|
|
[ back ]
Article put Jackson Arms in unfair light
To the editor:A picture is worth a thousand words, and though I do not believe Tim Woodcock’s intentions in writing the article “Modern vs. historic architecture is sometimes a false opposition” (April 16-22, 2008) were malicious, I do believe it was thoughtless and, for most viewers of the article who did not choose to read it, it left a negative impression. (The front-page teaser included a photo of the Jackson Arms Apartments and asked, “Do buildings such as this help or harm the CWE’s historic fabric?”)There are many perspectives that could have been taken in describing the Jackson Arms Apartments.The paper certainly could have called my office before writing about it, though I don’t believe after all is said and done that it will affect the exceptionally high occupancy we have sustained over the years since it was built in 1965.The article could have also considered that “Dubinsky Family, Melvin & Harold Dubinsky D/B/A Jack Dubinsky & Sons,” a company that has been in business since the ’20s and is now being operated by me as the third-generation representative of the family, has owned and developed more buildings along the Central West End portion of Lindell Boulevard than any other single company, some “mid-century modern” and some “historic.”If the Word is trying to lobby against the Catholic Church demolishing the San Luis Apartments, then that should have been the photograph shown in the article.Keep in mind that the Catholic Church has great respect in the community and its reasons for providing additional and necessary parking needs to be given strong consideration when evaluating its decision.In point of fact, that property, as you probably have learned, was developed by the same Dubinsky family as previously mentioned.The article’s slant was innocently directed to the wrong site.Alan J. PervilJack Dubinsksy & Sons Real Estate InvestmentsDowntown St. Louis
[ back ]
|
|
|
