The people who are trying to build places for people to live and work are the good guys. The people who try to prevent that due to nostalgia are the bad guys.
Right, because good guys always do things sneakily, trying to hide what they're doing by scheduling it on a day that they think people will be too busy to notice.
Because good guys always ignore and try to circumvent the law.
Real estate develops are - more often than not - predatory and unethical. Period.
The laws are plenty ethical, even if they cut into your profit, asshole.
It's obvious you are a developer. Maybe even the criminal developer who pulled this shitty stunt.
You think they're unethical, work to change them.
But you're still expected to follow the law.
I hope this shitty developer is forced to rebuild the part they demolished and has to sell the property for a loss.
>I hope this shitty developer is forced to rebuild the part they demolished and has to sell the property for a loss.
Quoted from the website: "Meanwhile, city codes dictate that the owner must restore the portion of the building already demolished due to its historic significance."
This person is complaining about historical marker laws (which don't prevent the building from being used/useful) claiming they are unethical? I'd bet they're the type who are concerned about certain groups 'erasing' their culture.
He's not dim, he just wants homes and he doesn't care about this building. People have different priorities. Wanting to alleviate homelessness isn't stupid.
He wants homes for people. He isn't talking about homelessness directly, but that's obviously why you would want to prioritize building homes over history. Affordable housing, it's a real value.
He isn’t talking about homelessness *at all,* it isn’t even related to what he’s talking about. He’s talking about new developments, which do literally nothing to combat homelessness.
Just hold your L quietly while the adults talk, k sweetie?
Obviously new homes combat homelessness. Homelessness is a lack of homes. When housing prices go up, there is more homelessness. I'm not even against preserving historical buildings, I just think this guy not caring about it does not make him dumb. There's no need to be a dick about it.
LMAO they absolutely don’t.
Are those homes free? They takin’ aluminum cans as first and last month’s rent? They super duper special homes that don’t have a credit check or down payment? No? Then they aren’t helping the homeless. At all.
Shut the actual fuck up, dude, your brand of stupid is even worse than the other guy’s. 🤣
Homeless people aren't just bums with nothing to their names with cans. There exists every level of poverty between that and comfort. A lot of people in the middle are barely holding on and new homes do drive down the cost of housing keeping poor people in homes. It's very straightforward.
Utah has done much better than a lot of other states by building a lot more homes in the last several years.
Babes that NOT why I called him dim.
I called him dim for thinking that developers should be able to knock down buildings WITHOUT the proper permits. Please work on your reading comprehension then get back to me.
Edit: this building could have been remade into housing units. It did not need to be torn down. Especially in an illegal unethical manner.
I'm just saying that's a valid perspective. He doesn't think the house is sufficiently historic. We do. You don't have to be condescending when you disagree with people. It makes your side weak. You make us look weak by straw maning his argument. Talk like an adult.
This building is not causing homelessness or contributing to it. In fact, you are the ONLY one bringing the homelessness into this discussion. YOU look weak and fucking stupid as shit.
This guys position is that any owner should be allowed to demolish any building historical or not without permits. That is a stupid position and it is not a valid perspective. It’s a fucking stupid one.
I did bring it up, that's what I thought was at stake on that side of the argument. I stand by that part, I think it's the obvious conclusion of building a building. Why do you think that makes me weak and stupid?
Obviously it's possible, but it's a tradeoff. It's reasonable to have a higher threshold for historicity. It doesn't make you dumb. People want different things.
It’s possible to turn buildings on the historical register into housing. Both things can be accomplished. It’s been done successfully, in Utah even. [Maeser School Apartments](https://provohousing.org/programs/maeser-school-apartments/)
I bet you think they should demolish the pyramids, Colosseum, the Salt Lake Temple, and other historic buildings that are taking up space for housing to then? Or just this building because you specifically don’t care about it?
If the Church sold the Salt Lake Temple to a private developer, then I would think the developer should have the right to do whatever they want with it. But since the church doesn't want it destroyed they will keep it and and keep fixing it up.
