As Atlanta is a city of neighborhoods, what better way to experience the city than by taking advantage of one of the most walkable and amiable little neighborhoods Atlanta has to offer. Plus there is wine involved, what could be better?
jsvh, you answered your own question; 'What areas of Atlanta are not eligible?' 'The ones where vacant buildings have been torn down and replaced by denser urban homes....'
Simple enough, right?
And seriously, did you get the "Handbook on Ignorant Responses to Historic Preservation Concerns"? There are lots and lots of historic areas where the cost of living is low - West End, West View, Adair Park, Capitol View, etc.. In fact, there is no correlation between high-cost of living and historic-ness.
And finally, no one is forcing anyone here. This is about neighborhoods that already have a number of qualities that make them eligible to be listed on the NR. Basically, they ARE historic, just no one has told them or you yet.
You know as well as I do that this is not about cost of living, this is about developers who want to subdivide perfectly good lots so that they can double down on their investment. It's bad enough that being listed or eligible doesn't stop them from building McCraftsmens (or worse), lets not throw out the few protections historic neighborhoods have left.
jsvh, did you actually read the above article?
Here is the definition of 'Historic' from the ordinance (and generally accepted): Any neighborhood which is listed on or is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places established by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.
This is not an ambiguous thing. There is a very well documented process for determining eligibility. Being older than 50 years is not the criteria. Hell, there are plenty of younger than 50 properties that have been considered eligible.
And, believe me, if I could just "change the wording" of an ordinance, I wouldn't stop at this one.
The reason you are confused is because you are drinking the developer kool-aid. People sub-divide lots to squeeze more profits from less land. Sorry-not-sorry for not feeling bad that there are some controls on land development.
P.S. I call bullshit on this: "[historic preservation] is more often used to stop someone from rebuilding a 1940s vacant tiny duplex that is in a not-so-good area that is just too expensive to restore."
jsvh, You are missing the issue: regardless of what neighborhoods are eligible or not (and its eligible to be listed in the National Register, not "eligible to be historic", btw), it is a matter of timing. If a neighborhood is trying to get listed and know they are eligible, this new wording would allow developers to take advantage of a loophole in bureaucratic timing. Honestly, developers get away with enough in this city; I don't think we need to feel sorry for them because they have to go through a process that is meant to protect an endangered resource...
Did I just read a promotional advertisement from GPB? I thought I was going to read something pertaining to the loss of WRAS, not a bunch of asshattitude
The answer is simple - hand out copies of "A Pattern Language" to developers, apply their project to the text and check off where they are getting it right and where they are not. Create a score based on that and approval based on score threshold. Done.
This is one of my favorite critiques of Atlanta's failure to regulate design to any degree
Hey, I've got an idea: They should take the columns from the old church and create some kind of public art piece, maybe a commemorative plaque, and place it just far enough away that it loses all context to the original building... oh, wait, Atlanta's already done that...twice...
All Comments »
Atlanta City Guide
Powered by Foundation
Creative Loafing Atlanta
Powered by Foundation