Tuesday, January 19, 2016
Attack of the Tear-Downs
Thx Rachel, at DNA Info, for putting together a map that does justice to a building-by-building neighborhood assault on 100-year old houses, often just one narrow lot. Don't expect any I.M. Pei masterpieces to go up in their place. More like I.M. Fedders. Who knows? Maybe 100 years from now people will venerate the Blocky BowWow School and Finger Building trends of the early 21st Century. I'd throw the teardown of the crazy berserk-eclectic haunted house on Clarkson just east of Bedford as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Pro-tip: If you plan on selling your wooden house to a developer in the future, now is the time to stop maintaining it.
No need to paint or upgrade anything inside while you wait to cash out.
OTOH, if you want to keep living in your old house and preserve the integrity of your block, NOW is the time to to start taking steps towards doing so–zoning, landmarking, whatever, however quixotic that attempt might seem.
I have to say that I'm not particularly bothered by the idea of residential blocks losing smaller single family homes to larger development. The idea of restricting larger building to avenues only still seems rather restrictive given that the city needs more units.
I hear you. I think it depends on the building. I'm neither surprised or particularly upset that the homeowners next to the little cinder block church on my block sold to an apartment developer. Though I do think it's shame that we will get no affordable/stabilized units out of it. There are plenty of places on avenues to build apartment buildings. Once the obvious places are built out, at a reasonable height mind you, then maybe you can consider upzoning inner blocks. I just don't see the need, and I think it hinders livability. But to each her own.
We will get more affordable/stabilized units when including them makes financial sense.
None of the politicians are stating they have enough resources to incentivize their construction enough to keep up with demand, but they do offer lots of forums about how to enter the housing lotteries.
...which is kind of like PC Richards having a sale on flatscreen TVs for $30, because they are not in stock.
Actually Mike, that would apply more to the housing vouchers that landlords don't accept.
So at the risk of asking a question that's been answered several times, what concrete steps can one take to help the push for rezoning?
Anon 11:30: Are you skilled at lobotomies?
Which is why Landmarking might be a more effective approach. In a more perfect world, where zoning changes aren't blocked by Mr. Q's candidate for brain surgery, both approaches could be tried simultaneously
The hidden issue of Landmarking is air rights. You can't landmark everything, and those that you do still have their as of right zoning that can be purchased by other developments on the same block (within the same sky exposure plane) meaning you could get something that really maxes out the zoning by simply buying more FAR from people that legally can never use it. Imagine the worst possible finger building or even over hanging smaller buildings. That's what can happen, which likely won't happen if you rezone where maxing out is a manageable level.
I'm not sure why DCP is listening to 10 agitators more than the 300 people who added their name to a petition requesting a zoning study...
Bob, the problem with Landmarking everything is that there are many buildings that are not Landmark worthy, and by including them we are essentially devaluing Landmarking. There are lots of ass-ugly houses on my block. I don't want them to turn into Fedders buildings, but I also (and possibly even more so) don't care to see them stay the way they are.
FWIW most of the existing PLG Historic District has buildings that are grandfathered in at way over currently allowed FAR and, therefore, have no air rights that could be sold
Which, Jessica, is exactly why zoning changes would be preferable, we're they not virtually precluded by the bullying of a particular neighborhood crank and her green-shirted followers
In addition you indeed CANNOT landmark everything, although there are significant parts of our neighborhood outside of our three Historic Districts that could well be landmarked without devaluing the process in any way.
Historic district is different than landmarking. That is a zoning overlay which trumps whatever may exist under it, where as landmarking is essentially a freeze on the construction of a lot without altering the legal potential. If something unforeseen (fire, natural disaster, terror, etc) were to completely decimate a landmark beyond repair then it can build "as of right" whatever the zoning dictates.
I continue to be fascinated by some people's belief that they can strip others of their established rights.
Mike: You and I disagree on what the Courts are for. Sometimes, you have to challenge established rights that aren't fair. And sometimes, you win. And I would add that despite the mistaken idea that you can build whatever you want within the Zoning, there are plenty of other rules and regulations that could deny you a permit. Then there's Landmarking itself. There are some folks who are against it, but if they own property in a newly formed Historic District, they no longer get to do what they used to be able to do. The Government is the ultimate authority in all these matters.
No, Landmarking is just a colloquial term for establishing an Historic District (or, for that matter an individual landmark, although we have none of those here). NOTHING to do with zoning.
Furthermore, if a building in a HD were destroyed, either by some cataclysm or torn down with LPC approval (rare, but not impossible) any replacement would be subject to both zoning rules AND LPC approval.
The good news is that I agree with you: Government is indeed the arbitrator in these situations.
The bad news is that government does not seem to believe there is a dispute it needs to intervene in. Citizens need to do a better job of showing that they are victims.
According to what I have read, now that 421a has expired, many projects filed may never be built at all.
Post a Comment