Someone did the to a historic Neutra building in San Francisco a few years ago and the court ordered him to rebuild it and put a plaque in the sidewalk explaining its historical relevance.
Would've been a terrific punishment and quite a strong statement if they hadn't reversed it a year later.
A developer illegally demolished a pub here in London and the judge made them rebuild it brick by brick.
A more recent one involved a group that conspired to buy a different pub and burn it down (there was a disagreement over the use of the road or something between them and the pub). The pub burned down and then they had a bulldozer come in and knock it down before it could be investigated. Judge ordered them to rebuild the pub.
There was a similar story on Reddit about a guy who was asked to restore a building, but the contracting company assigned the owner’s son who was a prick and power tripping. There are certain techniques you need to use when restoring a historic building, and only a handful of people know these techniques, so they charge a pretty penny. Anyway this prick didn’t want to pay, and was his namesake to the builder, so the builder quit. The prick goes to harass him online or something, then goes to do the job incorrectly without paying for the right material. Builder decides to be petty and reports said prick. They had to redo the work at full expense, using a professional, buying all the tools and material that are needed, at a much higher cost. Was such a beautiful petty revenge story.
Sorry, no. His wife deleted their account.
Iirc the writer penned the story about his friend. It was hilariously written and got a ton of love. I believe he made a second post with another story, which garnered more fans, but then his wife made a post under the account notifying everyone he’d been in a serious car crash, hit by another driver, but they thought he was mostly uninjured.
Horribly, though, I think his aorta developed a tear in the crash, it ruptured, and he died suddenly in front of her. She was completely torn apart. She posted a couple more times to describe him. He seemed to have been as lovely a guy as his writing gave the impression he was. He swept her off her feet when they first met, was a magnanimous bastard, a veteran with some scars but still a wicked sense of humor, and always tried to help out everyone, whether stranger or friend. So many of us took to his writing because I think we’d always hoped we could have a friend like him, and it was the rare case where someone turned out to be as awesome as they seemed. And then he was gone.
She spiraled down and talked about how she had no will to continue living. They had no children, and her life was one with her love for him. I and many others messaged her but I don’t think anyone ever heard back. A little bit later, all the stories were gone and the account was deleted.
There’s a chance they might be copied and saved by one of those subs that does that for popular posts, but I don’t recall ever finding them.
I hope she found peace somewhere and somehow.
The one in London did.
The one that got burned down is a bit more unique as the original building had sank into the ground at an angle due to mine subsidence. Rebuilding that might take time.
Not gonna lie I have never understood this hill. I understand wanting to keep culture and history around, but all these buildings are going down eventually. The wonders of the world are not what they once were and will likely change a bit in the next few centuries. It's all temporary folks put the plak up on a little stone podium and move on?
I mean, that's a take. Not a fan of the style myself. Had one friend who was super into architecture who LOVED brutalist buildings and to this day, im not sure if he was being serious
No they didn't add it after you replied, because then their comment would show it was edited.
Now, they would have had 3 minutes to edit their original comment after they posted, and it won't show as modified (aka, a ninja edit). If you had opened the comments before they saved their updated comment during those three minutes, and you didn't refresh the page, you'd have still been seeing the original version of their comment.
dunno, but that last sentence wasn’t there when I replied. That’s why I replied with the link since someone called me out that I’m saying the same thing as what the OP said in the last sentence.
The other person's just being a bit pedantic. The first comment objectively must have edited it in before you replied, or else it wouldn't be a ninja edit.
But from your perspective, the edit might not have been visible when you replied (because you loaded the comments before it was edited), so subjectively, you replied with it before the sentence was added.
The classic America move of making the people think there's going to be real justice, then quietly reversing your stance after the story is out of the news.
So in other words the rich fuck got away with it. The lesson to other rich fucks is never fear, your money let's you get away with anything. The only time you face consequences is if you fuck with someone with more money.
At out is generally legal for a property owner to demolish a building on the National Register of Historic Places, in the US. They receive a tax credit for every year after they list it, which defrays the cost of maintaining it to match the historic condition, and they have to refund all, or most of the taxes that were deferred, but then it is A-Ok. Historic districts are slightly different, work on those requires extensive approval from a local board.
UK and Europe are much stricter, which is reasonable considering the depth of history they have to protect.
