tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7294506345030406256.post5537514130850496098..comments2008-06-02T17:33:54.345-04:00JThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17955997796680398909noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7294506345030406256.post-62648519228054145182008-06-02T17:33:00.000-04:002008-06-02T17:33:00.000-04:00The McCalls building was actually gorgeous inside!!! How do I know? Well, because slumlord Joe Lieberman, who owned the factory building before it was sold to Antares a few months ago, completely failed to secure the building, so anyone could go inside and take a peek.<BR/><BR/>The views from the top floor, which would have made awesome loft condos, were spectacular. Straight out to Stamford Harbor, right on the water. Views in the other direction were not as nice because Lieberman had left the adjacent properties vacant for over a year, so they became total dumping grounds for squatters and dumpers. IT was a disgrace.<BR/><BR/>It's sad that the McCalls building couldn't have been preserved though --- all those years it sat empty, it could have been great housing for artists or others. <BR/><BR/>(Actually, it was housing for squatters for quite a while!)<BR/><BR/>Sad to see a Stamford landmark go down.East Sidernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7294506345030406256.post-73484878839305374582008-05-29T15:43:00.000-04:002008-05-29T15:43:00.000-04:00It also might have been too polluted and/or delapidated to be converted. Still a shame.JRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7294506345030406256.post-31651564343170282392008-05-29T01:29:00.000-04:002008-05-29T01:29:00.000-04:00<<"urban lofts or a cool industrial looking office space">><BR/><BR/>Way too mini-NYC for Stamford. Shame to see it go.Always Home and Uncoolhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10673014424525900380noreply@blogger.com