Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q
False dilemma. That is not the choice we are up against. Nobody is going to build smaller footprints adding up to the same number of units, it doesn't work that way. (Also, "smaller vertical footprints" presumes you can go more vertical to spare a larger footprint - in Denver, we have made exactly the opposite choice through our zoning policy.)
Also, "historically significant homes" assumes something that may not be true. And for two single-family homes in any neighborhood, likely is not true. There is no shortage of old single family housing stock in Denver - quite the contrary, our core neighborhoods are mostly made up of old homes. That is not the same thing as "historically significant," which means something very specific. For your edification, here are the criteria under the City Code:
|
"False dilemma?" Not so. Why would coming up with any precise number of units be the least bit important? Neither do I feel it's significantly important to destroy the existing neighborhood character to please one developer's appetite.
That said, I acknowledged (above) that I don't know the conditions of the subject homes which would be relevant.
Thanks for the criteria needed to obtain an historical designation; that is useful and interesting. But my use of "historically significant" was meant to be intentionally vague to include existing structures that weren't necessarily worthy of any official historic designation but still worthy of preserving for the sake of the neighborhood fabric and general history.
It would be helpful to know the context of the block, neighborhood and zoning. Not sure adding two more lots to "the development" of 4/5 story apartments at the sacrifice of homes if they are indeed in nice condition and good historical examples makes good sense, except for the lust of density.
I'd much rather see a couple of 30-story projects downtown than worry about the added density from these two lots.
Threaded Mode