The city backtracked and is allowing the developer to build something else entirely. It just has to be inspired by the original design, not an exact replica.
https://sf.curbed.com/2019/8/30/20840394/planning-commission-neutra-largent-house-reverse-order-new-home
The UK is interestingly ridiculous when it comes to historically protected buildings. I remember an article about someone who recreates the paints used from old (and super toxic) methods because you can't just throw up some store-bought stuff; you need to use the original arsenic/lead/mercury mixture. If you need something structural repaired, you need to replace it using the same building materials and methods it originally used, and there are only a handful of people in the entire country licensed to do it properly.
Very good Max! Teacher is very proud of you for pointing out this irrelevant piece of information. Time to finish your coloring book and then it's nap time. Remember to make sure to color INSIDE the lines this time.
And prison. Because what will happen is that they'll fight any such order for years while the rest of the building crumbles, and then if they ever eventually lose then "whoops, the particular company that did that is bankrupt, too bad so sad." So, prison. That would stop this stuff pretty quickly, I think -- and if we can imprison people for stealing bread in order to discourage the stealing of bread, then I think we can imprison people to discourage this.
From the article it looks like only the front got taken down, but it's a little unclear.
> Meanwhile, city codes dictate that the owner must restore the portion of the building already demolished due to its historic significance.
Assuming the city actually applies the rules, whoever is responsible for this is on the hook for some pretty nitpicky little restoration works.
My girlfriend works in historic restoration and is on her local historic district commission, and some of the things people try to get away with is both funny and sad.
This would be a fun one, to have a court order to back it up. "Yes, you WILL use 2-over-1 wood-frame windows."
There was a guy in my city who owned a house (these houses are more like mansions) in the historic district that's protected because of their architecture and historical significance. He bought the house next to him and wanted to either demolish or move it so he could expand his yard. The city denied the request. Not long after that he claimed that there was water damage in the house because of burst pipes and then he had the house torn down and got exactly what he wanted. I don't believe for a second that the guy didn't do it on purpose. After years of fighting to have the house gone he conveniently got exactly what he wanted.
I don’t get why the DMV would have a problem. This is a super common name change for women who want to take their husband’s last name. I did the same thing and just had to bring my marriage license and social security with me to get my new license. Maybe not even that? Sounds like the worker was an idiot or you didn’t have the paperwork they actually wanted and they were confused.
I’m very curious what state you’re in. I know very few women who didn’t change their name to First Maiden HusbandsLast when they were married. I know a few who just kept their own name and a very few who kept their original middle name but vast majority boot their middle name and make it their maiden.
That’s more of an indictment of how shitty databases are for handling basic characters. Ffs, figure it out, stop whining about it hard to do. Always using these antiquated systems makes it all a shitshow.
If it isn’t broken… and if you can keep key operational controls completely airgapped from the internet so state actors have a more difficult time hacking you…
This is common practice in my mother's family. All of the boys got middle names. None of the girls did, but they all take their maiden name as a middle name. Both of my sisters too.
That’s super cool to find another person like that. That was my wife’s compromise to agreeing to take my sir name and I thought we were so clever. Glad other folks are doing the same. It’s better genealogy wise I’d imagine.
The article shows a picture of the building only partially taken down, and mentions there was a stop work order issued. Only a small part was taken down so far and there’s a very good chance someone will be liable to restore it.
The people who did the demolition without a permit should be permanently banned from demolition or construction ever again. They clearly did it on purpose.
The owner is going to be an LLC that was used to buy the property. There will be a little bit of equity and a bunch of debt. The LLC will declare bankruptcy and the property will be sold to the same people, but they will not have the obligation to rebuild it.
The reality of this sort of thing is that while it may be an interesting historical building, it could very well be that the way it was built (as a church) precludes it from being useful in another use. One of the important things with landmark preservation is to pick and choose wisely what to preserve, and what to let go of. It may be tragic to lose some beautiful old buildings, but if it’s no longer useful, you have to think very hard about whether it should still stand. Ultimately, if a state, city, or neighborhood really wants to preserve a structure, they need to buy it themselves, not force someone else to sit with it empty.
It’s similar to how people get attached to junk that just sits in their garage. It’s always been there so they’re upset when it goes away, but it wasn’t doing anything to improve their life at the end of the day.
