View Single Post
  #95  
Old Posted May 2, 2013, 5:36 PM
oldmanshirt's Avatar
oldmanshirt oldmanshirt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: SATX > KCMO > DFW
Posts: 1,170
Some of the justification for denying the project seemed inappropriate, in my opinion. For instance, leaning on the SA 2020 initiative. Is it really the function of the HDRC to judge according broad-ranging economic and social planning goals? They should be a committee that regulates design and aethetics, experts on history and architecture. To give them a broad authority in other areas seems to both expect too much from one board and to centralize too much power in the hands of eight or so individuals. It shouldn't be for this body (unelected, I'm assuming) to judge whether SA "needs" residential more than it needs hotel rooms, let alone have broad judicial power to restrict or order development based on those factors. If the market decides the building should be residential a few years down the road, the building can be converted at that time.

If Sanders' opinion was also that of the Commission, i.e., this building should be denied because it "might be" or "probably will be" a disappointment like past SA projects, then that seems highly specious and speculative, as well, not to mention unfair. Seems to me there's a good case for the BZA to overturn this ruling if Ashkenazy wants to appeal.
Reply With Quote