Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q
This is why you buy in a historic district of large-ish old nice single family homes on small-ish lots. Because Aurora and Broomfield don't have anything historic, so we have a credible argument that Denver needs to protect this unique thing that people can't get in the suburbs. Lots of places can accommodate density; none can replace this building stock. We'll literally be the last neighborhood in the entire city to get upzoned.
Or so the argument goes. Lol.
|
There are empty lots throughout historic neighborhoods. Build whatever on those lots. Contributing historic assets should be declared off-limits for demolition because, as bunt points out, once it's gone it's gone forever.
Secondly, if density is really the goal, how about a livable happy medium when it comes to density. Cap Hill is a better neighborhood than Golden Triangle. Historic communities tend to exemplify that ideal "missing middle" density level.
The National Trust has the data to prove that older, smaller = better.
https://savingplaces.org/stories/pre...b#.YFkfmUhKjnU
We actually
don't need every parcel in this city to be covered with generic, EIFS-covered, double-loaded apartment corridors wrapped around parking. That said, anyone should be welcome to build that on an available site if they conform to zoning and design standards.
YIMBY types are just market-obsessed libertarian urbanists struggling with all of those contradictions. If you want a value proposition to take to the extreme, how about one about people or neighborhoods?