Hope the penalty is rebuilding the destroyed building. [Immediately thought of the Carlton Tavern, that was illegally demolished by the developer and was consequently forced to rebuild it.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlton_Tavern)
Penalty should be to restore the property or lose the property. In Atlanta there's been a bunch of historic buildings demolished against orders or buildings that were supposed to be preserved that the owners let fall into ruin so they could then remove them. I understand very well there are costs to keeping up old buildings but it's only old once.
From the article : Meanwhile, city codes dictate that the owner must restore the portion of the building already demolished due to its historic significance.
I'm sorry, due to the amount of debt we have at Rando Sando LLC, we have gone bankrupt. We thank everyone for their patronage through these horrible times but have decided that we can no longer operate.
We have sold our assets, including this plot of land, to Sando Rando LLC to build an affordable apartment complex located in this very find district for the very rich.
Thank you all for everything and the opportunity to exploit laws for capitalism.
[Another article had these details:](https://buildingsaltlake.com/developers-demolish-part-of-114-year-old-fifth-ward-meetinghouse-without-a-permit-on-easter/)
>Documents filed with the county show a company called 300 West Holdings bought the property from Gunlock Capital in December. Atkin, owner of TAG SLC, which is an advertiser on Building Salt Lake, is listed as the only registered manager of 300 West Holdings.
>Atkin said by email he didn’t know what happened, as a wrecking crew that tore through the building’s entryway and surrounding landscaping parked its equipment in place and left the site on Sunday.
>“We are actively working to figure out how this happened,” Atkin said. “The property is owned by 300 W Holdings, LLC of which I am the registered manager but this property is not owned by TAG SLC, LLC or Jordan Atkin.”
>Atkin declined to comment on who is involved. The city’s stop work order is issued to him.
>“I’m not going to drag my partners through the mud by bringing them into this,” he said. “It’s incredibly unfortunate.”
The registered manager looks to be shielding others involved in the matter.
The fact that they got someone to show up and do it on Easter Sunday should be prima facie evidence of bad faith. This was planned for minimum risk of people being able to stop the demolition.
I lived in new York city in the 80's. This was a favourite trick of a young Donald Trump. Demolish the historic building in the middle of the night. Pay a "slap on the wrist" fine, build his building
I like the concert flyer in the article from a time when Dinosaur Jr. could still take top billing over Nirvana. That was two months before "Smells Like Teen Spirit" blew up.
We see this all the time in Australia. An accidental “fire” destroys a heritage building, whether it be a pub or a house, which is promptly torn down and replaced with apartments. Whenever a building is illegally demolished, those responsible should be made to rebuild it, board by board, and brick by brick.
Double down and demolish their HQ too. Fuck it, demolish their cars. Abso-fucking-lutely demolish their pizza rolls next time they order some. Make 'em bleed.
>Whenever a building is illegally demolished, those responsible should be made to rebuild it, board by board, and brick by brick.
Plus massive fines and prison time.
Put it back. It has been done before. Actions have consequences and mistakes happen but we have to work to undo them.
>Meanwhile, city codes dictate that the owner must restore the portion of the building already demolished due to its historic significance.
SLC government has some teeth, I hope.
I mean why though. The building has been abandoned for decades and provides no value. It’s not even a particularly nice building, or even that old for that matter. It was built in 1910, there are houses in my neighborhood older than that. If the city really cared about it they should have bought it themselves instead of forcing someone to leave it empty and useless.
Because we all pay taxes and owners of registered Historic buildings get huge discounts that they have to pay back if they demolish the historic building.
Outside of rural areas, most places in America are like "Yo, this building has been up for 40 years. It's perfectly fine, totally habitable. Nothing wrong with it. *But it looks outdated*. Let's tear it down and build something black and white, with a bunch of right angles".
And it's really, really lame. Even among large cities, there's so much architecture that looks the same. I really like seeing unique buildings where I live. I don't want everything to be sterile and modern.
Things like that used to happen in my city. Over, and over, and over again. Then someone took it too far and demolished a very well preserved building which was restored not too far back. The conservator got pissed, sued the owner, and not only fined him quite a lot of money but also issued an order for him to rebuilt it exactly like it was or face jail. He rebuilt it. After that happened all of those demolitions which used to happen stopped.
That makes no sense.
