Quote:
Originally Posted by PHL10
It’s typical. The same thing happened at 1900 Arch and although everyone hates that building, we are lucky that the developer managed to get it off the ground. That site had several 19th century buildings demo’d before they had a single approval in place for the new building. It’s really a disgrace. I’m not a hyper-preservationists and I’m ok with the sacrificing some older buildings for a superior project but someone needs to be forced to do that analysis and hold the developers responsible.
|
Maybe this has been a flipping proposition from the beginning:
Buy the site at a seemingly cheap price; get a schematic design; get the entitlements; clear the site; flip for a nice profit.
Demo-ing the houses would be necessary under such a scenario.
But maybe nobody really likes this site at whatever price they want: long and skinny with only a narrow north facing street frontage for unobstructed views, other windows boxed in at close quarters by lifeless government monoliths housing a concentration of welfare services.
Maybe that's not the ideal setting for a luxury residential tower. Maybe it's better suited to a small office building or hotel.
In any event, though I am generally very much of preservation advocate, I don't think the loss of those little houses is any kind of big deal. It was an ugly block even with the houses. The site is definitely ill-suited to single family housing use. It's best for the site to be ready for a new development if and when the opportunity arises in my opinion.