vpi6 t1_jbt6u57 wrote on March 11, 2023 at 2:59 PM

Reply to comment by velvetshark in Developers who destroyed historic Lancashire pub ordered to rebuild it by Mighty_L_LORT

No it wasn’t. It had exactly one notable feature of the architectural style. A ‘floating roof’ aesthetic that was ruined by an addition put in when the building wasn’t even a decade old. The only reason it was a “great example” was because all the better buildings in that style were demolished. But even it is was, the building would not have been worth preserving.

It was built in the 60’s for Christ’s sake and was built to attract car-faring customers. Silver Spring has since grown to be one of the largest places in Maryland. The Silver Spring master plan calls to make the community a more walkable community, especially with a Purple Line station being built close by.

A small one-story building close to downtown and transit was not serving the needs of the community. In case you’re not a local, rents have gone up 20% in Montgomery County and our children are being forced to move away. Think about that before you say you want to preserve an old (but actually fairly new) building whose purpose is out of step with the rest of the community.

It was a good day when the planning board denied the preservation application. Which was imposed by busybodies in the county against the family that owned the building after the dry cleaner failed.

dew22 t1_jbumtvy wrote on March 11, 2023 at 9:09 PM

It’s a 60 year old building that’s a great example of googie architecture which has been disappearing for decades. Again just because you fail to see historical significance of a building doesn’t mean there is not any historical or architectural significance

vpi6 t1_jbupoyv wrote on March 11, 2023 at 9:31 PM

Don’t be absurd. That building is completely worthless as an historical place. My county’s own planning board denied the application. Had it gone through, it would have imposed significant and costly restrictions on the unwilling owners and been a net negative for the surrounding community. Turns out preserving debatably pretty looking building don’t help people.

It’s absolutely sickening people valued that building over housing people of my generation. I do not trust the values or basic morals of anyone who thinks that.

dew22 t1_jbuthbb wrote on March 11, 2023 at 9:59 PM

This isn’t even a debate about the plot being used for housing, it’s about the hideous paint job the new tenants put on the building. Just because the planning board denies it being put on a registry doesn’t mean it’s not worth saving.

vpi6 t1_jbuw5qr wrote on March 11, 2023 at 10:19 PM

100% wrong. The vote last month was about whether to add the dry cleaner building to the historic register - a process that was already in the works when the new tenants did the paint job. The county took no action about the paint job because it legally could do nothing about it. The family that owned the site and a restaurant next door were hoping to develop the site into something that very likely would have been housing. Something that would have been impossible with the completely unwarranted historical designation forced onto them by stupid people who think it’s their inalienable right to look at old buildings no matter the cost.

If you’re in love with the dry cleaner so much then BUY IT. Don’t use the to coercive powers of the government to maintain it at someone else’s expense. That’s morally reprehensible.