> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:29:01 -0400> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:
> Univcity@list.purple.com> Subject: Re: [UC] Address correction, plus National
> Register vs. Local Historic District> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:> > Thanks
> for pointing out the address discrepancy and giving me the opportunity > > to
> explain the distinction between the National Register and a local historic >
> > district.> > > > Enough on this topic, I'm sure,> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:> > the excerpt I quoted was to show how the WHOLE block was >
> considered important, as a streetscape, an ensemble. I also > cited another
> uchs webpage that showed... .Ray,You and I know the deal. Bottom line: if a
> member of the unwashed masses wanted to enclose an Italianate porch, or put
> vinyl windows in a cupula, the mavens of historical preservation would be all
> over themselves about how "That's desecration! That's why we need an historic
> district!"
But when Penn or one of its flunkies want to desecrate an entire area with an
obscene tower:
-suddenly historic preservation doesn't mean squat;
-we have to destroy the "village" to save one building in it;
-poor Penn couldn't possibly be expected to know about or research real estate
they were buying in an area that they've occupied since 1873 (even though you
could find it), and anyone who dares question that doesn't make sense;
-if we don't let Penn have their way with us, they'll pack up their billions
and move;
-And if we would just shut the hell up and get out of the way, the developer
will condescendingly promise to buy us off with a new restaurant (after all,
we'd sell our own mothers for a new restaurant) while he makes a fortune.
