Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Buck_Thorn t1_jbqspl6 wrote

God, I wish that would happen here in the U.S. once in a while.

797

lyfe_is_a_nyghtmare t1_jbqsxgr wrote

But muh gentrified apartment buildings!

259

Buck_Thorn t1_jbqtavr wrote

https://www.twincities.com/2023/02/15/st-paul-historic-justus-ramsey-house-disassembled/

I fully realize that 170 year old building is nothing in much of the world, but here it is the beginning of our history. Sad. At least they are preserving the building, but it just isn't the same when the context has changed. And for what? Hamburgers. Hamburgers and beer.

196

hatersaurusrex t1_jbr71z6 wrote

Since Nashville exploded recently, developers have been falling over themselves trying to build Tall&Skinnies on every square inch of space they can.

A few years back, they started demolishing historic studios on Music Row to build apartment buildings, and it took a concerted historical preservation effort to keep them from basically levelling the place and building apartments on its corpse - which then ironically would be marketed as 'Historic Music Row Apartments'

https://www.historicnashvilleinc.org/get-involved/save-music-row/

139

1337duck t1_jbrt0n1 wrote

> Tall&Skinnies

That seems to be the name of the game everywhere. Those townhouses look like shit.

49

aLittleQueer t1_jbs4873 wrote

Their floor-plans are shit, too. Plenty of square-footage, but no actual floor space b/c that footage is divided between 3 levels and full of stairwells. ie - 1200 sq/ft with no room for furniture. But hey, at least they have the curb appeal of medieval tenements. Who wouldn't want in on that?^/s

60

1337duck t1_jbs4j8p wrote

Also, stairs count for sqft for 2 floors! So you actually have less space than you even thought!

27

danielv123 t1_jbuichc wrote

Wait what? That makes no sense! If anything, they shouldn't count for either floor!

2

1337duck t1_jbujorn wrote

That's what multiple real estate agents told me.

It's possible they are all lying.

According to google search of "does stairs count to sqft"

> Stairs: Runs/treads and landings both count in square footage totals. They are measured as a part of the floor “from which they descend,” so are generally counted twice in a typical two-story home with a basement.

3

jimicus t1_jbtodyb wrote

My wife fell for that one in our house right now. The open plan layout downstairs means we have plenty of square footage, but the living room is also a corridor to the kitchen and we have little wall space to put furniture against or hang pictures.

8

aLittleQueer t1_jbu4aat wrote

I'm so sorry. My ex almost pulled me into one of those, as well...until I asked him, "Okay, so where do we put the piano?" I play professionally, so it's non-negotiable. Even with literally the smallest acoustic spinet piano ever built, smaller than an average buffet side-board, there still was no place to put it. Where are you supposed to put a sofa or a table & chairs in a space like that??

Oh also, similar to what you have, in the one he wanted the "kitchen" was a corridor to the living room. Literally - front door/main entrance fed into the kitchen. Like it was designed by someone who's never spent time in a house before. In fact, that kitchen had definite afterthought vibes. ("Is it a pantry or a coat closet?" Realtor: "Y-yes?") The one thing that property did have going for it was plenty of gallery walls, since it was three levels and all vertical space. Perfect for an art collector who isn't going to actually live there. Smh.

4

jimicus t1_jbudhv2 wrote

The really aggravating thing is, we've lived in a house where a room doubled up as a corridor before. We knew damn well it didn't work.

But there aren't a great many houses in this town and they're almost all built to one of a couple of designs, all of which have this problem.

3

firebat45 t1_jbu7ow9 wrote

Skinny homes are just mobile homes cut in half and stacked. With the added benefit of losing floorspace to stairs.

3

Buck_Thorn t1_jbrc0x6 wrote

That's sad. Lots of fame and lots of failures came out of those buildings!

15

Siege40k t1_jbths1j wrote

I work with the company who does most of this preservation work. They’re trying to stop unfettered development destroying historical buildings.

I will say. The parks service in the us does not mess about if you destroy a federally registered building.

7

Sophisticated_T-Rex t1_jbrtpit wrote

You should tell them congratulations!

Their NIMBY-ing successfully prevented new housing units from being constructed and entering the market, further exacerbating the housing crisis!

−32

hatersaurusrex t1_jbruo63 wrote

Yes, let's all weep over the sore lack of available 500sqft $2M condos in a city full of 500sqft $2M condos

27

Sophisticated_T-Rex t1_jbrvd4p wrote

"New housing shouldn't be built because it won't cater to me!"

Living up to your name, hatersaurusrex

−40

hatersaurusrex t1_jbrvkzt wrote

Won't somebody please think of the millionaires?

