Kimm Tynan wrote:
Melani,
If a small, vocal group of our UC neighbors continues to reject the
restrictions which a local HD would impose, then, because of the increasing
popularity of our neighborhood, we are probably beginning an era of tear-downs
and requests for changes in height.
This is a false dichotomy and red herring. There¹s absolutely no reason
that a historic district is the only way to maintain height restrictions.
It¹s not an either or choice.
I agree, kimm.
and this was spelled out here pretty early on, back in
october 2007, about the proposed hotel at 40th and pine. how
this a ZONING question, not a historic preservation question:
http://www.mail-archive.com/univcity@list.purple.com/msg20121.html
it's odd that anyone would still be stuck on seeing this as
an issue about historic preservation, and then use that
false premise to justify support for a 10-story slab on that
property.
hotel opponents have been trying to protect a NEIGHBORHOOD,
through responsible zoning, and have argued that neighbors
would welcome 'responsible development' of the site:
http://www.mail-archive.com/univcity@list.purple.com/msg21283.html
..................
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN
----
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>.
