Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

velvetshark t1_jbt1gnf wrote

Reply to comment by vpi6 in Developers who destroyed historic Lancashire pub ordered to rebuild it by Mighty_L_LORT

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