This was a vote to preserve literally nothing. Literally. They are fine with tearing down the building(s). It's the nothing that's left afterward that must be preserved. That's insane.EOst wrote:Agreed... but only because this is an edge case, right on the edge of the district. I know a lot of people here don't believe in historic preservation generally, but if we're going to have them, we should do them right.Nathan wrote:Yeah I'm totally glad the hpc denied it, I totally hope the city approves it. Then everyone does their job correctly.
But yes, the people who lived there a few decades ago got something written down on paper about how tall buildings in the area can be, so *shrug* It's been decided for all time.
ETA: For some reason I thought these guidelines were older than they are, but it seems I was wrong and they currently-applicable design guidelines are from 2012.
Meanwhile, this particular site is right next to parking structure, across the street from a condo tower, and across another street from some 2000s-ish townhomes, with a 2010s apartment tower, parking structure and grocery store a half block and diagonally across an intersection away. Yet the Strib writes that the area is "dominated by turn-of-the-century houses and storefronts."
Are there any turn of the century homes in the area? The Ard Godrey House is from 1847, so that doesn't count.
There are none here.Sorry, but that's BS. We are a wealthy enough and healthy enough to say "no" to developers sometimes when there are other compelling reasons.