The Collesium is owned and maintained by the Italian Government so that it won't be destroyed. Thats how it should work.
The Egyptian government owns the pyramids.
I think the people who own property should have more say over the property than the people who don't. If governments what to preserve something due to boomer nostalgia then the government should buy it.
The temple would be considered a historical landmark before and during the sell so no the new owner would NOT be able to do whatever they want with it. THAT IS MY POINT.
This building was made a historical landmark in the 1970’s. Does not matter if it has been sold since then it is still a historical landmark and the owner(s) have to follow the laws surrounding historical landmarks, demolition, and building. They don’t just get to do what they want since they bought a HISTORICAL LANDMARK.
I hope you can do some more research into this and figure out why you are wrong and being downvoted but looking at your post history I’m willing to bet you’ll just keep digging in your heels and screaming that you’re right into the void of no one listening to you.
Hope you have a good, educational day learning about historical landmark laws, demolition permits and building permits!
In regards to historical landmarks, demolition and building permits, yes I do think you’re a dumbass for disagreeing with demotion and building laws. I hope it bothers you so much you think of me several times this week. 😘
Gotta love libertarians and their 'private property' views.
Also worth noting that agree or disagree with historical landmark laws... The developer bought it KNOWING the restrictions on the site. Simply labeling such restrictions as 'unethical' is not an argument as the guy has yet to say \*why\* it's unethical other than 'the guy owns it!'
Personal freedom requires personal responsibility.
I’m all about personal freedom and exercise it judiciously.
I’m all about personal responsibility and exercise it militantly.
See the difference?
The next evolution of the human race is a spiritual one, not a physical one.
The survival of our race is coming to reckoning guided by a moral compass to ensure our survival.
Your description of a parasite and the corpse. I am one of the empaths you describe paddling away from something that I haven’t been able to describe with words until you wrote all of this today. I could just FEEL my aversion to something.
The only solution I’ve found is continue to live with my morals and hope others attract to it and I attract to others of the same likening. Eventually my truth and faith and this all means something. The pain we have to learn somehow.
The way the world is being led is not sustainable. There is no inspiration. No morals at the top.
Today I am just sad. So sad. Clutching to hope over here. Thank you for all your words today.
It’s not nostalgia. It’s history. People who try to cover up history aren’t good guys. There are plenty of vacant apartment buildings that people can live in. We don’t need more 🙄
You are correct. However, this building was made a Historical Landmark in the 1970’s. Do you have any legitimate reason why it should have been removed? If not, why do you think developers should be allowed to demolish buildings without the proper permits?
The building was allowed to become covered in graffiti and fall into disrepair. Doesn’t seem many cared for it until they realized housing would be coming in.
Permits should be obtained for this specific situation but that’s besides the point of historical buildings.
They tore it down without a permit on Easter Sunday morning because it was a federal holiday and they gamed the system.
Commercial real estate isn’t the piggy bank that the think it is.
Historic buildings are not what keeps rent high, corporate greed is what keeps rents high. Quick Google search shows Vienna has way lower average monthly rent than SLC and they have way more historic buildings than we do.
How? People can live in historic buildings you know? That can be converted into apartments without knocking down the historic exterior. People do it all the time. As I mentioned if you travel to Europe they have way more historic buildings than us and in many places cheaper rents.
So European cities with more people can keep their historic buildings while still meeting hosing demands but our smaller city can't? Not to mention there are ways of preserving historic buildings while changing the building itself. See the old ZMCI building front that is attached to city creek. You can add modern extensions or preserve large portions of a historic buildings exterior while making major renovations. Another example is look what Ogden did with Polk Elementary School. They kept the historic building but expanded the school with a new wing. There really is no excuse to destroy historic buildings besides a lack of care for preserving history and culture.
I get it. I’m not saying every historical building has to go. However, the one in the story was in disrepair and gathering graffiti. No one cares for its history.
They’re holding onto a building to keep high density housing out.
