Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldurhamer
I'm curious about why this was stated so definitively. Can you explain more why a 90 year old gingerbread house shouldn't be saved other than it can be replaced with a giant new house? What's makes an old Tutor any worse than the classic square you mentioned? Classic squares tend to be just that, boring squares. Tutors and bungalows are much more interesting on many different levels so I'm wondering where the line is being drawn and who is drawing it. Does the city have some guidance here on what is worthy of preservation? Frankly, the old Tutor you want to scrape is probably better suited to be restored and saved than any of these old Queen Anne's that were built without bathrooms that seem to be hanging around.
|
I say that because there are thousands of them all over the city. They are NOT unique, historical, or even particularly well constructed... they aren't even insulated and have just brick walls.
They reason they should be replaced is that the land they sit on is too valuable. A buyer in these neighborhoods have a couple choices. pay 800K for an non-renovated, inefficient home and leave it be (rare), buy and renovated it for a couple hundred grand and its worth a million 800k house + 200K renovation = a million dollar home (less rare but still rare these days because it's not increasing the equity of the home), or scrape and build; 800k + 500K construction but it's now worth 2+ million (likely and most attractive to a buyer or developer)
It's the same in any city in the world, as land values rise, the buildings on that land reflect the value of the land.
I'm not saying bulldoze the neighborhood, I'm just saying what is going to be built is going to be built.
Then there is the whole ADU's or Multi family zoning debate. All of the above is a discussion about updating single family housing stock. I argued earlier that multi family or ADU wouldn't hurt the neighborhood, but will agree it will change the character slightly.