Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, August 31, 2010
City Property Owner Files Lawsuit to Fight Landmark Designation
Posted by Dominic Holden on Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 8:56 AM
Chris Grygiel has the story:
In its report, the Landmarks Preservation Board said the 10-story Lloyd Building, "clad in gold-buff brick, with cream colored terra cotta trim," was designed by noted architect Victor Voorhees and completed in 1926. The report cited the building as a unique example of Beaux Arts Renaissance Revival style.
- Image via the wonderful Joe Mabel on WikiMedia Commons
- The Lloyd Building
In a lawsuit filed Aug. 24, building owners Comprise Venture LLC argued that the City failed to consider the economic impact of designating the Lloyd as a landmark, didn't take into consideration future development plans for the area and lacked sufficient evidence to make its decision. Unlike the Landmark Preservation Board report, which speaks of the Lloyd in glowing terms, the building's owners describe it as a "box with ornamentation."
Nice to see the Landmark Preservation Board do something right after blowing it downtown in recent years.
3
They'll only fight such a thing legally until the cost of it outweighs the potential cost of the land the building is sitting on. You guys should check to see when they bought the building and property and for how much, and for recent sales costs of adjacent land before, say, 2008, if any. That's the barometer of what is happening here.
All that aside, yes, that building is gorgeous, and ought to be protected.
All that aside, yes, that building is gorgeous, and ought to be protected.
4
It is true that in Greenwich Village (where I currently am) every single building looks exactly like that. But I think Seattle architects have a lot to learn from the 'box with ornamentation.'
5
Hmmm, that buiding is nice and a good example of your basic office building circa 1920.
However, if Landmark Preservation Board shoots its wad on too many basic buildings like this it risks not being taken seriously for buildings that have true historical significance.
However, if Landmark Preservation Board shoots its wad on too many basic buildings like this it risks not being taken seriously for buildings that have true historical significance.
7
When will people realize that the owners, who actually purchased the property, earned the rights that ownership has always conveyed.
If the historical "progressives" desired to determine what would be done with the property, then they should have purchased it...just like the owners did.
Courts are more and more often demonstrating their belief that the landmark and historical commissions lack a compelling government interest that is greater than the rights of ownership. Think of it as unfunded mandates and undue burdens.
In our county, they spent $15 million designating peoples homes and property as Historic..( without directly informing them - they placed small ad in legal section of the paper that nobody reads )..and now they're broke.
Because of the hoops the historic commission makes developers jump throgh, no builders will touch the largest town. Even in this economy, the City website states that new construction is 1/12th that of the US and 1/14th that of the rest of our state.
This makes rents go sky high, as there is a lack of housing. The end result is nothing less than "Genrification". Driving the elderly and working poor out of the neighborhoods that the "connected" people then buy for a song.
You may call it progress....I call it a revelation ....of just how far elected officials and their connected friends have gone. They filed their submission to make my home historic and claimed it was 47 years older than it is, and was the work of a master, demonstrating vernacular construction techniques.
Vernacular construction is said to "demonstrate the work of an amateur"....I guess this master was an amateur...LOL
The entire thing is a portal to get local hands on millions in federal tax dollars, by way of grants. And they wonder why we are $14,000,000,000,000.00 in debt!!!!
More...
If the historical "progressives" desired to determine what would be done with the property, then they should have purchased it...just like the owners did.
Courts are more and more often demonstrating their belief that the landmark and historical commissions lack a compelling government interest that is greater than the rights of ownership. Think of it as unfunded mandates and undue burdens.
In our county, they spent $15 million designating peoples homes and property as Historic..( without directly informing them - they placed small ad in legal section of the paper that nobody reads )..and now they're broke.
Because of the hoops the historic commission makes developers jump throgh, no builders will touch the largest town. Even in this economy, the City website states that new construction is 1/12th that of the US and 1/14th that of the rest of our state.
This makes rents go sky high, as there is a lack of housing. The end result is nothing less than "Genrification". Driving the elderly and working poor out of the neighborhoods that the "connected" people then buy for a song.
You may call it progress....I call it a revelation ....of just how far elected officials and their connected friends have gone. They filed their submission to make my home historic and claimed it was 47 years older than it is, and was the work of a master, demonstrating vernacular construction techniques.
Vernacular construction is said to "demonstrate the work of an amateur"....I guess this master was an amateur...LOL
The entire thing is a portal to get local hands on millions in federal tax dollars, by way of grants. And they wonder why we are $14,000,000,000,000.00 in debt!!!!
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Required Listening: Howard Stern on Ellen, JC Penney, Bullied Gay Kids, Rosie, Santorum, Bachmann, et al by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
State Legislator Testifies That His Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Came to Him from a Commercial for Jack in the Box by Christopher Frizzelle
-
"Let me be the first one to say: My business will refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony," by Republican Representative Matt Shea of the Spokane Valley by Eli Sanders
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
"I don't know if I want to be here [if gay marriage passes]," by Republican State Senator Jay Rodne of North Bend by Eli Sanders
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Announcing The Stranger's Tournament of Dunces! Who's the Dumbest Representative in the State House? by Christopher Frizzelle
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (7) RSS