Another perfectly lucid post. This is good.
So, to arcman's point about it being worthwhile to rehabilitate the
Virginia only if you could raise the rents to market rate (I'm
presuming from his post that they're not at the moment, but I don't
honestly know), would you advocate returning that building to market
rate status?
And, if yes, what about Jack's point about "moving all the people
out"? Presumably, that would include at least some folks not engaged
in illicit activity but who couldn't afford the market rate. Where do
they go and who is responsible for helping them find alternative
housing?
I'm also curious about arcman's point here: "Elevators, corridor
widths, ceiling heights, plumbing, electrical,
fire protection, among countless other things would need to be
replaced and retrofitted to meet codes and standards of luxury".
Did the renderings to which you referred address those aspects? Who
drew them up?
Beyond that, it's been reported that both apartment and office
buildings, particularly those constructed in the early 20th Century,
have contributed at least as much, if not more, than automobiles to
the total greehouse gas emissions in the United States. Would/could a
rehab of the Virginia and/or Jersey include making them far more
energy efficient so that they emit much less greenhouse gases (while
also saving the owner a ton of $$$ on both heating and cooling
costs)?
BTW, hopefully it's obvious, but I'm not asking any of these
questions out of a preconceived opinion. I don't know enough about
the building to have one, so that's why I'm asking in the first
place.
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "wernerapnj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> And several significant misrepresentations of rehabiltation are
made.
> Buildings are rehabilitated and brought up to modern uses
regularly. As
> evidences by the countless 100+ year old homes in the city brought
back
> to life in recent years.
>
> The argument that 'old' can not be made viable holds no water based
> upon local and national trends.
>
> Unless a building has serious structural or environmental defects
that
> are cost prohibitive to correct, a rehabilitation is certaily worth
> exploring.
>
> In regards to that block, the 3 buildings (Virginia, Jersey,
Britwood),
> are significant representatives of a high point in the development
of
> Asbury Park (roaring 20s).
>
> In fact, one has been restored/rehabed and is a viable ratable.
another
> has the exterior restored but is prohibired from completion due to
> myopic planning.
>
> Both of those were vacant with caved in roofs and are now very nice
> architectural icons that benifit the community in esthetics and tax
> base.
>
> The Virgina is a great candidate for rehab also, renderings were
> prepared several years ago showing the restoration of the large
> porches/balconies that were removed years ago.
>
> Only poor planning and land use policies have prevented the
> improvement/rehab/restoration of the Virginia and Jersey.
>
> Werner
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