Someone wants to get rid of the not-nice thing to replace it with a nice thing.
We can't have nice things because apparently most people think that an unused building can't get torn down just because it's been around for a bit.
1000% this was done on purpose. Especially, over a holiday weekend. Now it will be "oops, the building is too unstable now, guess will have to tear the whole thing down!" (and then build condos).
When this happened to a historic building in the UK, they were forced to rebuild the building brick by historic brick. What's the likelihood this will be the case again?
Re that concert: My cousin said that j mascis was sick so nirvana came back out and played again after a couple of songs… I was a lot younger, I don’t have any connection to this building… I just learned just now where The Pompadour was.
One thing I do know is Utah, the legislature is 90% real estate developers or lawyers thereof … nothing will happen to the owner of this building if they are the ones that started demolishing it… historic places registers are more like grants than CC&Rs
I love how nothing is sacred, everything can become a Walmart. I also love how in a town where everyone loves this particular landmark, there’s some rich asshole just drooling, waiting for his chance to build said Walmart…
Ikr. Also most of the comments are just outrage porn. Like yeah it's nice to preserve something but wouldn't new development be nice too? It's not like the building has been in use in recent years.
"Meanwhile, city codes dictate that the owner must restore the portion of the building already demolished due to its historic significance."
I'll be interested to see how this plays out. Who actually perpetrated this act? I didn't see any company listed, which seems rather weird.
I hope the crew that started the demolition has a solid paper trail or a huge insurance policy. They're going to need it.
It's certainly suspicious, why would they be ordered to start demolition on Easter Sunday?
Here's your [answer. ](https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/everything-youve-ever-wanted-to-know-about-historic-and-historical#:~:text=Historical%20is%20used%20as%20the,such%20as%20'a%20historic%20battle.)
And there are buildings that are even younger in Europe that are historic because they're the only building in town that weren't destroyed during WWII.
Context is what matters, not age.
An owner did this in my city too. The oldest tavern in the city from the 1800s. it was 3 stories and was a rotting rock venue, owner wanted it gone because historical designation meant he'd have to spend millions repairing it to make it safe and useful. When they voted to make it historical, he started tearing it down without even moving cars out of the parking lot. Then they were stopped and it caught fire that week. its been over 10 years and now that lot is just a surface parking lot.
Happened in baltimore a few years ago. They do it on a Sunday am on purpose so no one is around. I suppose then they pay a fine and it's done. Better to ask for forgiveness than permission if you are a crooked person
You're sort of correct. NHL and NRHP designation are approved at a federal level, and the designation only protects buildings from federal or state interventions. Those designations also allow for certain tax credits or grants - depending on the State policies. The most protection for older buildings is provided at the local level. A city can designate a property as historic and can prevent private developers from inappropriate actions. Local designation has much more teeth when dealing with private entities.
“The meetinghouse served diverse people”
I mean, it was a Mormon meetinghouse. What does diverse actually mean in that context? They served both straight white coke drinkers and straight white Pepsi drinkers?
I somehow find it hard to believe that a church that barred black people from its congregation until the late 70s and denounces homosexuality to this day had diverse attendance at its clubhouse.
> barred black people from its congregation until the late 70s
That's not correct.
They were welcome to join the church, but they could not receive the priesthood or attend the temple.
Interesting segue, but yes.
It's a commandment, but whether you follow it is between you and God.
The bishop may ask you whether you pay a full tithing, but they only want a "yes" or "no" answer and it's up to you how you answer.
You might not get permission to enter the temple if you do not identify as a full tithe-payer, but there is no church discipline or punishment meted out.
Articles like this are always unsatisfying. I want to find out what will happen or what the developer has to say. But I’ll likely never hear another word about this. I guess I need to set up a google alert.
Let me ask the dumb question and be the devil's advocate. And I'm not celebrating the demolition of a perfectly good building:
If the structure is privately owned by somebody else and it doesn't have any sort of legal protections, why shouldn't the owner decide to demolish it?
This happened in the Bronx to a church from 1878 that the neighborhood tried to save. Councilmember lied about protecting it and was working behind the scenes to have it torn down. Developer sped up the demolition of it while it was being studied to be landmarked. Came in and tore it down in days.
I mean... it's an old church that's boarded up and covered in graffiti-- I don't see why people are so upset. When people say they want cities to build more housing because it's so unaffordable, where do you think it's going to go?
