"Build, Baby, Build!"

[wburg]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

The problem with my post, if anything, is that I have a very specific context in mind. I live in a city that is already very dense, so there is not a pressing need to create a walkable environment with several public transit options. We already have that. The debate is mostly about how "convenient" the neighborhood needs to be. If you already have a Starbucks a half mile away, do we really need to destroy an historic structure so you can have one three blocks away instead?

Which was kind of my point a couple of posts back--you're taking a very specific situation and trying to make it general, then got surprised when people start generalizing about it. I'm not all that prepared to judge your case and I don't think the developers and the city will poll City-Data forum results any more than the neighborhood when making their final decision.

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by wburg

The developers and the city want to make money, not density. Look for reasons beyond the obvious.

I'm saying that calls for more housing (greater density) will just be a pretext for making more money. At any rate, the provision of housing is always a good thing, so selfish intentions could very well lead to a legitimate and desirable result.

Originally Posted by wburg

Technically speaking, city government makes that call. Rules regarding historic properties and their demolition vary from city to city--some have no protection at all, some are very strongly protected, but public-owned resources tend to have more limitations because governments are expected to be good resources of historic resources.

What do you mean by "resources of historic resources?" Did you mean "custodians" of historic resources? Well, I can tell you from experience that they are often not. They are usually myopic and take their orders from the people who finance their campaigns (i.e., developers with deep pockets).

Originally Posted by wburg

However, city employees often consider other factors, such as a job in the private sector. Which brings us back to money, not density, as the deciding factor.

The city will never come out and say "We want more development because the developers have promised us lucrative careers as consultants once we leave office." So they disguise their intentions with calls for more housing, "smart growth," etc. Many people, however, get caught up in the hype.

[wburg]

Sorry--"good stewards of historic resources." The resources are held in the public trust. Sure, there's often a big difference between the letter of the law and its application (assuming the laws exist locally)--so look to how you can better leverage the letter of the law. If you aren't on the side with money and power, be prepared to use your voice and your vigilance.