ArturoBandini wrote:I am bothered by this attitude (a sentiment which I recognize means nothing to anyone other than myself). Your "method" seems totally devoid of principle - each decision is made on an ad hoc basis. Or where there are principles at stake, the default position is that they can be re-evaluated and exceptions made based on your interpretation of the circumstances. Your neighborhood note-taking tour sounds to me like you'd be walking around filling out a checklist comprised of two columns, "Acceptable" vs. "Tacky". What do you do when your tastes are fundamentally incompatible with another busybody neighbor, and both opinions conflict with those of the owner of the property in question? I gather that you'll claim that some compromise can be made, but I don't understand why the mere opinion of a neighbor has a seat at the bargaining table to begin with.
Stu - what determines when two or more objects are "visually compatible"? To what degree is this an objective criterion versus one dependent on the subjective tastes of those reviewing each case? Additionally, how do you determine if the "rhythm" of one section of architecture is sufficiently compatible with the next?
Easy there, cowboy. I don't have a "method," so back off with your devoid-of-principle sniff.
snoqueen asked "how you'd like the area to turn out in ten or twenty years," which I took to be a question of preference, not of how things should be done. Then she said she'd hoped for specifics, like heights and percentages. Even in a personal-preference exercise, there's no way I could cough up numbers without sizing up the current lay of the land. Get what I'm saying? I've lived in the shadow of a tall building for a dozen years, and I can't tell you how many stories it is. That's what my note-taking tour would be about. What's the current scale? What's the topography? "Acceptable vs. tacky" is your flight of fancy, please leave me out of it.
And for a little context: not only do I live in the shadow of a tall building, I live across from several big multi-flat houses in varying states of dumpiness. And I love it, so much that I plunked down a big wad of cash for the privilege of living here as long as I like.
I'm going to restate this just in case you're still thinking I have some neighborhood-by-consensus idea: What I'd like to see happen and what I think should be imposed on property owners are two entirely different things. If I could pick, faux victorian would be a capital offense, and leaving your window blinds hanging at different heights would result in forfeiture of deed. But I don't get to pick, nor do I want to.
However, I do think civic assets like historic districts and Capitol sightlines are worth protecting, even at the expense of complete property owner discretion. Edgewater and Iota Court are the better for the approval-process tussle, and I think downtown deserves that restraint.