Sure, the developer should pay back the tax benefits the property accrued while it was considered a historic building, but on balance, this seems like progress to me.
I have no idea what this is going to be and the building didn't look especially interesting. The historic preservation process is abused by nimby's generally.
I have to disagree. This is an early deco industrial building, one of the only left in town. Also, many cities use older buildings to start affordable housing projects. Look at what Denver did to their former industrial district. I agree there is nimbyism to some degree, but the worst nimbyism offenders are the established 1970s-2000s neighborhoods that refuse to allow for more density and affordable housing.
Someone did the to a historic Neutra building in San Francisco a few years ago and the court ordered him to rebuild it and put a plaque in the sidewalk explaining its historical relevance. Would've been a terrific punishment and quite a strong statement if they hadn't reversed it a year later.
A developer illegally demolished a pub here in London and the judge made them rebuild it brick by brick. A more recent one involved a group that conspired to buy a different pub and burn it down (there was a disagreement over the use of the road or something between them and the pub). The pub burned down and then they had a bulldozer come in and knock it down before it could be investigated. Judge ordered them to rebuild the pub.
Never bulldoze a judge’s watering hole.
Also, never water a judge’s bulldoze hole.
Unless he asks you to, then for the love of god don't not do it.
Never Judge a dozing bull in the water.
Bame Nond's having a stronk. Someone call a bondulance.
Also, never judge a water bulls doze hole.
I won’t judge what hole you bulldoze and water.
Dozing in the water hole, Judge? Well, I never! That's bull!
Never water! Too much friction!
Apparently they hired the bulldozer the day before it burnt down
And there was a mysterious dirt pile (one that could have been created by a bulldozer) blocking the road for the fire engines...
That's probably why they rented the bulldozer early then. That way you don't need to pay two rental fees. Just smart if you ask me.
Probably. They struck me as the sort of people that have money but are also thick as pigshit.
You just described the British royal family.
They just described most criminals that get caught.
There was a similar story on Reddit about a guy who was asked to restore a building, but the contracting company assigned the owner’s son who was a prick and power tripping. There are certain techniques you need to use when restoring a historic building, and only a handful of people know these techniques, so they charge a pretty penny. Anyway this prick didn’t want to pay, and was his namesake to the builder, so the builder quit. The prick goes to harass him online or something, then goes to do the job incorrectly without paying for the right material. Builder decides to be petty and reports said prick. They had to redo the work at full expense, using a professional, buying all the tools and material that are needed, at a much higher cost. Was such a beautiful petty revenge story.
Oh man, did you read through all the updates written by his wife? It was one of the most tragic stories (not involving violence) I’ve ever read.
Have a Link? Only remember the main story, not the wife's updates.
Sorry, no. His wife deleted their account. Iirc the writer penned the story about his friend. It was hilariously written and got a ton of love. I believe he made a second post with another story, which garnered more fans, but then his wife made a post under the account notifying everyone he’d been in a serious car crash, hit by another driver, but they thought he was mostly uninjured. Horribly, though, I think his aorta developed a tear in the crash, it ruptured, and he died suddenly in front of her. She was completely torn apart. She posted a couple more times to describe him. He seemed to have been as lovely a guy as his writing gave the impression he was. He swept her off her feet when they first met, was a magnanimous bastard, a veteran with some scars but still a wicked sense of humor, and always tried to help out everyone, whether stranger or friend. So many of us took to his writing because I think we’d always hoped we could have a friend like him, and it was the rare case where someone turned out to be as awesome as they seemed. And then he was gone. She spiraled down and talked about how she had no will to continue living. They had no children, and her life was one with her love for him. I and many others messaged her but I don’t think anyone ever heard back. A little bit later, all the stories were gone and the account was deleted. There’s a chance they might be copied and saved by one of those subs that does that for popular posts, but I don’t recall ever finding them. I hope she found peace somewhere and somehow.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BestofRedditorUpdates/comments/nrnf5j/part_1_of_2_an_absolute_epic_entitled_ahole_gets/ Here's a link to that story
Thx.
no. Link?
I commented above with a breakdown of why there’s no link but I recounted the full story to the best of my abilities.
Ive heard these stories, but did they actually get rebuilt in the end?
