qcompson
- 2 comments
- 0 likes given
- 2 likes received
Bio not provided
@Burroughston BrochI would argue that restrictions on demolitions would do just the opposite. By making it clear that demolition is not, and never will be, an option, property owners will have two choices: Fix up their properties for active use now, or sell (at whatever price the market will support) to someone that can. Allowing the property to sit and rot will only increase their future costs to repair the structure, or decrease their future sale price. As it is, property owners can hold the property as long as they'd like, while it rots, hoping that the land under the building will ultimately be worth more. With restrictions on demolition in place, the land under the building will only be worth what the building on top of it is worth.
And I won't buy it because I cannot. That's why I want my city to protect it.
Many cities have strong preservation laws which help to preserve the history of the city in the face of cold return on investment calculations. I want to live in a city that values its past, and I don't believe that we need to rely on the goodwill (and financial contribution) of preservation groups to make that happen. It's sad that demolition of this building is even an option. Where are the laws and regulations that take this off the table?