Does over--preservation impede city growth?
Well, they say that over-preservation impedes city grown. They have an article on the subject here. They say, "Increasing swaths of major cities — including over a quarter of Manhattan and a third of Baltimore — have been designated as historic landmarks in order to force out developers. This overpreservation impedes development and revitalization, freezing neighborhoods in time and depressing economic growth."
The NIMBY (Not in my backyard) attitude has been used to inhibit development, according to Cato. But when is enough enough? Should be just abandon everything that is historic and start anew? I could swear that Cato is lobbying for developers. They say they aren't. but in Coconut Grove, we are not over-preserved, we need to be, but we are very lax in that department.
I can understand the big white boxy houses. I do like them, one on each lot please. But what about other important things like our trees and historic sites that are in danger, namely the Coconut Grove Playhouse.
Those new table leg buildings taking over Manhattan are ridiculous, they have ruined the beautiful skyline, again in the name of greed. Their footprint is about 100 x 100 feet. Quite small allowing for tall sticks to proliferate in the city. "Tall Sticks in the City," sounds like a sequel to "Sex and the City" Look at this mess.
I don't mind progress, but not in the name of greed.
YOU MAY NOT LIFT THE PHOTOS & TEXT. IT'S COPYRIGHTED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. YOU CAN HOWEVER SHARE A STORY ON SOCIAL MEDIA BY USING THE LINKS HERE.
For linking to this one story, just click on the time it was posted & just this story will open for sharing - only through social media. Not copying and pasting.