This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cuba related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CubaWikipedia:WikiProject CubaTemplate:WikiProject CubaCuba articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hotels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the hospitality industry, including hotels, motels, resorts, and destination spas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HotelsWikipedia:WikiProject HotelsTemplate:WikiProject HotelsHotels articles
IF "The original building was demolished, with only the façade on the two street-fronts remained." in the 60s, and the two remaining facades of the 1880s original building were totally destroyed during the recent blast then it is no longer a "neoclassical building, or a Five Star Hotel". Neoclassicism is "an architectural style produced by the Neoclassical movement that began in the mid-18th century." There was a complete renovation of the interior of the building as evidenced by the metal studs, gypsum board walls, and new concrete slabs that may be seen in several photos after the bast. Structural steel supports of the new slabs may be seen behind the original arch supporting columns; over 60-70% of the original building appears to have been replaced with new construction.
new and improved "neoclassical building"."stage set"
something, (User talk:69.174.144.79) perhaps you can come in here and tell us why you have reverted my corrections to the page twice? Thank you! ovA_165443 (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The building can be seen in this foto before the last 'renovation' (which was in fact a rebuild): [hotel Saratoga 1995] RenaatPeeters (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Though I don't think that photo is actually 1995 - more like 1997 or 1998. - Beardo (talk) 09:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pomo
The proposed load of additional floors and the reason that steel supports were inserted. At the moment nothing is left of the original building and this is my argument that there is nothing that can be called neoclassical.[1]ovA_165443 (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One has to agree. Nothing to be called neoclassical. There's nothing left from before 2000 + It seems that the now destroyed original outer wall was not load-bearing at all. The recently build main structure is supported by concrete columns at the level of the former 'segunda linea de la fachada' and cantilevered over the paserelle (portal) to touch only the old outer wall, not to bear on it. Photo: concrete columns and cantilevered beamsRenaatPeeters (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But it is not postmodern either ! -- Beardo (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the many reasons it cannot be a Posmodern building are...? ovA_165443 (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does not the revolutionary government "own it all"? And do they in fact own anything? "The Trump administration partially reversed more than two decades of U.S. policy toward Cuba on Monday, authorizing lawsuits by American citizens against Cuban government entities “trafficking” in property that was confiscated six decades ago by the revolutionary government of Fidel Castro." Please, see my note. ovA_165443 (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand, US laws about confiscation are completely irrelevant to this article, as the hotel was neither owned by US citizens, nor by Cubans who later became US citizens. Do you have any evidence to the contrary ? Does any former owner contest that the property now belongs to the Cuban government ?
Stating that the "revolutionary government owns it all" does not reflect Cuban law. - Beardo (talk) 09:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have not shown why it is "completely irrelevant", you saying it does not make it so!? (What types of property was taken? Personal property, stocks, bonds, bank accounts, artwork, manufacturing facilities, sugar plantations, agricultural property, utilities, HOTELS, retail and wholesale commercial companies, personal homes, and more. [1]) Nor have you provided evidence for who owns the Hotel, or what nationality? Nor have you proven that the Hotel was "not taken/confiscated"? Nor have you shown why "The nationalization, expropriation, or other seizure by the Cuban Government of ownership or control of property on or after January 1, 1959, without the return or compensation for the property..." is not outright theft of private property? Nor have you addressed that the "revolutionary government owns it all" through "confiscation; which I might add it is not "ownership" of any kind!? YOU are the one who requested a citation ("Like most businesses in Cuba, in the 1960s the Hotel Saratoga was confiscated without compensation[citation needed] by the revolutionary government.") To say U.S. Law does not apply is a total disregard for natural law: "Thou shalt not steal." Why don't you try reading the history of Cuba and the links posted...? The only thing the Revolutionary government did was to replace the Mafia, they have money for 5 Star Hotels but not for the starving People.
This term is a "Weasel word which are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis..." ovA_165443 (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So what are you suggesting ? That no mention of the architectural style is made ? It is certainly not postmodern, as you had at one point. - Beardo (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yes, postmodern, but that designation was reverted to "New Classical architecture". Waiting for (Usertalk:69.174.144.79) answer that is what I am suggesting, read the previous posts on the talk page. Isn't that how you are supposed to do it, give the other person a chance instead of reverting someone's post? ovA_165443 (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are all these references to US law relevant to the Saratoga?[edit]
beardo Was the Hotel Saratoga confiscated? Please read the references provided. U.S. Law is relevant to all confiscated property on the island as it is the reason the revolutionary government complains there is an embargo. Private property is stolen and allowed to deteriorate into thin air then blame a nonexistent "blockade" as the reason for the destruction. In the future, please put your comments on the talk page so anyone can address your concerns, please DO NOT put your personal comments on the article someone has to clean up your garbage. Thank you! ovA_165443 (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"U.S. Law is relevant to all confiscated property on the island" - not true. The US laws on confiscation relate to properties belonging to US citizens or to Cubans who later became US citizens. Perhaps you need to understand the facts before covering the article with irrelevant political comment.
