People raising stink over STL stadium construction

[007]

Read all aboot'it

[BringBackZezel]

waa.

[007]

Originally posted by BringBackZezel@Mar 8 2004, 05:07 PM
waa.

Yeah, no shit....

typical st. louis....

[BringBackZezel]

Originally posted by 007+Mar 8 2004, 05:08 PM-->

QUOTE(007 @ Mar 8 2004, 05:08 PM)

[JK]

What a joke. What was on that site before the groundbreaking started?

[mellanby_equals_grit]

Originally posted by _STLfan_in_DFW@Mar 8 2004, 06:36 PM
What a joke. What was on that site before the groundbreaking started?

No shit.. Why come out with this now?

[Nebulous_Blue]

Well, my take on this is a little different than "waa".

While I think it's important that cities preserve what they can of their history, I find it hard to justify calling some old bottles and track supports "archaeological finds". We know the history of what was there, so it can be safely assumed that we already have bits and pieces of the times gone by in that general area.

What I *am* concerned about is this being "private property", and thus leaving the city with the wide open opportunity of not having to report any of their finds. Bones, be it white, black or Native...bowls, arrowheads, shackels...things of that nature can go unreported if the city so chooses. That does concern me.

There is a huge gap in pre-Colombian history that needs to be studied and preserved. In their digging, if they were to find something of that age, then I agree that the construction should stop and the site excavated. But they most certainly shouldn't stop construction just because they find "historical artifacts" of an era that is well documented.

[TTB]

Originally posted by Nebulous_Blue@Mar 8 2004, 07:37 PM

There is a huge gap in pre-Colombian history that needs to be studied and preserved. In their digging, if they were to find something of that age, then I agree that the construction should stop and the site excavated. But they most certainly shouldn't stop construction just because they find "historical artifacts" of an era that is well documented.

Most people just don't care about pre-Columbian anything.

[Indu WangZi]

Who knows....maybe they'll find Hoffa!!

[Bleacher Creature]

That's not true. In the 60's and 70's, Columbian was very much in vouge

[big_dawg160]

What the hell is the author of this article talking about? There isnt shit there but old buildings and crappy parking. If this area was so important it should have been preserved years ago. St. Louisans should be happy that anything new is being built downtown.
Although they may find some of the old Budweiser cans that my family has been leaving in the parking lot for the last 30 years!

[Celtic]

I will post a number in case they find ANYTHING Columbian. Kev and I would be thrilled. Also something Thai....maybe a *stick* or something.

Old school ganja.....gotta love it.

[SLUBLUE]

Originally posted by Nebulous_Blue@Mar 8 2004, 07:37 PM
Well, my take on this is a little different than "waa".

While I think it's important that cities preserve what they can of their history, I find it hard to justify calling some old bottles and track supports "archaeological finds". We know the history of what was there, so it can be safely assumed that we already have bits and pieces of the times gone by in that general area.

What I *am* concerned about is this being "private property", and thus leaving the city with the wide open opportunity of not having to report any of their finds. Bones, be it white, black or Native...bowls, arrowheads, shackels...things of that nature can go unreported if the city so chooses. That does concern me.

There is a huge gap in pre-Colombian history that needs to be studied and preserved. In their digging, if they were to find something of that age, then I agree that the construction should stop and the site excavated. But they most certainly shouldn't stop construction just because they find "historical artifacts" of an era that is well documented.

i'm not sure that any traces of pre columbians wouldn't have been wiped out in the hundreds of years this city has been here neb.

[Nebulous_Blue]

Originally posted by SLUBLUE@Mar 9 2004, 07:44 AM

i'm not sure that any traces of pre columbians wouldn't have been wiped out in the hundreds of years this city has been here neb.

True...but archaeologists are still unsure of just how far communities were spread around Cahokia. Depending on just how far they dig, they might find something of importance.

I'm concerned that any kind of major find might be swept under the table if it means a delay in stadium construction.

[Iowa_Card]

And these people weren't pissed that there was blacktop covering this site before?

:rolleyes: