tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post1343693466996107129..comments2024-03-28T17:55:31.180-04:00Comments on The Gossips of Rivertown: Struggle Over Second and WarrenCarole Osterinkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16010623982526286408noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-41557500540489982622014-08-22T16:09:44.893-04:002014-08-22T16:09:44.893-04:00I suppose I was reading between the lines, in the ...I suppose I was reading between the lines, in the prior gossips post relating to the earlier meeting, where it said: "homeowners on the 100 block of Warren Street expressed their concern about preserving the residential character of their block."I'm not sure who these residents are, but most people in the neighborhood I spoke with were in support of an additional storefront. I know the commission said they were not trying to restrict commercial activity or promote residential, but that is exactly what they did and it's a common thing in politics to take an action for an intended purpose and explain it away for various other reasons. I also noticed today that at least one member of commission owns an upscale residential home on Warren St. a block from the site and I'm not sure how this all stacks up ethically. <br /><br />In the past several years, there have been many new storefronts installed on the 100 and 200 block, offhand at least 5 or six, most in buildings as old as this one. These storefronts have all enhanced the neighborhood and improved conditions for business and residents alike. I have heard that the commission is unhappy with some of the storefronts that were installed, because the finished storefront did not exactly match the proposed drawings submitted. Unfortunate if this is the case and this building owner is to suffer because of the commissions shortcomings in monitoring and regulating work they approved. <br /><br />Obviously there are some buildings that are not acceptable for alteration, but a few additional storefronts on lower Warren will enhance the neighborhood economically and improve conditions for everyone. Hard to understand why this building owner would be denied when so many others were allowed to do the same thing. This seems a somewhat unfair application of the rules. How is it OK to knock down an entire original brick facade on the General Worth house, rebuild it using a different bricklaying method with other bricks, install windows that do not resemble the original and change the whole look of the building, or to demolish an entire building under the guise of moving it, and rebuild it with new materials in another location, or to tear out the whole front of buildings as old as this one and install a Soho style storefront, etc etc, and this guy can't put in a single storefront window. It make no sense at all to me and has a stinky feeling. SlowArthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15182629761582261749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-71821988349849364322014-08-21T22:34:38.959-04:002014-08-21T22:34:38.959-04:00Just to correct the record, it's Miranda Barry...Just to correct the record, it's Miranda Barry, not Berry. <br /><br />I attended the hearing. The certificate was denied due to the issue of changing the facade, and in particular, two windows that have a long historical provenance. There was no other reason, and certainly not one involving the issue of residential versus commercial, which as Miranda Barry stated, is not an issue within the jurisdiction of the HPC. <br /><br />Whether the basically on facade changes policy makes good policy sense is beside the point - that is what the law as written basically dictates - no facade changes to the extent at all possible. <br /><br />Given the way the law is written, in my view, the only recourse for the applicant is to go to the Planning Commission pleading economic hardship, and documenting that. Absent that, it's game over absent a change in the text of the law. Steve Dunnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04588935402322108968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-59615522384219756002014-08-21T19:25:25.597-04:002014-08-21T19:25:25.597-04:00sorry if i posted twice, 226-228 warren were apprv...sorry if i posted twice, 226-228 warren were apprvevd for new storefrontsAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07939136814952968120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-10192451198253397432014-08-21T18:06:16.824-04:002014-08-21T18:06:16.824-04:00There is soon to be 6 empty store fronts in the 40...There is soon to be 6 empty store fronts in the 400 block. If you was a shop with a store window there are plenty available !Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05548912912359709568noreply@blogger.com