Are there any former owners of the Saratoga who claim ownership or who did not receive compensation ? Or are you just guessing ? -- Beardo (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you did not read the article, it is not "confiscated property" per se, Title III of the Helms-Burton Act permits U.S. nationals to sue persons that “TRAFFIC” in confiscated private property "by the Cuban government since 1959." As far as I know, no one has received compensation for any stolen property; as an example look at the Bacardi Building or the many properties of Alfredo Hornedo. As noted in the Trump article there are challenges in enforcing judgments. Perhaps you can post specifically what U.S. Law you feel is irrelevant? I was answering the 'ownership' box in the 'Infobox building' how would you answer that question as the Cuban government did not own anything when they descended from the Sierra Maestra and they took it by force from the People? It is not "irrelevant political commentary" just because you say it is the government so-called is not dissimilar to the Mafia they replaced where the people starve while the self-elected government builds 5 Star Luxury Hotels like the stolen Hotel Manzana Kempinski.ovA_165443 (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Osvaldo valdes 165443, There is a whole section in the template documentation on the height parameters. See Template:Infobox building#Height parameters. It says: "Specify height = with no other height-related parameters, or leave height= blank and fill in one or more of the other parameters below. Use of height= along with one of the other parameters below will place the page in Category:Pages using infobox building with parameter errors." The article is again listed as having an error, which I keep fixing and you keep re-inserting. You have to use just |height= by itself or use the one or more of the other height parameters without |height=. Please stop making changes when you don't understand the proper use of the template. This is definitely not WP:Vandalism and you should also learn when it is and is not appropriate to use that term. MB 21:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see if that is the case then we should use only 28.2 m. Thank you! ovA_165443 (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, the Infobox shows Coral Capital as the developer, with the source cited as https://www.cubastandard.com/anti-corruption-campaign-hits-golf-developer/ - the only mention of the Saratoga in that article is "It also spent $28 million on the Saratoga boutique hotel in the historic center of Havana". I don't see that investing money makes them the developer.
Also the timing does not work. The joint venture was created in 1996, the old building was demolished in 1997, the new hotel was designed and work started in 1998. Yet Coral Capital was only created in 1999, as confirmed by several of the articles that were mentioned here.
I have got a copy of a photo of the hotel during construction which shows a sign that read "Inversionista: Empresa Mixta Hotel Saratoga S.A." and "Proyectista: Direccion de Proyectos Oficina del Historiador"; no mention of Coral Capital.
In a private communication from Stephen Purvis, which I received a copy, he wrote "The Habaguanex team were responsible for both design and project management until handover of completed building."
So Habaguanex started the project, provided part of the capital and also ran the rebuilding. It sounds to me like they were the developer. -- Beardo (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no clear definition of developer in the infobox template. My opinion is that a developer could be an investor who hires other firms (architect, contractor, project manager). Or it could be an investor who does the project management themselves. Thirdly, it could refer to an entity developing a project on behalf of an investor. In this case, the sourcing is weak; the field should be left blank for now. MB 16:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can add this information: 'Some of the investments have been made as joint ventures with foreign capital like Grand Hotel and Saratoga Hotel, respectively with France and England, but the main trends are to develop 100% Cuban investments', OHC.[2] There is also an article in the '2017 Resource Guide' (Cuba Standard) about the way of working in general: '...Contracts that include an infusion of mid-term credit, typically in the $30 million - $50 million range for three to five years, bearing interest about 8%' . This shows that the roll of Coral Capital was primarely funding.
There is an article in Cuba News (July 2003) that says: 'Among Ceiba's ventures is the refurbishing of the Old Havana's Hotel Saratoga' . When one tries to tie it all together it turns out that several companies and individuals were involved. The offices of the firms were located in countries such as Curaçao, the Cayman Islands and the Netherlands. And Cuba News (Sept. 2008): Ceiba sold (in 2006) his stake in the Sartoga to Coral Capital Hospitality SA for $82,9 million. This shows that the roll of Coral Capital was project development and exploitation.
