Quote:
Originally Posted by UPenn18
I'm usually wary of "slippery slope arguments" but in this case... if these buildings are demolished, what's going to stop the next developer from saying "well you let SLC destroy those buildings, why can't we destroy these ones?" I'm not sure I want to set the precedent of demolishing high quality buildings... though it's not like that hasn't been done in the past. I just think the city has turned the corner enough to have sufficient leverage to not let this happen. I don't have a problem tearing down old buildings that are ugly, squat, and are in unsalvageable condition. But these buildings don't fit that description. They are made of good materials, are well designed, and meet the street well - I don't think there's a compelling reason to tear them down. And this is coming from someone who is usually of the "BUILD BABY BUILD" mindset.
|
That's why demolition of historic buildings should be contingent on the plan (i.e. renders, building program, etc.) of their replacement and the ability to adhere to those plans.
Demolition of historic buildings can happen but should
never happen without a clear replacement in mind. Southern Land hasn't shown us their replacement, and I object to their demolition until they do.