VaderTower t1_ir3d9yv wrote on October 5, 2022 at 12:59 AM

Reply to comment by throwawayspfd in It’s gone. Most well-known home in University Heights demolished Tuesday morning by ChillyGraham

So I'm curious, where should development happen? Poor neighborhoods that can't argue as loudly? Outside of the city so we sprawl even further?

What IS okay to tear down, and what's not?

Ultimately Springfield has turned from a city of new development to redevelopment. We don't have green fields like Republic and Nixa. We don't want to spread out further. We want and need to up our density.

[deleted] t1_ir67lzs wrote on October 5, 2022 at 5:05 PM

[deleted]

VaderTower t1_ir6o3p0 wrote on October 5, 2022 at 6:50 PM

Individual property rights are fine and part of this, but this specific development is at the heart of our current debate for overall city development.

Here's the thing, no one wants to live next to a commercial property, period.

If you take into account everyone's "right" to quiet enjoyment on their SF lot. You'll have no commercial property anywhere. Let alone industrial. Why would anyone want a home next to a commercial property?

So inferring your concept it's ONLY those lots that are currently commercial can be commercial, and residential can't ever become commercial. You could say the same thing for every single commercial property south of Sunshine. Everything there was Agricultural or Residential prior to 1940s. Should that not exist as it threatened the farmers "quiet enjoyment"?

I get the points, but it's an undefendable argument because it's entirely based on Nimby'ism. Development is great! .... Just not next to me and my investment.

throwawayspfd t1_ir3f0pk wrote on October 5, 2022 at 1:13 AM

Who is we in this situation? I welcome the expansion of Springfield. I’m sure a lot of people do. Plenty of space all around/in Springfield without destroying historical homes, jamming up one of the busiest intersections, pissing off a whole neighborhood. You’re really missing the point of there being plenty of other places for development. Like right across the street. A few blocks down, Tai Peppers has been sitting. The strips on both sides of TP are empty. There is an empty bank down the street further. A vacant lot behind Culver’s. South of the corner where subway and the flower shop use to be. Using your knowledge, let’s tear down parts of the mall and develop there. Sears is empty. It’s a huge lot. Old Toys R Us is empty. These are already zoned for business development and are literally sitting empty. Or is it not OKAY to tear down a run down department store to preserve the historical architecture.

VaderTower t1_ir3o75a wrote on October 5, 2022 at 2:25 AM

We is the residents of Springfield.

Thai Peppers and the other 2 adjacent buildings would be great to tear down and build new mixed use on. I totally agree. The reason that hasn't happened is because the owners presumably want more than it's worth, and developers can't make the proforma work.

But your argument is essentially ONLY currently zoned commercial lots can be commercial lots OR we can make Springfield even more carcentric by developing outside of populated areas. So now the farmers out there and all the people who want quiet lives are pissed off. Get how literally someone is going to be pissed off and complain no matter where developers build a building?

Developers look for opportunities. If Sears was for sale, and Simon wanted to sell it at a decent price it would be redeveloped SO quickly.

Lastly the homes were demolished, a private owner has the right to tear down anything they want in Springfield, unless it has special protected status which is voluntary and rare. Even if it is protected locally, then it only stops the owner from demo for 60 days.