General Discussion

Recursion

(56,582 posts)

11. You can't both be against this and be against gentrification. It's one or the other.

Sun Jan 31, 2016, 08:34 AM

Jan 2016

Either we keep our cities at current density (which means gentrification) or we build them denser and taller (or, I suppose, denser and deeper, but nobody's really talking about that), which means losing historic buildings (which were themselves built on top of the foundations of torn-down older buildings).

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

71 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why Historic Preservation Districts Should Be a Thing of the Past [View all] KamaAina Jan 2016 OP

I've always thought it was dumb that the city could decalare your house historic agaisnt your will Travis_0004 Jan 2016 #1

Not sure where you live JustAnotherGen Jan 2016 #13

I don't consider destroying historic buildings 'smart' growth. sinkingfeeling Jan 2016 #2

Likewise^ world wide wally Jan 2016 #3

But I would want to see it become more accessible KamaAina Jan 2016 #5

I do. Most of them were built on the foundations of older destroyed buildings. Recursion Jan 2016 #10

If you tear it down JustAnotherGen Jan 2016 #15

The answer in either case is "it depends" Recursion Jan 2016 #18

I'm going to send you a pm JustAnotherGen Jan 2016 #22

Sorry, but none of the houses in my historic district were built sinkingfeeling Jan 2016 #31

Yes, let's destroy history and replace it with soulless high rises! Odin2005 Jan 2016 #55

Same here. n/t FSogol Jan 2016 #16

The premise of this article is faulty. Odin2005 Jan 2016 #4

Disagree A Little Weird Jan 2016 #6

Me too JustAnotherGen Jan 2016 #17

Oh my... jmowreader Jan 2016 #7

This article reads like it was written by a developer eyeing a historic district building FLPanhandle Jan 2016 #8

You can't both be against this and be against gentrification. It's one or the other. Recursion Jan 2016 #11

I'm not against gentrification. FLPanhandle Jan 2016 #12

Why not? Recursion Jan 2016 #14

You are painting a dystopian nightmare FLPanhandle Jan 2016 #20

And that will be an historical classic in 50 years, just like the rowhouses it's replacing Recursion Jan 2016 #23

I want no part of your idea of city planning FLPanhandle Jan 2016 #24

And I want no part of your attempt to freeze the imagined city of the past Recursion Jan 2016 #25

Eureka Springs, Arkansas is 90 % the way it looked 150 years ago sinkingfeeling Jan 2016 #32

So is Carthage, MS. Neither are "cities" (nt) Recursion Jan 2016 #33

So you only think historic homes should be eradicated in large, sinkingfeeling Jan 2016 #34

I think historic buildings are not worth infinite rent increases Recursion Jan 2016 #36

I didn't know that rent increases were confined to historic buildings. sinkingfeeling Jan 2016 #37

Any building becomes magically "historical" when a high-rise is contrmplated Recursion Jan 2016 #39

I have asked you before to address this... Sen. Walter Sobchak Jan 2016 #60

Vancouver (all the lower mainland really) EllieBC Jan 2016 #66

I'm going to tell you a dirty little secret... Sen. Walter Sobchak Jan 2016 #68

The way New Orleans works, that would go just above the Quarter KamaAina Jan 2016 #50

Most of New Orleans is historic districts. bluedigger Jan 2016 #61

Perhaps other cities could learn from NOLA's example. KamaAina Jan 2016 #70

Fuck this dystopian shit. Odin2005 Jan 2016 #56

I agree Cal Carpenter Jan 2016 #26

Want to deal with the fact that the rent is too damn high? That's definitely a start (nt) Recursion Jan 2016 #9

Tearing down old to build new does not make the rent lower, NYC develops constantly and rents are Bluenorthwest Jan 2016 #47

My home is former redline JustAnotherGen Jan 2016 #19

Eminent domain. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jan 2016 #27

I don't think JustAnotherGen Jan 2016 #30

What gave you that idea? KamaAina Jan 2016 #69

Not my idea or thought JustAnotherGen Jan 2016 #71

I disagree. Vinca Jan 2016 #21

I'm kinda shocked to read this ... Trajan Jan 2016 #28

Just throwing it out there KamaAina Jan 2016 #51

100% disagree with OP ShrimpPoboy Jan 2016 #29

There has to be a balance. Cities like S.F. that go overboard on NIMBYism geek tragedy Jan 2016 #35

Yep. Those "Painted Ladies" should be the first to be torn down. Nye Bevan Jan 2016 #41

as I said, there needs to be balance. geek tragedy Jan 2016 #42

And yet Amsterdam looks like Amsterdam while being fully modern and housing is made affordable Bluenorthwest Jan 2016 #48

How affordable is Amsterdam itself as opposed to the suburbs? geek tragedy Jan 2016 #67

Yeah, anyone who wants to see old buildings can visit Europe. Nye Bevan Jan 2016 #38

This is an area where I get a bit Libertarian: Ron Green Jan 2016 #40

That's some very interesting stuff, good link. hunter Jan 2016 #43

It's a great site full of life and good discussion. Ron Green Jan 2016 #57

Eisenhower was a Republican too, but the party has been devolving since Nixon. hunter Jan 2016 #65

Stupid people don't appreciate history and tabasco Jan 2016 #44

I think it's less stupidity but more short term thinking FLPanhandle Jan 2016 #45

Having lived many years in St. Augustine, FL, I got to see first-hand the struggle to maintain the JCMach1 Jan 2016 #46

Let's take a look at the Garden of Allah Apartments in Hollywood. Residence to many, many luminaries Bluenorthwest Jan 2016 #49

Jesus, no. Starry Messenger Jan 2016 #52

Obviously they didn't do it right. KamaAina Jan 2016 #53

Poorly written article about a dumb idea. Throd Jan 2016 #54

Who needs a 236 year old building when we could have another CVS? BuelahWitch Jan 2016 #58

The success with which developers have made useful idiots of the urban left is astounding Sen. Walter Sobchak Jan 2016 #59

Offshore investors EllieBC Jan 2016 #64

Hasn't worked here EllieBC Jan 2016 #62

NO way. romanic Jan 2016 #63