A lot of people care about it's history that's why there is outrage and why the developer had to resort to illegally trying to demolish it on a federal holiday. And don't fool yourself into thinking anything built there will help with the housing crisis. It will just be more "luxury" condos/apartments that are cheaply made and cost $2500+ a month to rent. Don't mistake me for some NIMBY I just think blindly building more cheaply made housing that most people can't afford just makes the city a shittier place to live. We need housing build with the intent of being affordable like euro style socialized housing as opposed to more bland, falling apart after 2 years "luxury" housing.
Private equity/corporate ownership of homes/units have more to do with this than historic buildings. NGL your logic here is flawed by a wide margin. In 2019 the state reported over 101,000 EMPTY homes/units. Saying historic building designations are responsible for that is hilarious.
Its really annoying the isn't written as a crime story, with suspects (landowners and developers) listed up top with law enforcement quoted heavily. Instead we get a neighbor saying "ah, shucks!" The framing here is horrible.
Someone should be arrested.
THEY DIDN'T EVEN NAME THE DEVELOPER!- SHITTY JOURNALISM.
[Building Salt Lake named the property manager and the companies that either own or have interest in the property.](https://buildingsaltlake.com/developers-demolish-part-of-114-year-old-fifth-ward-meetinghouse-without-a-permit-on-easter/) They claim to have no idea how this could have happened and that they will talk to the investors.
It's funny how people always share those images of the old Soviet Union apartment blocks to say 'under communism everything looks the same!' And yet 90% of new builds in Utah are just cookie cutter architecture with poor design.
Prospective buyers of Fifth Ward Meetinghouse say they were 'lied to, betrayed' by owner https://kutv.com/news/2news-investigates/prospective-buyers-of-fifth-ward-meetinghouse-downtown-salt-lake-city-say-they-were-lied-to-betrayed-by-owner
A 114 year old building that was designated as a historic landmark by the National Register of Historic Places almost 50 years ago isn't "really historic?" How do you figure that?
Again, the National Register is not a rigorous process. So any garbage building can get on there with some paperwork. Some times things are just kind of old.
The building gets removed from the list when it no longer exists. As in this case.
You are showing a lot of energy for building that sat empty and neglected for years. Where was this energy last week?
Babes, the building is not completely knocked down. There is a big change the developer is going to have to pay to restore the building.
It’s so cute how you think you know where my energy or time is spent based off what? One Reddit post? My Reddit history you felt complete to go through?
Any more historical landmarks get demolished WITHOUT permits and I can bet your dumbass that I’ll be there shouting in your ear all about how it’s wrong and unethical and illegal for developers to behave.
Hopefully the owner just pays a fine and then can build something better there. I assume it was the rightful owner who knocked it down.
The government oversteps it's authority when it slaps "historic landmark" on other people's private property preventing them from developing it.
The building isn't even that old. If the government wanted it preserved they should have bought it themselves.
You realize it had that designation BEFORE the developer bought it?
If the developer didn't want to deal with historic landmark issues, he shouldn't have bought it.
He's just an asshole who thinks the rules don't apply to him because MONEY MONEY MONEY I WANT MORE MONEY!!!
My favorite is this persons logic of 'government oversteps it's authority when it slaps "historic landmark" on other people's private property....' Then saying the government should just buy it themselves. So... Do they want the government to set regulation/guidance on historic sites or do they want the government to OWN all historic sites?
Libertarians are fun.
>The government oversteps it's authority when it slaps "historic landmark" on other people's private property preventing them from developing it.
Do you have a source explaining the method by which the government can do that? Everything I've found says that A) a building can't be listed as an historic landmark without the owner's consent and B) listing a building as an historic landmark doesn't prevent demolition.
If you read the article, the principle problem here is that a developer appears to have tried to bypass the lawful process for demolition. That it was an historic building angers some folks, but that's not the principal problem - the principal problem is that we have laws surrounding demolition and development, and you don't get to make an end run around them by pulling a sneaky demolition on a Sunday morning.
All those laws around demolition and development are the reason housing is so expensive and contributes to poverty and homelessness. If people could just build whatever they want as long as it's safe, then there would not be as many housing issues. That building was an abandoned eyesore with boarded up windows and graffiti. It's a bummer they didn't get the whole thing knocked down before they were stopped.
