Benjamin W. Dugan wrote:
>"Neil I. Lifson" wrote:
>
>>All this talk of color schemes [in context of the proposed HD] does bring
>>us back, once again, to the fact that the Historical Commission does not
>>regulate paint color in Historic Districts.
>>
True for now. But there's no reason to assume that the PHC won't ever
decide that paint colors are something deserving of regulation. After
all, Pittburgh's PHC made just such a polcy change, much to the chagrin
of those who accepted HD designation. Also, there are several good books
on the painting of Victorian trim-- so what's to stop an enterprising
city bureaucrat from making it mandatory?
>I believe they also regulate the color of painted masonry and stucco,
>but I don't have a reference for this now.
>
They do-- the rationale given is that paint can cause damage to masonry.
>If at some point they decide to start dictating all colors there's
>nothing anybody can do about except start the process of getting their
>neighborhood un-designated.
>
And that's not an easy process. What it would require if proving, to the
satisfaction of the PHC, that the reasons for historic designation are
in error, i.e., the area's changed too much, its significance was
exaggerated, etc. Proving something like that would require a
neighborhood inventory of the sort that got the neighborhood its HD in
the first place.
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
