Quote:
Originally Posted by East Edge
But really...is the vintage architecture along Grandview as impressive as other parts of the city? Maybe a few notable examples but the rest...MEH.
|
There's nowhere near enough quality architecture along Grandview to warrant historic preservation. I mean,
this block is basically intact (probably because it has no view) but it's garbage. East of Labelle you start seeing some fine old brick houses along Grandview, but they're basically identical to hundreds of homes in Friendship, Highland Park, East Liberty, etc. Then closer in towards Shiloh a lot of the homes have been
remuddled with big windows to take advantage of the view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by East Edge
I'm all for saving historic architecture and believe that there definitely should be an effort by the community to nominate a handful of existing structures like St Mary of the Mount church to be protected from demolition due to the contribution they bring to set the context for the district and neighborhood. I think Shiloh Street will soon be in danger of this as well and feel there are at least a handful of structures that should remain. However, i welcome quality development and quality timeless materials. This new development sets the tone for a new Mt Washington that has been so void of development for so long and could build the momentum the neighborhood needs to finally get those vacant lots developed. I think the ripple effect of Downtown is finally moving south of the rivers as shown by the Station Square activity, the distillery, etc. Hopefully Mount Washington will finally see its share of this little boom we seem to be having around the city.
|
Mt. Washington isn't really devoid of development though. Currently according to city records there are nearly 20 homes being constructed, which makes it the only robust construction area besides South Side south of the Mon. The problem is that's all that goes up in Mt. Washington now. It's a heavily NIMBY neighborhood - which was most recently evidenced by community opposition to an apartment component to the revived One Grandview development because there's already "too many people."
Looking at just the special zoning for the "Grandview Public Realm" - it's split into three subzones
A (roughly Hallock almost all the way to Shiloh) - Allows for SFH (attached or detached) and two-units. Height limit of 40 feet.
B (mostly Duquense Heights area, plus a bit further down close to Hallock) - Allows for the above, plus three-units and multi-family. However, the base height limit without a special exception is still 40 feet.
C ("restaurant row" part of Grandview, and a tiny bit around the base of Shiloh) - Allows for all of the above, plus libraries and "cultural facilities." Hotels, retail, and restaurants are allowed, but not by right, and only if they are small. Still has a base height limit of 40 feet without a special exception.
I think you guys can see the problem here. Theoretically speaking in the B/C Zoned areas you can - with certain requirements - get up to nine stories, given the NIMBY culture of Mt. Washington, that's not gonna happen. So what ends up happening is you get rich people single-family homes - in some cases directly replacing former commercial venues, like the house which will replace Isabela.
I've can understand not wanting any tall buildings on the cliff side of Grandview because it would spoil the view for everyone else. But it's not like it's picturesque to look out my window in Gateway Center and see a row of dinky little homes along Grandview. More apartment buildings would be great - particularly if we got something like a cohesive streetwall with even height going for several blocks.
Prev
Linear Mode
