Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown
^Sure it is. See page 40 of the Commission's rules:
a. The new structure exhibits the general size, shape, and scale of the features associated with the property or district. |
If you are going to roll out the facts and cite sources then you better bet people are going to research the entire context of what you are quoting:
Quote:
5. Criteria for New Construction, Additions, and Alterations to
Non-Contributing Buildings
Permit applications for new construction, additions, and
alterations to non-contributing buildings are reviewed to ensure that they
are compatible with and complement existing significant historical or
architectural features and qualities. The intent is to encourage excellence
in contemporary design that does not imitate, but rather complements,
existing architectural and environmental characteristics of the subject
property or district.
The following criteria shall be considered in evaluating
permit applications for new construction, additions, and alterations to
non-contributing buildings:
a. The new structure exhibits the general size, shape,
and scale of the features associated with the property or district.
b. The site plan exhibits the general site characteristics
associated with the property or district.
c. The design respects the general historic and
architectural characteristics associated with the property or
district in general character, color, and texture.
d. The materials are compatible with the existing
structures in the district in general character, color, and texture.
e. In the case of additions, the addition is so connected
to the property that it does not adversely alter, change, obscure,
damage, or destroy any significant critical features.
f. In the case of minor alterations to non-contributing
buildings, minor alterations compatible with the architectural
character of the existing building shall be deemed to not have an
adverse effect on the significant historical or architectural features
of the landmark.
|
So the problem with you bandying about your "knowledge" of the Landmarks ordinance and rules is that not only are you wrong, but the rules literally state the exact opposite of what you claim. The commission is not trying to encourage similar materials, size, style, etc, they are trying to encourage buildings that complement with contemporary materials and design. I would say the sexy cantilever here (hmmm, cantilever over a landmark, what a crazy idea, sounds familiar?) qualifies as an excellent means of suspending a much larger building over the historic district while putting as little of that density directly adjacent to the historic buildings as possible.