19

Sophisticated_T-Rex t1_jbrw4h4 wrote

Hey genius, guess what:

The cost of housing is based off of supply and demand. Right now there's an assload of demand and no supply. You know what will happen if you let them continue building their 500sqft condos instead of kicking and cryinf about new development like a five year old? Eventually, the supply will grow to a point where it equalizes with demand and gasp prices will drop!

−37

Takenabe t1_jbrxj7t wrote

Fellas, please. This dino on dino violence has to end.

23

TwentySevenNihilists t1_jbsfz7g wrote

You're higoddamnlarious. Housing costs are never going to significantly drop in a US metro area unless the city is abandoned.

Everyone's answer to the housing crisis is to build more housing, but I don't hear a lot about where that housing is going to go. Try to put it in any city's historic district, and your are not going to get affordable housing for normal people.

You want affordable housing where I live, you have to move way the fuck out of the city (or start collecting roommates). Once you find affordable rent, your transportation costs have sky-rocketed.

The old "supply and demand" mantra isn't holding up so well after 2.5 centuries. They didn't have Airbnb, Berkshire Hathaway, or rent optimizing algorithms in 1776.

18

Mikeavelli t1_jbrq2c4 wrote

On the other hand, sometimes these laws are used for ridiculous or corrupt reasons.

22

Gingeraffe42 t1_jbtscj1 wrote

Yeah literally all of CA is in a housing crisis because of old rich folks abusing housing laws to the fullest extent possible

3

Zambito t1_jbtq9xk wrote

Well that was an infuriating read. "We want the real estate this historic building is on, also we want the historic building as a second home down the road. Oh, and the city should help pay for this. We're such gracious conservators!"

3

j-trinity t1_jbtnvle wrote

This is honestly insane considering here in the UK in my literal back garden is a 16th century “wall” that we’re not allowed to get rid of. It’s nothing much at all and isn’t even a full wall, just a foot long bunch of rocks packed together. It’s not even in a part of the UK that’s known for tourism from history fans.

−1

MustLoveAllCats t1_jbreczd wrote

It's just an old house. I can fully appreciate many historical landmarks, but when it's just an old house like this? Eh. Not sad at all to me.

−32

Buck_Thorn t1_jbreo3h wrote

It is the oldest house still standing. It is a touchstone to our past. Maybe you can't appreciate it, but some of us do.

30

Lendyman t1_jbrn6oc wrote

Especially since Minneapolis has destroyed many of her historic buildings already.

11

Cayfish t1_jbui6w4 wrote

Apartment buildings are necessary, they are especially useful in the housing crisis. However, if you're going to demolish a historic building for it, make sure the old building is in disrepair and consider whether its historic value if enough to warrant keeping it.

1

nydwarf t1_jbstaqy wrote

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/19/677929775/san-francisco-orders-man-to-rebuild-his-historic-home-after-it-was-demolished

59

MyDudeNak t1_jbud55i wrote

> stands in contrast to a 2015 city evaluation that deemed it wasn't a "historical resource."

Honestly a dude buying a house and then getting fucked over by flip flopping bureaucrats doesn't feel as good as property developers trying to skirt around the law and getting their just desserts.

27

vpi6 t1_jbrt7sx wrote

Lol what? Are you living under a rock? It happens all the time here. Historical preservation is out of control in the US. Parking lots have been put under historic preservation lists. My county tried to make a dilapidated dry cleaner a historic building. It was barely 50 years old. All in the name of stopping development at any cost.

I have relatives who live in a “historic district” and it’s just an HOA but worse. Because they’ll fine you for anything and you don’t even get amenities.

25

aLittleQueer t1_jbs4axi wrote

This is the kind of thing that is very location-dependent.

36

Important_Collar_36 t1_jbs8qf2 wrote

Not in every part of the US. They're tearing down over half of the 200 year old main street in a town near me. It's near collapse because no one took care of it, and now it's too expensive to repair so the town has to tear it down. People tried for years to get historic recognition for the individual properties but because the buildings were originally built as a complex and not as single structures they wouldn't grant it because parts of the complex of structures had been modified and modernized.

13

french_sheppard t1_jbtcpn1 wrote

You live in Toronto I'm assuming? This city loves its heritage dry cleaners as much as it loathes new housing

6

velvetshark t1_jbt1gnf wrote

Your comment is a little disengenuous, if this is the structure you're referring to. It's not just a "dry cleaner", it's a great and preserved example of a type.of architecture. This is "not in the name of stopping development". You may not agree with the reason, but it's not to "stop development at any cost". https://montgomeryplanning.org/blog-design/2011/03/building-of-the-month/

4

vpi6 t1_jbt6u57 wrote

No it wasn’t. It had exactly one notable feature of the architectural style. A ‘floating roof’ aesthetic that was ruined by an addition put in when the building wasn’t even a decade old. The only reason it was a “great example” was because all the better buildings in that style were demolished. But even it is was, the building would not have been worth preserving.

