A while back I daydreamed about expanding the historic district my house sits in to help protect old buildings like these. These buildings lie just outside the district lines and while most are in decent condition (despite 90% having already met their demise), there are a few that could use a lot of love. The building above was one of those (it's the last one in link above). Sadly we'll never know if this building ever could have made a comeback. The rumor was it was burned down by transients the other night. The next day the city had the remains demolished for safety reasons. I don't understand some property owners. You do nothing in terms of building maintenance and watch your property slowly waste away. You're too lazy to tear it down so you wait a few decades, count on the eventual fire, and then get the city to tear it down for you.Priceless.
3 comments:
That was a beautiful building. What a shame.
That buy a historic building, neglect, then claim it's unrepairable so you can tear it down is so common.
For years people tried to save the Juana Briones house near where i used to live:
house being demolished
Now it's being demolished and the owners plan to sell the land. Imho, I think they are tearing it down before selling it out of spite.
There ought to be a law, it you don't care about historic buildings, you don't get to buy them.
That's right after my first law, you don't get to run for public office if you're a moron.
Around here (Austria, Eruope), the basic reason for behaviour like this is money. Simply money. Old houses are usually smaller than what would be built on the same lot today in expensive neighbourhoods, so razing the old and building new increases revenues for the owner considerably and results in huge profits - I mean for example how much can you make selling for one mediocre 1920s mansion, compared to 5 blocks of brand-new condos on the same lot?
Tearing it down prior to seling the lot increases property value again, because the buyer won't have to pay for the demolition and (more important) won't have to go through the bureaucratic hassle, even more so if the building is/was listed (here: historic listing = no demolition unless the house is considered beyond saving). So... not spite but pure plain old greed I'd say.
Karen -- lol I like your thinking. I hate seeing old buildings torn down. It's even more of a shame when it's in otherwise good condition. A while back there were some buildings on the fringe of our neighborhood that were torn down just prior to to becoming a historic district. They're still empty lots -- 20+ years later. I fear that will be the same fate for this property. That or a parking lot. :(
Ragnar -- sad to say but there was a lot of greed going on around this neighborhood that started 30+ years ago. I could understand say putting up some new condos or something. You're getting something back, albeit new. However, what's happened here is the creation of huge dead zones where the old neighborhood fabric has been completely decimated. So you got pockets of old neighborhood far away and non-contiguous to the downtown. This in turn has caused downtown to lose even more importance and deteriorate further as well. I could go on and on.. In short, I wish I could win the lottery. :)
Post a Comment