gustaftp
Well-Known Member
A lot of people keep saying this, but in my experience of studying adaptive reuse of historic properties, it is rare that tearing down and rebuilding is less expensive than repurposing cared-for and flexible spaces. There's a reason why when someone wants to tear something down to build new, they often have their hands out for tax-increment financing: unless taxpayer money is thrown at such a project, it usually isn't economically feasible to demolish and build anew unless a building is practically caving in.keeping the buildings was likely more expensive than demolishing them and building something new. So even on that level it didn't make sense.
WOL was studied for demolition, had a leaking roof, and far more unique of a design that undoubtedly cost more to maintain than than Communicore did. Instead, Disney decided to keep WOL.
As Martin and others have pointed out, the Comminicore buildings are large, flexible use buildings specifically designed to accommodate changing needs. They were built with modern construction methods and techniques, and were maintained. I think the scenario of being told not to feel constrained to existing buildings is more likely. There's no way it was less expensive to tear down and build something new. It just isn't plausible.