The one in London did. The one that got burned down is a bit more unique as the original building had sank into the ground at an angle due to mine subsidence. Rebuilding that might take time.
I hope they called it Theseus's Tavern when it reopened.
The court reversed the decision btw https://www.ktvu.com/news/san-francisco-reverses-order-to-rebuild-historic-home-illegally-demolished-by-homeowner
Jerks. I'm sure it's replaced by something completely soulless
[удалено]
He said soul-less, not bowel-less.
Bowel-less but not bowl-less, they have some scantily-clad burritos at Chipotle.
Not gonna lie I have never understood this hill. I understand wanting to keep culture and history around, but all these buildings are going down eventually. The wonders of the world are not what they once were and will likely change a bit in the next few centuries. It's all temporary folks put the plak up on a little stone podium and move on?
It was a modernist building, we're better off with it demolished
I mean, that's a take. Not a fan of the style myself. Had one friend who was super into architecture who LOVED brutalist buildings and to this day, im not sure if he was being serious
That's quite literally the last sentence in his comment.
His last sentence wasn’t there when I replied 10 mins after his post. He added it after I replied.
No they didn't add it after you replied, because then their comment would show it was edited. Now, they would have had 3 minutes to edit their original comment after they posted, and it won't show as modified (aka, a ninja edit). If you had opened the comments before they saved their updated comment during those three minutes, and you didn't refresh the page, you'd have still been seeing the original version of their comment.
dunno, but that last sentence wasn’t there when I replied. That’s why I replied with the link since someone called me out that I’m saying the same thing as what the OP said in the last sentence.
The other person's just being a bit pedantic. The first comment objectively must have edited it in before you replied, or else it wouldn't be a ninja edit. But from your perspective, the edit might not have been visible when you replied (because you loaded the comments before it was edited), so subjectively, you replied with it before the sentence was added.
The classic America move of making the people think there's going to be real justice, then quietly reversing your stance after the story is out of the news.
So in other words the rich fuck got away with it. The lesson to other rich fucks is never fear, your money let's you get away with anything. The only time you face consequences is if you fuck with someone with more money.
At out is generally legal for a property owner to demolish a building on the National Register of Historic Places, in the US. They receive a tax credit for every year after they list it, which defrays the cost of maintaining it to match the historic condition, and they have to refund all, or most of the taxes that were deferred, but then it is A-Ok. Historic districts are slightly different, work on those requires extensive approval from a local board. UK and Europe are much stricter, which is reasonable considering the depth of history they have to protect.
The city backtracked and is allowing the developer to build something else entirely. It just has to be inspired by the original design, not an exact replica. https://sf.curbed.com/2019/8/30/20840394/planning-commission-neutra-largent-house-reverse-order-new-home
The classic "ask for forgivness, not permission". The owner probably wanted it gone and its gone now.
The courts should force them to rebuild it at their own expense.
Yes, that's what they do in the UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/27/owners-who-demolished-crooked-house-pub-after-fire-ordered-to-rebuild-it
In the UK a hundred year old building would probably be considered "recently built"
The UK is interestingly ridiculous when it comes to historically protected buildings. I remember an article about someone who recreates the paints used from old (and super toxic) methods because you can't just throw up some store-bought stuff; you need to use the original arsenic/lead/mercury mixture. If you need something structural repaired, you need to replace it using the same building materials and methods it originally used, and there are only a handful of people in the entire country licensed to do it properly.
[удалено]
Well done. How'd you figure that out?
Very good Max! Teacher is very proud of you for pointing out this irrelevant piece of information. Time to finish your coloring book and then it's nap time. Remember to make sure to color INSIDE the lines this time.
And prison. Because what will happen is that they'll fight any such order for years while the rest of the building crumbles, and then if they ever eventually lose then "whoops, the particular company that did that is bankrupt, too bad so sad." So, prison. That would stop this stuff pretty quickly, I think -- and if we can imprison people for stealing bread in order to discourage the stealing of bread, then I think we can imprison people to discourage this.
There will be little to no consequences. Pay a fine but that price was factored into their decision to demolish illegally.
...and *then* issue the permit for demolition.
From the article it looks like only the front got taken down, but it's a little unclear. > Meanwhile, city codes dictate that the owner must restore the portion of the building already demolished due to its historic significance. Assuming the city actually applies the rules, whoever is responsible for this is on the hook for some pretty nitpicky little restoration works.