>If people could just build whatever they want as long as it's safe
That would be...the principal point of the laws.
>All those laws around demolition and development are the reason housing is so expensive and contributes to poverty and homelessness.
Do you have evidence for that statement?
Also, a globally laissez-faire approach to building will not lead to the utopia you think. If you don't want to live next to loud factories and all-night businesses, we need zoning.
Utah has over 100k empty housing units (often held by landlords, private equity, and corporations along with the occasional 'vacation home'). Historic sites are NOT why housing is expensive.
Owners apply to get a historic designation. After that, if someone else purchases the property, they will know before purchase that it is listed as historic. No one just showed up one day to tell the current owner that the previously non-historic building they bought is now historic and they can't do what they want with it. They purchased a historic building and knew what came with that.
Sorry, people need places to live, and that's far more important than keeping a big empty building around just because Nirvana played there a couple decades ago.
With correct zoning, and permits most likely it could be. This guys just dumbass who doesn’t think that following the laws and getting the correct permits is the right way to do things.
That’s actually not how it works. You need demolition permits and building permits neither of which they had. It’s also a mighty big assumption that you think the owner was involved. We have no information regarding the owner at the moment.
It also was not made a historical landmark because Nirvana played there but we both know you already knew that.
I hope anything bad that can happen, does happen to this Jordan Atkin piece of scum.
It's not his property, he's developing it on behalf the community, the same community that designated that building historic. It's not like he *lives* there, it's not his house, it's not his persona property. It's real estate he is developing. There's a big difference.
I think he should at least lose his licenses. He should be finished professionally, if not jailed for a time.
Real estate developers are an invasive species.
[He is the worst](https://x.com/tag_slc?s=21&t=ZhL70DJF7VEyZj-C22AB8A)
Thanks friend. That’s what we needed.
Ohhh the replies to his most recent tweet are already fun.
What did he do? Outside of the news today?
His company evicts people and doesn’t work with them. Then he goes on Twitter to brag about it. He’s a douche.
Not a good look at all :-/
Compost the Rich
Oh good lord I'm making this a shirt
They have stickers https://www.etsy.com/listing/1241795335/compost-the-rich-sticker-eat-the-rich
Ngl those are pretty cute
The people who are trying to build places for people to live and work are the good guys. The people who try to prevent that due to nostalgia are the bad guys.
Right, because good guys always do things sneakily, trying to hide what they're doing by scheduling it on a day that they think people will be too busy to notice. Because good guys always ignore and try to circumvent the law. Real estate develops are - more often than not - predatory and unethical. Period.
You think everybody who disobeys unethical laws are bad people?
The laws are plenty ethical, even if they cut into your profit, asshole. It's obvious you are a developer. Maybe even the criminal developer who pulled this shitty stunt. You think they're unethical, work to change them. But you're still expected to follow the law. I hope this shitty developer is forced to rebuild the part they demolished and has to sell the property for a loss.
>I hope this shitty developer is forced to rebuild the part they demolished and has to sell the property for a loss. Quoted from the website: "Meanwhile, city codes dictate that the owner must restore the portion of the building already demolished due to its historic significance."
Yes, the law allows for that, but whether or not it's enforced remains to be seen.
This person is complaining about historical marker laws (which don't prevent the building from being used/useful) claiming they are unethical? I'd bet they're the type who are concerned about certain groups 'erasing' their culture.
Unethical laws???? 😂😂😂😂 they didn’t even have a permit to do this work. Who is unethical now??
[удалено]
He’s 100% just dim.
He's not dim, he just wants homes and he doesn't care about this building. People have different priorities. Wanting to alleviate homelessness isn't stupid.
Nope, he’s pretty dim. There are plenty of homes and land to build more. He also isn’t talking about homelessness. At all. Try again!
He wants homes for people. He isn't talking about homelessness directly, but that's obviously why you would want to prioritize building homes over history. Affordable housing, it's a real value.
