vpi6

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

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

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

vpi6 t1_jbrub18 wrote

“Some people”

I don’t give a flying fucking shit about preserving buildings that have outlived their usefulness. The government cared so much then they should’ve bought the building and restored it. But they didn’t because that costs too much and nobody actually cares enough to pay it. So they just imposed the will of a limited number of people on a property and never allowed the land to be used for people who are actually living there.

You should see the abuse of historical preservation lists. Half of it back door NIMBYism that is driving my rents up and pushing me out of there place I grew up. But sure “history”‘is SO much more important.

−47

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

vpi6 t1_iyrqmvv wrote

Do you really think this place would more affordable if nothing more was built? Really?

> Additionally, the farms were sold by the landowners. That was their choice. This wasn’t some eminent domain kind of situation.

I used farmers as a proxy for anyone who lived here in the 60s. Don’t run away from the point. Why is your idealized Columbia ‘ruining’ the vibe and culture of their community ok while you complain about development “ruining” your community.

> You mentioned the same level of kids, which I refuted, and now you are backing off on that point.

Where? Where did you refute the number of kids in a neighborhood? You said there said there aren’t as much kids in your area. I said the distribution was to newer developments. And you said nah uh I refuted it. So where is the refutation?

Never mind the link between development and your perceived decline in “community character” is pretty nebulous.

Housing is continually blocked in Hoco by people like you who paint Rouse as a Jesus figure. Especially the apartments that would have housed lower income people. I’m over the cult of Rouse.

1

vpi6 t1_iyrkwll wrote

What if I told you Columbia is literally supposed to be a developers dream. From start to finish. Who do you think Rouse was? Lmao.

What would you say to old farmers who said all the development in the 70 and 80s ‘ruined the vibe and culture of the community’

Also, the older neighborhoods are increasingly filled with old retirees whose children moved (because they can’t afford houses in Columbia because we stopped building housing). That’s why there aren’t as much kids. Newer places have more kids.

7

vpi6 t1_ivoy925 wrote

Give it a day or two lol. This probably isn’t your first election and you know the signs don’t immediately go down but they do go down.

2