[email protected] wrote:
/*your argument for supporting historic districts is misplaced
here. in fact, your arguing for a 10-story hotel at 40th and
pine is AGAINST everything that historic districts are
designed to protect (streetscapes, fabric, ensembles, etc.)*/
A new 10-story hotel would be out of place in an historic district -
but we aren't likely to get a local historic district, so I hope to
see us do the best we can with the lesser protection we have for this
one old building - the individual designation and the PHC encouraging
the development of a tall modern building added to the lot. The inn's
opponents aren't trying to protect the Italianate building at all; one
of them told me at a hearing that they would support asking the PHC to
allow this one to be torn down, now.. So under the developers'
proposal, we have a restored historic building plus a 10-story new
building. Under the opponents' proposed compromise, we have no old
building at all. Who is less supportive of historic properties?
/*zoning is a tool to
protect residential areas from unwanted commercial (or
other) development; that is what's being defended here --
and what you are missing, because you keep arguing that the
only way to defend it is with an historic district.
*/
I'm not missing it. The conclusion of the zoning hearing process will
come next for this property. But as I wrote before, Ocean City has
restrictions too (on height, in their case), but if developers there
tear down all the old places and put up new plastic ones, albeit
shorter, then is that really satisfactory for a neighborhood?
Wouldn't it be better to have a way to prevent tear downs (a local
historic district)? What if, in University City, the buyer of one
half of a twin house wants to tear his purchase down and build new?
There is nothing to prevent that, without an historic district. How
would you feel, if you lived in the other half?
I'd like to make it clear that there is no reason to see this as a
referendum on the Historic District proposal. _Perhaps_ the HD might've
made it more difficult for the hotel developers to move ahead on their
project, but I think it'd have slowed them down at best. And this hotel
is a genuine _exception_ to development in the area; not a one-time-only
thing, but relatively rare. In the meantime, the rest of us would have
other limits and restrictions on our homes under the HD.
Imagine if someone were to say, "We can prevent the construction of a
ten-story hotel a few blocks from your home... but in turn, you and your
neighbors would have to give up a lot of your choice on exterior
renovations to people who can mandate the use of expensive materials and
contractors." Would you take that deal? Would you demand that others
take it as well?
(As for the example of teardowns and twins, I think it's possible to
enact legislation that restricts _those_ profound construction projects,
without bothering those of us who just want to repair our porches and
windows.)
----
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>.
