Skip to content

2 Comments

  1. matthew
    May 4, 2016 @ 10:52 am

    1. “The character of Park Hill is slowly, in bits and pieces, being altered.” Every neighborhood goes through this at different degrees and scales.

    2. “Eventually we are at risk that our neighborhood will be altered to the point where it will no longer bear any resemblance to the place we love”. The market will never bear that many large homes to be scraped. Financially untenable now or in the future.

    3. “This protection is particularly important in our neighborhood, where the most at-risk homes are the smaller ones within the designated district.” The number of small vs. large in the designated district is low enough that scraping all of them will not make the area “unrecognizeable”. see comment #2.

    4. “….the most at-risk homes are the smaller ones within the designated district. Their loss threatens the architectural, cultural and economic diversity of our area.” This is a stretch. If this is truly a belief, then North park hill would be a more important area to protect. There is a far greater density of smaller homes, economic diversity, and “cultural” diversity (what is that as it relates to a small home?) farther north than the area you’re speaking of.

    5. “scrapes of smaller homes are sure to follow, larger and larger buildings will be built without regard to neighbors or to existing design form and scale.” You’ve circled back and identified that only the smaller homes are at danger of being scraped, of which there are far fewer in your designation area than north park hill. Additionally, zoning regulations restricting setbacks, height, and form currently regulate what is possible on each lot, with QUITE A BIT of regard that our RNO suggested for the 2010 zoning. Lots of effort went into guiding the current zoning for our neighborhood, BY our neighborhood. Creating an additional layer of regulation is a terrible way to fix what you’ve missed.

    I continue to strongly oppose this designation, and believe your efforts are terribly misguided towards the wrong area. Sweeping arguments of “losing the character of the neighborhood” are simply unfounded within the area being identified, in addition to making such statements as “…we are at risk that our neighborhood will be altered to the point where it will no longer bear any resemblance to the place we love.” The same could be said of the original residents. The ghosts of neighbors past would lament the loss of the horse drawn trolley, and the densification and overbuilding of every lot in the neighborhood as it currently exists. We also can’t forget these terrible newfangled cars! Parking on every street! Egads! where have all the horses gone?

    Smaller homes will still be able to be scraped after this designation and new ones built according to current zoning! Unless somehow you can convince the city that all 700+ homes are contributing? Highly unlikely. I will vote a resounding NO when the moment arrives.

  2. matthew
    May 4, 2016 @ 1:27 pm

    To put every design change up to a board is insane. People should be able to do with their property as they see fit, as long as it fits within building and zoning codes. Allow people to build according to the building zone codes. There is a democratic process of changing those. These are basic property rights.

    I’m tired of NIMBYs limiting progress in the name of faux historic preservation. You can not legislate taste! It will be absurd that when people want to build an extra floor on their own house, they need to submit themselves to a board full of people that think that they know better. I’m sure they will all be architects and designers, right? Wrong – Maybe one at most? This is the ultimate example of NIMBYS getting in the way of people’s business.

Leave a Reply