-facility-update-it-stays/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/01/holmdel-bell-labs-facility-update-it-stays/]]>Sep 1st 2006 9:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/01/holmdel-bell-labs-facility-update-it-stays/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/01/holmdel-bell-labs-facility-update-it-stays/Sep 1st 2006 9:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/01/holmdel-bell-labs-facility-update-it-stays/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/01/holmdel-bell-labs-facility-update-it-stays/
=D]]>Sep 1st 2006 10:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/01/holmdel-bell-labs-facility-update-it-stays/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/01/holmdel-bell-labs-facility-update-it-stays/Sep 2nd 2006 12:16AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/01/holmdel-bell-labs-facility-update-it-stays/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/01/holmdel-bell-labs-facility-update-it-stays/Sep 2nd 2006 8:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/01/holmdel-bell-labs-facility-update-it-stays/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/01/holmdel-bell-labs-facility-update-it-stays/
This tweaked me a bit and thus I forwarded to the company principals back in early July the following:

****************************************************
Hello Gentlemen,

Based on the following
http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/developer-to-raze-bell-labs-holmdel-facility-birthplace-of-the/

“Developer to raze Bell Labs Holmdel facility, birthplace of the cellphone”


Clearly the value is historic of which you appear to be ignoring and not “Building Value Beyond Buildings.” As the value is intrinsic to the history of this country, nice job destroying our history along with a great looking site.

If the best your internal team can come up with is razing a historic complex, ignoring their company motto, you might want to evaluate their “value.”

V/r,

Channing
**********************************************

They didn't reply and I was hurt. ;)

Until now.

Thank you Engadget. The reason you are a part of my morning ritual of coffee and techweb.

Channing
]]>Sep 3rd 2006 9:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/01/holmdel-bell-labs-facility-update-it-stays/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/01/holmdel-bell-labs-facility-update-it-stays/
Yes, yes, historical landmarks are amazing structures at times. Think of what revenue Paris would lose if the Eifel(spelling?, sorry) Tower wasn't there. Or what if the Empire State building was demolished to make way for a more modern structure. How much tourist money would be lost. As it is, I'm sure half the world hasn't even heard of this building until recent events. What about the Motorola building where the cell phone was developed? Should we be researching that and making it a national landmark?

What would be the point? Tourist dollars? I frankly could care less about the buildings. All it will do is force the government to upkeep hundreds of thousands of buildings all over the U.S. that will most likely remain empty. For what? To make the company that wants to expand move out of the city so they have room to build what they need?

Again, I'm sure it's a victory of sorts, but where does it end?]]>Sep 3rd 2006 11:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/01/holmdel-bell-labs-facility-update-it-stays/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/01/holmdel-bell-labs-facility-update-it-stays/Sep 7th 2006 12:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/01/holmdel-bell-labs-facility-update-it-stays/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/01/holmdel-bell-labs-facility-update-it-stays/Why does Holmdel rate being maintained? Sure, it is a Bell Labs facility, however, it was built in the 1960's. Who cares! The majority of the labs work, of
historic importance anyway, was performed at other
facilities.

Now the new owners are going to be saddled with a
structure that is not in the best shape either. Have
any of you heard the expression "build a bridge"? It
is a building, not a shrine.]]>Sep 17th 2006 12:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/01/holmdel-bell-labs-facility-update-it-stays/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/01/holmdel-bell-labs-facility-update-it-stays/Sep 20th 2006 12:30AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/01/holmdel-bell-labs-facility-update-it-stays/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/01/holmdel-bell-labs-facility-update-it-stays/
On Thursday, March 22 the public was invited to attend a discussion with the Holmdel Town council on the future of the Lucent Bell Labs site. The meeting began with statements from the various professionals retained to advise the town council. Although these advisors claimed to be neutral, they made several ominous statements. One described the present building as "functionally obsolete", another talked about demolishing the entire building and pointed out it has no "protected status". Despite the promises made by the developer, Preferred Real Estate Investments, at their August 30, 2006 meeting to preserve "phase 1" of the building, they now threaten to pull out of the project if residential development on the property is not approved. In a letter mailed to selected Holmdel residents on March 19, they go on to speculate that "it is equally unlikely that a new developer would be able to salvage the exiting building". So it seems they are holding the building hostage until the Holmdel Town Council rezones the property to allow residential construction.

So what was Preferred's plan from the start? The property has always been zoned "OL1" which allows for offices and laboratory use, but prohibits residential development. Preferred certainly made their bid for the property knowing its zoning status. Did they plan from the start to coerce the town to change the zoning? Are they threatening to destroy a unique archeological heirloom if they don't get their way?

More information is at http://www.preservingholmdel.com/]]>Mar 23rd 2007 4:17PM