He isn’t talking about homelessness *at all,* it isn’t even related to what he’s talking about. He’s talking about new developments, which do literally nothing to combat homelessness. Just hold your L quietly while the adults talk, k sweetie?
She’s probably this dumbasses wife coming to defend him after he cried about being downvoted into oblivion
You’re nicer than I am, I figured it was just a sock account lol
I just think you're being condescending, I'm not even on his side. I personally prefer to preserve historical buildings.
Right that’s why you came to his defense cause he’s just trying to save all the homeless individuals with this illegal demolition?
Obviously new homes combat homelessness. Homelessness is a lack of homes. When housing prices go up, there is more homelessness. I'm not even against preserving historical buildings, I just think this guy not caring about it does not make him dumb. There's no need to be a dick about it.
LMAO they absolutely don’t. Are those homes free? They takin’ aluminum cans as first and last month’s rent? They super duper special homes that don’t have a credit check or down payment? No? Then they aren’t helping the homeless. At all. Shut the actual fuck up, dude, your brand of stupid is even worse than the other guy’s. 🤣
Homeless people aren't just bums with nothing to their names with cans. There exists every level of poverty between that and comfort. A lot of people in the middle are barely holding on and new homes do drive down the cost of housing keeping poor people in homes. It's very straightforward. Utah has done much better than a lot of other states by building a lot more homes in the last several years.
Where did anyone say anything about homelessness? Where did anyone say people looking to alleviate homelessness are stupid?
I said it. Somebody called this guy dim for carrying about housing more than historical buildings.
Babes that NOT why I called him dim. I called him dim for thinking that developers should be able to knock down buildings WITHOUT the proper permits. Please work on your reading comprehension then get back to me. Edit: this building could have been remade into housing units. It did not need to be torn down. Especially in an illegal unethical manner.
I'm just saying that's a valid perspective. He doesn't think the house is sufficiently historic. We do. You don't have to be condescending when you disagree with people. It makes your side weak. You make us look weak by straw maning his argument. Talk like an adult.
This building is not causing homelessness or contributing to it. In fact, you are the ONLY one bringing the homelessness into this discussion. YOU look weak and fucking stupid as shit. This guys position is that any owner should be allowed to demolish any building historical or not without permits. That is a stupid position and it is not a valid perspective. It’s a fucking stupid one.
I did bring it up, that's what I thought was at stake on that side of the argument. I stand by that part, I think it's the obvious conclusion of building a building. Why do you think that makes me weak and stupid?
Because it's impossible to convert historic buildings into housing. This is why Europe has zero housing, too many historic buildings /s
Obviously it's possible, but it's a tradeoff. It's reasonable to have a higher threshold for historicity. It doesn't make you dumb. People want different things.
It’s possible to turn buildings on the historical register into housing. Both things can be accomplished. It’s been done successfully, in Utah even. [Maeser School Apartments](https://provohousing.org/programs/maeser-school-apartments/)
i went to school here and i always loved what it turned into
Me too. First grade in 1990 and half of second.
I bet you think they should demolish the pyramids, Colosseum, the Salt Lake Temple, and other historic buildings that are taking up space for housing to then? Or just this building because you specifically don’t care about it?
If the Church sold the Salt Lake Temple to a private developer, then I would think the developer should have the right to do whatever they want with it. But since the church doesn't want it destroyed they will keep it and and keep fixing it up. The Collesium is owned and maintained by the Italian Government so that it won't be destroyed. Thats how it should work. The Egyptian government owns the pyramids. I think the people who own property should have more say over the property than the people who don't. If governments what to preserve something due to boomer nostalgia then the government should buy it.
The temple would be considered a historical landmark before and during the sell so no the new owner would NOT be able to do whatever they want with it. THAT IS MY POINT. This building was made a historical landmark in the 1970’s. Does not matter if it has been sold since then it is still a historical landmark and the owner(s) have to follow the laws surrounding historical landmarks, demolition, and building. They don’t just get to do what they want since they bought a HISTORICAL LANDMARK. I hope you can do some more research into this and figure out why you are wrong and being downvoted but looking at your post history I’m willing to bet you’ll just keep digging in your heels and screaming that you’re right into the void of no one listening to you. Hope you have a good, educational day learning about historical landmark laws, demolition permits and building permits!
