filed under Daily Dose
Shout out to Art in Ruins, UP, and the rest
7:46AM ON
08/17/2008
BY
Dave Segal
I think that we, as a microblogosphere, could make a coordinated push to pass an ordinance to make these purposeless demos of historic buildings far less likely. There are a million models in other cities and towns (typically just requiring that a substantial bond be posted, that would be kept by the city if the project doesn’t happen).
It think Messrs. Yurdin and Wood might be especially sympathetic, and that there’s a general recognition on the Council that these reforms are needed.
What say ye?
August 17th, 2008 at 1:20AM
corey Says:
I think it would be the most important piece of legislation passed in Providence in the last decade, by far. Yes. Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes.
Reply
August 17th, 2008 at 11:37PM
Jef Nickerson Says:
I think there would be a lot of support for any move that would fix what is obviously broken.
Reply
August 18th, 2008 at 6:32PM
No more free parking at GC:PVD | Greater City: Providence Says:
[...] David thinks it is time for the perpetual cycle of propose flashy new building for site of current historic or semi-historic building, get variance, get approvals, tear down building, cry poor, and park cars there for decades instead needs to stop. I have to say David, I agree. Providence Daily Dose: [...]
August 19th, 2008 at 2:34AM
Wesli Dymok Says:
The Empty Lot Syndrome has got to stop. Property owners must commit to having a fully approved and guaranteed project ready to roll upon demolition before receiving a demo permit.
That could be a little hard to get through, of course, as owners and developers will of course haul out their well-heeled lawyers to oppose it. But we can’t just let things keep going the way they are.
One notion that occurred to me is that it might help to take away some of the incentive. Perhaps make it so that a lot may not be used for any but the stated purpose for some ridiculous period, say, five years, so that you can’t just convert it to parking and start taking money. In the meantime, the property will continue to be taxed at its pre-demo assessed rate, as if a usable building was still there.
All right, I’m just thinking out loud there. But if we can’t force them to keep the buildings, can we at least find some way to punish them for tearing them down? How many empty lots are there right now just in Down City? Washington Street, Turk’s Head, Pavolino’s lot next to the library, the former safety complex.. this is very bad for the city as a destination, and demoralising to its citizens. Just think, we could be at the original Talk of the Town tonight, or maybe have dinner at New Japan. What is the rational explanation for why we cannot?
Reply
August 20th, 2008 at 3:15AM
corey Says:
There is no explanation. If this continues, it WILL negate all the progress made in the last 10 years.
Reply