Quote:
Originally Posted by br323206
It seems like you want zoning to do something that it just can't do. I think that's the beef with your viewpoint. I agree that regulation serves a great purpose. I write regulations (including zoning ordinances) for a living. I obviously believe that they serve the public good. It's just that the courts have clearly established what municipalities can and cannot do to regulate land use and it seems that you want the city to do something outside its actual power.
|
Back to the start-----which I believe began when I blamed recent zoning changes for the tear down of fine, serviceable, occupied, in good shape, old, and with some historic importance, twins along Chestnut St in the 4000 block. (I also blamed insensitive developers).
I realize that zoning can't 'save' a building, but in this case the new zoning is the primary reason that a tear down made financial sense. The only difference between building on raw land vs land that has a building sitting on it is the cost of the demo (and a few other minor related costs). With the 'old' zoning it didn't make sense to go to that expense to have a net gain of a few units. But the 'new' zoning allowed much more density and height. So bring on the wrecking ball.
From being involved, or at least trying to be involved, with the community planning for the new zoning for UC several years ago I can say without any doubt that 1. the meetings were a dog and pony show. They were ran by the 'professional planners' who knew what they wanted and holding the meetings was simply a step that had to be publically taken. The community had effectively zero say in the end result. 2. I believe that this type of tear down and rebuild, which has happened in many (10?) places around UC, was not intended by the new zoning changes. It just wasn't thought about; so much for the professionals being very good at what they did. 3. Now that we know how the new zoning can be used there seems to be little to NO interest in trying to find a patch for the problems it has created. The professionals just throw their hands up and say "sorry, you'll do better the next time". So the community is left to try to find other means to stop the tear downs. 4. from my perspective the whole process was most definitely a net loss.
Do you have any thoughts in answer to "1487's" question about how to save old buildings? I realize that answering him personally seems like hitting a moving target, but his question isn't bad. Without labelling everything over 50 years old historic, which they aren't and is a bad/wrong use of the law, how can it be made harder to stop developers from placing their quest for the all mighty dollar in front of all other concerns?
Prev
Linear Mode