About the timeline. Yes, Coral Capital was created in 1999. But there was a predecessor, Laroc Trading Fund B.V (Curaçao).[3]. Coral Capital added to the hazines: Coral Capital Ltd (British Virgin Islands), Coral Capita Debt Fund BV (Curaçao), Coral Capital Hospitality SA (Panama).
And this is how Coral Capital Ltd described the project in 2011, before the problems started:
'In 1997 (...) a joint venture was signed with state entity Habaguanex for the restoration of the Saratoga. After investing $28m (...) it opened in 2005 and is managed by the JV. All that remains of the original 130 year old, 3 story hotel is a retained façade. Coral (Capital) led negotiations for obtaining the necessary permissions, created a design solution with a team of international experts and then constructed 13 new floors including a double basement using a Cuban executive team of consultants.'
And about Coral Capital Ltd (same source on archive.org):
'(...) was set up in 1999 and (...) it was founded to consolidate the existing work of the management team in (...) Cuba.'
First paragraph - the quote does not even mention Coral Capital. As far as I am aware, the Gran Hotel was never a joint venture - there was a proposal which never proceeded, and the site was left derelict for about 20 years. The hotel was reconstructed by Gaviota, and I am pretty sure not with French money.
Curaçao, the Cayman Islands and the Netherlands ? I don't think so. Panama, Guernsey. $82.9 million ? Someone was inflating the figures.
I don't see anything in that link about Laroc that is relevant - Laroc came afterwards, and I don't think had anything to do with the Saratoga.
The quote "founded to consolidate the existing work of the management team" is key. But that does not make Coral Capital equivalent to the management team. -- Beardo (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have read 'Close but no cigar". Not once the 'Saratoga' or Coral Capital are mentioned. The shortest the writer comes to this hotel is on p. 65 (the same page he's flushing them all down the gutter): "(...) the central scene was secretly filmed on the rooftop pool deck of the hotel .(...) which we had built and part owned." - About the French money: I gave the source. About Curaçao, the Cayman Islands and the Netherlands: I'll search for the sources. RenaatPeeters (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gregorio Palacio y Pérez (Entrambasaguas, 1819 or 1820 - La Habana, 1904) arrived on the island in 1834. He became rich by selling tobacco from the fields he had acquired in the region of Pinar del Rio (don't forget that slavery was still normal in that time).
At the and of the century he owned more than 100 houses in Havana. But one couldn't tell his wealth from his way of lifestyle:
Jamás le vimos en coche ni bien trajeado. Por qué hacía eso no lo sabemos y es fácil qu eno lo averigüe nadie.
He was buried in the Cementerio Colón where his grave can still be seen: grave on the Colon Cemetary (detail).
sources:
Machado Gonzalez, Cuevano de Olvidos, p.97
De Las Cuevas and Rey, Las construciones cuentan su historia, p.85
Adolfo Dollero, La Provincia de Pinar del Rio y su evolucion, p. 134, p. 247, p.278
Beardo, I agree that not all references are of equal importance, but erasing some of them because they don't seem relevant to one editor is in my opinion not the way how wikipedia works. The problem is that there are few sources about the hotel. That's not so surprising because it is (or it was until ± 2000) rather a modest hotel. Citing the sources is also ment for further study to those who want. For they are put at the bottum, they are of no hindrance to others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RenaatPeeters (talk • contribs) 14:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RenaatPeeters - that is the way the wikipedia works - be bold, they say. As you disagree, we can discuss here.
If we look, I am sure that we can find lots of sources about the hotel - about the times that Naomi Campbell or Beyonce and JayZ or Madonna or Jimmy Page visited. The video of Beyonce waving from the balcony must be around somewhere. Having a load of external links about Stephen Purvis, which at best mention the Saratoga in passing, places too much emphasis on that. The action against Stephen Purvis and Coral Capital had no direct effect on the Saratoga. Probably more important to the hotel was when Gaviota took over Habaguanex, which isn't even mentioned. Perhaps include one key reference - but not five. If relevant, we should have a section on the financing of the project. But Saratoga Resources S.A. only owned 32% of Hotel Saratoga S.A. -- Beardo (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the importance of mentioning who stayed at the Saratoga. But I agree that Purvis's role is overemphasized. However, he was the only one who spoke in the year before everything changed. Maybe hubris. And then there's the fact that the Parque Central hotel (a failure, a missed opportunity) was left entirely to the opinion and decision of the foreigners. It seems quite interesting to know who was at the helm regarding the Saratoga to make it another wacky building. People have trouble believing that there are 10 floors behind a facade that only shows 5. A facade finish that came down every 6 months and consisted of plasterboard panels. etc. Maybe you can add a section for you're a native English speaker. RenaatPeeters (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.png){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg)