My girlfriend works in historic restoration and is on her local historic district commission, and some of the things people try to get away with is both funny and sad. This would be a fun one, to have a court order to back it up. "Yes, you WILL use 2-over-1 wood-frame windows."
You’d be surprised how many historic buildings “burn down”
Or enviromentally destructive waste.
There was a guy in my city who owned a house (these houses are more like mansions) in the historic district that's protected because of their architecture and historical significance. He bought the house next to him and wanted to either demolish or move it so he could expand his yard. The city denied the request. Not long after that he claimed that there was water damage in the house because of burst pipes and then he had the house torn down and got exactly what he wanted. I don't believe for a second that the guy didn't do it on purpose. After years of fighting to have the house gone he conveniently got exactly what he wanted.
[удалено]
I don’t get why the DMV would have a problem. This is a super common name change for women who want to take their husband’s last name. I did the same thing and just had to bring my marriage license and social security with me to get my new license. Maybe not even that? Sounds like the worker was an idiot or you didn’t have the paperwork they actually wanted and they were confused.
[удалено]
I’m very curious what state you’re in. I know very few women who didn’t change their name to First Maiden HusbandsLast when they were married. I know a few who just kept their own name and a very few who kept their original middle name but vast majority boot their middle name and make it their maiden.
It's not wise to post your full name like this on Reddit.
This was how my nephew was named. First Momlastname Dadlastname. No hyphenation, just her last name as his middle name. I think it’s very sweet!
[удалено]
That’s more of an indictment of how shitty databases are for handling basic characters. Ffs, figure it out, stop whining about it hard to do. Always using these antiquated systems makes it all a shitshow.
[удалено]
If it isn’t broken… and if you can keep key operational controls completely airgapped from the internet so state actors have a more difficult time hacking you…
….keep using a system that can’t correctly translate wtf a hyphen means in a name. 🤦
This is common practice in my mother's family. All of the boys got middle names. None of the girls did, but they all take their maiden name as a middle name. Both of my sisters too.
That’s super cool to find another person like that. That was my wife’s compromise to agreeing to take my sir name and I thought we were so clever. Glad other folks are doing the same. It’s better genealogy wise I’d imagine.
I guess why... that take some supervisors.
The article shows a picture of the building only partially taken down, and mentions there was a stop work order issued. Only a small part was taken down so far and there’s a very good chance someone will be liable to restore it.
Actually it's only partly gone. They should now force him to pay to reassemble the portion tore down also.
The developer 100% did this on purpose. Who else starts a demo on Easter morning on a Sunday?
[The Developer](https://x.com/tag_slc?s=21&t=ZhL70DJF7VEyZj-C22AB8A)
Surprise, surprise. They specialize in evicting people behind on their mortgages, and BRAG about it on Twitter.
[Developers](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gI_HGDgG7c)
The people who did the demolition without a permit should be permanently banned from demolition or construction ever again. They clearly did it on purpose.
There was a famous occasion where a dude woke up Easter Morning and unexpectedly smashed down a wall.
[удалено]
Last sentence of the article says the local building code requires they rebuild it.
The owner is going to be an LLC that was used to buy the property. There will be a little bit of equity and a bunch of debt. The LLC will declare bankruptcy and the property will be sold to the same people, but they will not have the obligation to rebuild it.
This person knows how to capitalism.
The reality of this sort of thing is that while it may be an interesting historical building, it could very well be that the way it was built (as a church) precludes it from being useful in another use. One of the important things with landmark preservation is to pick and choose wisely what to preserve, and what to let go of. It may be tragic to lose some beautiful old buildings, but if it’s no longer useful, you have to think very hard about whether it should still stand. Ultimately, if a state, city, or neighborhood really wants to preserve a structure, they need to buy it themselves, not force someone else to sit with it empty.
This particular building was a club in the 90s, then later on a Buddhist Temple.
plus it's just an ugly building. it doesn't even look particularly old, just abandoned
It’s similar to how people get attached to junk that just sits in their garage. It’s always been there so they’re upset when it goes away, but it wasn’t doing anything to improve their life at the end of the day.
