3 ms·
> oldest in the neighborhood, from 1889, and the neighbors claim it is of both architectural and local-historical significance The building is architecturally
by screye 5y ago
> oldest in the neighborhood, from 1889, and the neighbors claim it is of both architectural and local-historical significance
The building is architecturally mundane and inefficiently built (SFH) .
It is around 150 years old, which is quite new as far as 'old' buildings go.
It also doesn't look that nice (subjective personal opinion)
Usually, 'historic significance' is a thinly veiled attempt to grasp at straws for blocking any densification.
In most cases, these sort of
- bluGill 5y ago"historic significance" doesn't have a formal definition as far as I can tell. We really need one that is stricter than people feel it should be. Historical buildings should be protected, but I don't know how to formally define that. The best I can come up with is the market: if you actually cared about it you would put your money where you mouth is and buy it out (perhaps with a group of like minded to create a foundation), and protect it as you see fit for as long as people continue to protect it. Of course this mostly eliminates the poor, but for the most part I'm not sure it matters as anything that is historic probably has at least one rich person who cares.