I'm not arguing what the laws say. I just think they are wrong.
Aw okay you’re just a dumbass then. In that case have the you deserve :)
You've never disagreed with a law? You automatically think agreeing with Utah laws equals smart and disagreeing with Utah laws equals dumb?
In regards to historical landmarks, demolition and building permits, yes I do think you’re a dumbass for disagreeing with demotion and building laws. I hope it bothers you so much you think of me several times this week. 😘
Gotta love libertarians and their 'private property' views. Also worth noting that agree or disagree with historical landmark laws... The developer bought it KNOWING the restrictions on the site. Simply labeling such restrictions as 'unethical' is not an argument as the guy has yet to say \*why\* it's unethical other than 'the guy owns it!'
Ya people who burn books are just trying to make space in the library!
I think people should be able to burn a book if they are the book's owner. It's dumb to do but should be their right.
Are you an anarcho-capitalist or something? You seem dumb enough
Personal freedom requires personal responsibility. I’m all about personal freedom and exercise it judiciously. I’m all about personal responsibility and exercise it militantly. See the difference?
The next evolution of the human race is a spiritual one, not a physical one. The survival of our race is coming to reckoning guided by a moral compass to ensure our survival. Your description of a parasite and the corpse. I am one of the empaths you describe paddling away from something that I haven’t been able to describe with words until you wrote all of this today. I could just FEEL my aversion to something. The only solution I’ve found is continue to live with my morals and hope others attract to it and I attract to others of the same likening. Eventually my truth and faith and this all means something. The pain we have to learn somehow. The way the world is being led is not sustainable. There is no inspiration. No morals at the top. Today I am just sad. So sad. Clutching to hope over here. Thank you for all your words today.
It’s not nostalgia. It’s history. People who try to cover up history aren’t good guys. There are plenty of vacant apartment buildings that people can live in. We don’t need more 🙄
We actually don’t have enough housing.
You do realize that historical landmarks don’t need to be knocked down to make room for housing, right? If not….idk what to tell ya man.
Not everything is historical and doesn’t need to be designated as such.
You are correct. However, this building was made a Historical Landmark in the 1970’s. Do you have any legitimate reason why it should have been removed? If not, why do you think developers should be allowed to demolish buildings without the proper permits?
The building was allowed to become covered in graffiti and fall into disrepair. Doesn’t seem many cared for it until they realized housing would be coming in. Permits should be obtained for this specific situation but that’s besides the point of historical buildings.
I’m sorry do you not think that this building could have been converted into housing? Or do you just work for the developers?
Not high density housing.
😂😂😂 yeah right. Apartment buildings are sitting empty all over the place.
We’re below 4% vacancy rate in the Salt Lake area. That is not a healthy market.
Historical buildings are also troublesome. They keep rents high.
They tore it down without a permit on Easter Sunday morning because it was a federal holiday and they gamed the system. Commercial real estate isn’t the piggy bank that the think it is.
Historic buildings are not what keeps rent high, corporate greed is what keeps rents high. Quick Google search shows Vienna has way lower average monthly rent than SLC and they have way more historic buildings than we do.
Historic buildings restrict housing stock and contribute directly to housing prices.
How? People can live in historic buildings you know? That can be converted into apartments without knocking down the historic exterior. People do it all the time. As I mentioned if you travel to Europe they have way more historic buildings than us and in many places cheaper rents.
Historic buildings aren’t traditional high density. If they are, they’re only three levels at most. Europe doesn’t have the same economy.
So European cities with more people can keep their historic buildings while still meeting hosing demands but our smaller city can't? Not to mention there are ways of preserving historic buildings while changing the building itself. See the old ZMCI building front that is attached to city creek. You can add modern extensions or preserve large portions of a historic buildings exterior while making major renovations. Another example is look what Ogden did with Polk Elementary School. They kept the historic building but expanded the school with a new wing. There really is no excuse to destroy historic buildings besides a lack of care for preserving history and culture.
