Quote:
Originally Posted by Evergrey
|
I can't read the whole article (paywall), but I will just point out there is a potential logical problem here. If in any given era you simply split the difference between historic preservation and new buildings, then as one era follows the next your oldest stock will be down to 1/2, then 1/4, then 1/8, then 1/16, and so on, until essentially nothing is left.
That doesn't mean there is not a need for a policy that accommodates both historic preservation and new buildings, but I don't like terms such as "symmetry" to the extent they would allow such a gradual attrition. What you really need is a long-term plan about what is worth keeping and what areas can be redeveloped, and if you are approaching a point where the areas you have designated for redevelopment are going to run out, then you need to be thinking about expanding to entirely new areas, with whatever infrastructure and other improvements are necessary to support that expansion.
Fortunately, Downtown is not really at the point there are no more clear opportunities for redevelopment. And even more fortunately, we have plenty of opportunities for expanding Downtown, such as into the North Shore, Near Strip, Lower Hill, and South Shore. Given that context, I am again very resistant to the notion of some sort of thoughtless "symmetry" Downtown, because we have already lost way too many buildings of significant historic value to gradual (and sometimes not so gradual) attrition.