It was built in the 60’s for Christ’s sake and was built to attract car-faring customers. Silver Spring has since grown to be one of the largest places in Maryland. The Silver Spring master plan calls to make the community a more walkable community, especially with a Purple Line station being built close by.

A small one-story building close to downtown and transit was not serving the needs of the community. In case you’re not a local, rents have gone up 20% in Montgomery County and our children are being forced to move away. Think about that before you say you want to preserve an old (but actually fairly new) building whose purpose is out of step with the rest of the community.

It was a good day when the planning board denied the preservation application. Which was imposed by busybodies in the county against the family that owned the building after the dry cleaner failed.

7

dew22 t1_jbumtvy wrote

It’s a 60 year old building that’s a great example of googie architecture which has been disappearing for decades. Again just because you fail to see historical significance of a building doesn’t mean there is not any historical or architectural significance

1

vpi6 t1_jbupoyv wrote

Don’t be absurd. That building is completely worthless as an historical place. My county’s own planning board denied the application. Had it gone through, it would have imposed significant and costly restrictions on the unwilling owners and been a net negative for the surrounding community. Turns out preserving debatably pretty looking building don’t help people.

It’s absolutely sickening people valued that building over housing people of my generation. I do not trust the values or basic morals of anyone who thinks that.

2

dew22 t1_jbuthbb wrote

This isn’t even a debate about the plot being used for housing, it’s about the hideous paint job the new tenants put on the building. Just because the planning board denies it being put on a registry doesn’t mean it’s not worth saving.

1

vpi6 t1_jbuw5qr wrote

100% wrong. The vote last month was about whether to add the dry cleaner building to the historic register - a process that was already in the works when the new tenants did the paint job. The county took no action about the paint job because it legally could do nothing about it. The family that owned the site and a restaurant next door were hoping to develop the site into something that very likely would have been housing. Something that would have been impossible with the completely unwarranted historical designation forced onto them by stupid people who think it’s their inalienable right to look at old buildings no matter the cost.

If you’re in love with the dry cleaner so much then BUY IT. Don’t use the to coercive powers of the government to maintain it at someone else’s expense. That’s morally reprehensible.

2

JamesTiberiusCrunk t1_jbtg80j wrote

This building doesn't matter at all. It's 100% pointless to keep it. Housing prices are out of control because we haven't built enough housing for everyone and people like you want to keep ridiculous bullshit like this instead of building places for people to live.

2

velvetshark t1_jc25uuw wrote

So what housing will be placed where the dry cleaner was?

1

JamesTiberiusCrunk t1_jc28wnj wrote

Well the people who bought it and now can't tear it down said they wanted to build a mid rise apartment building there. So, a bunch of apartments. Did you think this was some kind of trick question?

2

velvetshark t1_jc29er5 wrote

...no, it was a genuine question. The only thing I found out about the dry cleaner was that it was an example of a particular type of architecture and there was controversy about preserving it. Do you have a link to the article talking about apartments?

1

velvetshark t1_jc29lhx wrote

Also, the dry cleaner lost it's conservation battle, from what I last read (article from 2022), so why can't they tear it down?

1

IncognitoBombadillo t1_jbtpu5y wrote

I'm glad that I grew up around an area that had historic buildings to tour. There's one that you can still visit and tour that was the site of a massacre in the revolution.

3

Barnezhilton t1_jbtcbc4 wrote

The US has 500 year old pubs!?

−13

intdev t1_jbr2skj wrote

You’d need some proper history first ;)

−25

Buck_Thorn t1_jbrc3z9 wrote

Your history is as old as you are, our history is as old as we are. Its all relative.

24

Richinaru t1_jbrs8ii wrote

I think theyre more speaking to the whole centuries of genocide, dishonoring treaties with natives, systemic inequity baked into the constitution...

−18

Important_Collar_36 t1_jbs8st6 wrote

Oh yes, because Merry Old England never did anything like that at all.

16

Richinaru t1_jbtr9lx wrote

You presume i don't think English history is similarly trash. At least they have something that precedes the genocidal empire. Americas entire history is genocidal conquest and violence. So much so that we've been at war for the majority of our existences since 1776

−2

taptapper t1_jbrt6sc wrote

Now, now, no need for that. We appreciate the age of your shit. I went to some weekly markets in Europe that have been going on since before boats landed at Plymouth. It was amazing.

11