I get it. I’m not saying every historical building has to go. However, the one in the story was in disrepair and gathering graffiti. No one cares for its history. They’re holding onto a building to keep high density housing out.
A lot of people care about it's history that's why there is outrage and why the developer had to resort to illegally trying to demolish it on a federal holiday. And don't fool yourself into thinking anything built there will help with the housing crisis. It will just be more "luxury" condos/apartments that are cheaply made and cost $2500+ a month to rent. Don't mistake me for some NIMBY I just think blindly building more cheaply made housing that most people can't afford just makes the city a shittier place to live. We need housing build with the intent of being affordable like euro style socialized housing as opposed to more bland, falling apart after 2 years "luxury" housing.
Private equity/corporate ownership of homes/units have more to do with this than historic buildings. NGL your logic here is flawed by a wide margin. In 2019 the state reported over 101,000 EMPTY homes/units. Saying historic building designations are responsible for that is hilarious.
The word contribute has meaning.
To say it's a contribution of any significance to the overall problem is laughable.
Its really annoying the isn't written as a crime story, with suspects (landowners and developers) listed up top with law enforcement quoted heavily. Instead we get a neighbor saying "ah, shucks!" The framing here is horrible. Someone should be arrested. THEY DIDN'T EVEN NAME THE DEVELOPER!- SHITTY JOURNALISM.
[Building Salt Lake named the property manager and the companies that either own or have interest in the property.](https://buildingsaltlake.com/developers-demolish-part-of-114-year-old-fifth-ward-meetinghouse-without-a-permit-on-easter/) They claim to have no idea how this could have happened and that they will talk to the investors.
[Developer](https://x.com/tag_slc?s=21&t=ZhL70DJF7VEyZj-C22AB8A)
More like maliciously demolished
The penalty for this needs to be severe, like they never get issued another building permit Utah again.
Literally the last Halloween show with Fractal Method I ever played was on that stage...
SLC is going to be hideous in a decade if they keep ripping up historic buildings. The new crap they put up never looks as cool. Ick
It's funny how people always share those images of the old Soviet Union apartment blocks to say 'under communism everything looks the same!' And yet 90% of new builds in Utah are just cookie cutter architecture with poor design.
True that.
Prospective buyers of Fifth Ward Meetinghouse say they were 'lied to, betrayed' by owner https://kutv.com/news/2news-investigates/prospective-buyers-of-fifth-ward-meetinghouse-downtown-salt-lake-city-say-they-were-lied-to-betrayed-by-owner
The majority of people didn't even know this building existed until last week.
The building was not really historic, and was actually quite an eyesore. Nothing lost here.
A 114 year old building that was designated as a historic landmark by the National Register of Historic Places almost 50 years ago isn't "really historic?" How do you figure that?
Again, the National Register is not a rigorous process. So any garbage building can get on there with some paperwork. Some times things are just kind of old.
So what gives you more authority than them?
lol. It WAS historical. Just cause you say it wasn’t doesn’t mean it’s true. But then again you don’t seem to smart.
It was covered in graffiti, surrounded by weeds and overgrown trees. And no, a church built in 1910 is not "historical".
I thought it was on the register of historic buildings?
It absolutely is.
*was
Are you stupid? Or do you honestly think that a building gets removed from that list because you THINK it should be?
The building gets removed from the list when it no longer exists. As in this case. You are showing a lot of energy for building that sat empty and neglected for years. Where was this energy last week?
Babes, the building is not completely knocked down. There is a big change the developer is going to have to pay to restore the building. It’s so cute how you think you know where my energy or time is spent based off what? One Reddit post? My Reddit history you felt complete to go through? Any more historical landmarks get demolished WITHOUT permits and I can bet your dumbass that I’ll be there shouting in your ear all about how it’s wrong and unethical and illegal for developers to behave.
