I understand all the arguments here. For the most part I would have liked it to have been saved. The practical side of me says if no one could be found to have a use for it then it is what it is.
Everyone says save it. But who saves it? The seller wants out - I think we all agree they should be able to sell. Lots on here say they should have (could have) found a buyer to live in it.....really, who? When you list you home for sale, do you care what the next buyer does with it? You get your price and move on. There was nothing legally protecting it so as long as the buyer is within the law, why cant he do what he wants with the property? (Obviously different with a heritage property)
Everyone has big opinions with others money but really in this situation what can anyone do?
Is it fair to sit on the property until the perfect buyer comes forward to save the structure? Again, who's money is being tied up to wait for this. If it is so desirable, why did no one buy it for that purpose? How long does it realistically sit before it is ok to move on?
It sucks that this house was demolished but with other peoples money at stake it is what it is.
__________________
"But a city can be smothered by too much reverence for its past. The skyline must keep acquiring new peaks, because the day we consider it complete and untouchable is the day the city begins to die." - Justin Davidson - May 2010 Issue of New York
Last edited by Biff; Dec 2, 2020 at 3:53 PM.
|