Community Chat

[croemer]

You know it eve!

[scotttie]

On 5/3/2014 evelomaddict said:

On 5/3/2014 croemer said:

On 5/3/2014 beammeupscottie said:

Croemer, I just noticed your new siggy!!!!!!!!

Oh man that's a good one!

LOL...it tickled my funny bone.

lol! i would have never noticed your signature had scottie not pointed it out.

of course i find it funny since we're all 'buds' and stuff.

buds....but are you SOUL Mates?

[Mama Mia]

On 5/3/2014 biancardi said:

On 5/2/2014 reese ~ said:

According to the article, Gail Weisner, the neighbor who filed the complaint, lives in that green house. It was built in 2008.

Edited for grammar. (But I don't see that her house looks so much better or historic)

I agree. The new house looks kinda the same - it doesn't look "modern" that it is out of place. Now...if they built this house there, Weisner would have a point

I think it is major sour grapes on Weisner's part or perhaps she wanted that parcel of land herself, as she is a REAL ESTATE agent. I smell an agenda here.

That green house certainly is not "historic" 2008, LOL. It doesn't look like they even have a yard, six years, and it's not done.

I also can't see how they can be so close to the street, I;d be afraid someone would be driving and run into either one of them.

[minkbunny]

We need land, lots of land, wide open spaces. Just looking at those houses makes me claustrophobic. I do not find the neighborhood or the "new" house at all inviting.

[esmerelda]

On 5/3/2014 occasional rain said:

If you are going to comment at least read the facts first. If you had you would know that the house will not be painted, it was not a knock down but an empty lot, that is it an historic district not just 'old houses'...

What makes it historic...the sign? 'Cause all of the houses aren't historic.

[shoekitty]

On 5/3/2014 evelomaddict said:

On 5/3/2014 beammeupscottie said:

Irishgirl knows the neighborhood and says the new one is out of place. Since she has seen it personally and not just in pictures guess I'll have to go with her assessment.

nothing is sacred anymore. not even an historic neighborhood. i think it's sad.

ITA.

If you want a modern home, build it in an appropriate place. No one has a right to come in to a historic park and build what they want. As I said before, they can and should build what they want, IF it is in an area of older homes. If the area is designated historic, that is a law, that is a legal assessment made by the city. I don't know why it wasn't honored. The city is partially at fault here.

It is kind of like belonging to a Vegan Club, and someone bringing meat dishes to the meeting to share. It just doesn't belong. LOL!

[Evansmom]

On 5/1/2014 straykatz said:

Should a couple be forced to tear down their modern under construction home because it is too modern for the neighborhood?

Modern home divides historic Southern neighborhood

http://www.pantagraph.com/print-specific/pantagraph/ragged-body/modern-home-divides-historic-southe...

I didn't click on your link but yes, if it's a historic neighborhood absolutely they have no business building a contemporary structure there.

[shoekitty]

On 5/3/2014 esmerelda said:

On 5/3/2014 occasional rain said:

If you are going to comment at least read the facts first. If you had you would know that the house will not be painted, it was not a knock down but an empty lot, that is it an historic district not just 'old houses'...

What makes it historic...the sign? 'Cause all of the houses aren't historic.

esmeralda

There is a difference between and old home of 'Historic value" and a historic district. In most towns there are older homes, some 100 years or older. Back east I know they are way older than those in California.

Historic homes have been deemed so by the City in which they recide, then documented and approved by the State in which you live. These homes can be scattered around, even stand among more modern homes. There are restrictions when these homes are purchased. There is an agreement between the state, City and the new owner as to what you can and can't do to them.The homes are classified 1 to 5 in our city. It isn't extremely restrictive, concidering the people that buy them usually appreciate the nature of the home and cherish it's age.

A home is deemed Historic if it is doicumented to have neen owned, build or lived in by a person or family that is important to that city. ie, city founder. Or maybe Lincoln hid there? A home can be deemed a historic home if it was built by a noted person like William Weeks, Julia Morgan or maybe Carnegie. It can also have historic significance by detail or facades the home, or representitive of a time in history. ie Craftsman, bungalow, pioneer style, brick. It can be the first dairy, first masonic lodge, etc.

A historic district is way different. It means that within certain perimeters carefully measured all homes and structures are concidered historic. They have been catalogued, registered, photographed and listed on the historical register in that city and state. It is concidered a park.

That is why I find it so confusing that this was allowed to happen. Someone dropped the ball somewhere. I know in California you have to pull a permit, and have it reviewed by the city planner. The project has many phases which need be approved.. Unless the owners listed one plan to the city and built another. Which is deceit. But that part has never been explained to my knowledge. Why was this modern home built in a historic park.