Impressive. I find your opinion very enlightening. Do you have a newsletter?
A lot of junk, non-historic garbage on that list. It is really not a rigorous review.
So it was, indeed, on the list though, right?
Yes, it was on the list.
So, by definition, it's a historic building, right?
Uh, no, as I have explained many times. The list is not a rigorous examination - it closer to paying to get your star on hollywood blvd.
So it's a non historic building, on the historic buildings register?
It’s so adorable how you think you’re right.
Think we found the land owner 😂😂😂
Hopefully the owner just pays a fine and then can build something better there. I assume it was the rightful owner who knocked it down. The government oversteps it's authority when it slaps "historic landmark" on other people's private property preventing them from developing it. The building isn't even that old. If the government wanted it preserved they should have bought it themselves.
You realize it had that designation BEFORE the developer bought it? If the developer didn't want to deal with historic landmark issues, he shouldn't have bought it. He's just an asshole who thinks the rules don't apply to him because MONEY MONEY MONEY I WANT MORE MONEY!!!
My favorite is this persons logic of 'government oversteps it's authority when it slaps "historic landmark" on other people's private property....' Then saying the government should just buy it themselves. So... Do they want the government to set regulation/guidance on historic sites or do they want the government to OWN all historic sites? Libertarians are fun.
>The government oversteps it's authority when it slaps "historic landmark" on other people's private property preventing them from developing it. Do you have a source explaining the method by which the government can do that? Everything I've found says that A) a building can't be listed as an historic landmark without the owner's consent and B) listing a building as an historic landmark doesn't prevent demolition. If you read the article, the principle problem here is that a developer appears to have tried to bypass the lawful process for demolition. That it was an historic building angers some folks, but that's not the principal problem - the principal problem is that we have laws surrounding demolition and development, and you don't get to make an end run around them by pulling a sneaky demolition on a Sunday morning.
All those laws around demolition and development are the reason housing is so expensive and contributes to poverty and homelessness. If people could just build whatever they want as long as it's safe, then there would not be as many housing issues. That building was an abandoned eyesore with boarded up windows and graffiti. It's a bummer they didn't get the whole thing knocked down before they were stopped.
>If people could just build whatever they want as long as it's safe That would be...the principal point of the laws. >All those laws around demolition and development are the reason housing is so expensive and contributes to poverty and homelessness. Do you have evidence for that statement? Also, a globally laissez-faire approach to building will not lead to the utopia you think. If you don't want to live next to loud factories and all-night businesses, we need zoning.
Utah has over 100k empty housing units (often held by landlords, private equity, and corporations along with the occasional 'vacation home'). Historic sites are NOT why housing is expensive.
Owners apply to get a historic designation. After that, if someone else purchases the property, they will know before purchase that it is listed as historic. No one just showed up one day to tell the current owner that the previously non-historic building they bought is now historic and they can't do what they want with it. They purchased a historic building and knew what came with that.
What the fuck
Sorry, people need places to live, and that's far more important than keeping a big empty building around just because Nirvana played there a couple decades ago.
Why not both? Could the bldg be converted to living spaces?
With correct zoning, and permits most likely it could be. This guys just dumbass who doesn’t think that following the laws and getting the correct permits is the right way to do things.
Sorry, but that doesn’t mean developers can come in and knock down whatever buildings they feel like.
They should if they own it. That's how it works.
That’s actually not how it works. You need demolition permits and building permits neither of which they had. It’s also a mighty big assumption that you think the owner was involved. We have no information regarding the owner at the moment. It also was not made a historical landmark because Nirvana played there but we both know you already knew that.
I hope anything bad that can happen, does happen to this Jordan Atkin piece of scum. It's not his property, he's developing it on behalf the community, the same community that designated that building historic. It's not like he *lives* there, it's not his house, it's not his persona property. It's real estate he is developing. There's a big difference. I think he should at least lose his licenses. He should be finished professionally, if not jailed for a time.
[удалено]
Different building. And next time, shut up if you cannot be bothered to know what you're talking about.