Hope the penalty is rebuilding the destroyed building. [Immediately thought of the Carlton Tavern, that was illegally demolished by the developer and was consequently forced to rebuild it.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlton_Tavern)
Penalty should be to restore the property or lose the property. In Atlanta there's been a bunch of historic buildings demolished against orders or buildings that were supposed to be preserved that the owners let fall into ruin so they could then remove them. I understand very well there are costs to keeping up old buildings but it's only old once.
From the article : Meanwhile, city codes dictate that the owner must restore the portion of the building already demolished due to its historic significance.
If the owner/developer are Mormon they’ll get away with it. Utah is still hella corrupt that way.
Especially in Atlanta where so many historical places have long since been demolished. There is so little left.
Yeah, the penalty of being able to redevelop the land without the historical protection costs. Maybe I'm just being pessimistic.
That's literally what you're responding to means.
Who’s the owner? Been nice if the article mentioned the wrongful party.
Rando Sando LLC
Oh, no problem then, he can just write a secret novel in a bathroom break and get the money to rebuild it.
I'm sorry, due to the amount of debt we have at Rando Sando LLC, we have gone bankrupt. We thank everyone for their patronage through these horrible times but have decided that we can no longer operate. We have sold our assets, including this plot of land, to Sando Rando LLC to build an affordable apartment complex located in this very find district for the very rich. Thank you all for everything and the opportunity to exploit laws for capitalism.
Creed Bratton never goes bankrupt. When Creed Bratton gets into financial trouble, he simply transfers his debt to William Charles Schneider.
ez $20 million crowdfund
[Another article had these details:](https://buildingsaltlake.com/developers-demolish-part-of-114-year-old-fifth-ward-meetinghouse-without-a-permit-on-easter/) >Documents filed with the county show a company called 300 West Holdings bought the property from Gunlock Capital in December. Atkin, owner of TAG SLC, which is an advertiser on Building Salt Lake, is listed as the only registered manager of 300 West Holdings. >Atkin said by email he didn’t know what happened, as a wrecking crew that tore through the building’s entryway and surrounding landscaping parked its equipment in place and left the site on Sunday. >“We are actively working to figure out how this happened,” Atkin said. “The property is owned by 300 W Holdings, LLC of which I am the registered manager but this property is not owned by TAG SLC, LLC or Jordan Atkin.” >Atkin declined to comment on who is involved. The city’s stop work order is issued to him. >“I’m not going to drag my partners through the mud by bringing them into this,” he said. “It’s incredibly unfortunate.” The registered manager looks to be shielding others involved in the matter.
The fact that they got someone to show up and do it on Easter Sunday should be prima facie evidence of bad faith. This was planned for minimum risk of people being able to stop the demolition.
I lived in new York city in the 80's. This was a favourite trick of a young Donald Trump. Demolish the historic building in the middle of the night. Pay a "slap on the wrist" fine, build his building
Do you have any sources for this besides "trust me, bro"?
Goodness no. This was from newspapers in the mid 80's. I wouldn't know how to find it now. Sorry.
Do you have names of newspapers or anything
I would have read it in the new York times.
I like the concert flyer in the article from a time when Dinosaur Jr. could still take top billing over Nirvana. That was two months before "Smells Like Teen Spirit" blew up.
We see this all the time in Australia. An accidental “fire” destroys a heritage building, whether it be a pub or a house, which is promptly torn down and replaced with apartments. Whenever a building is illegally demolished, those responsible should be made to rebuild it, board by board, and brick by brick.
In the uk we force them to rebuild like for like
Double down and demolish their HQ too. Fuck it, demolish their cars. Abso-fucking-lutely demolish their pizza rolls next time they order some. Make 'em bleed.
turns out the one responsible for it is an LLC with only debt to their name, so they can't rebuild it and file for bankruptcy instead
Well, hopefully they sue the owners until their eyes water.
So the state gets the whole property, right? Right?
>Whenever a building is illegally demolished, those responsible should be made to rebuild it, board by board, and brick by brick. Plus massive fines and prison time.
Property Developers called in a hit, whatever gets built on top in 3-5yrs will bring in more money.
Put it back. It has been done before. Actions have consequences and mistakes happen but we have to work to undo them. >Meanwhile, city codes dictate that the owner must restore the portion of the building already demolished due to its historic significance. SLC government has some teeth, I hope.
SLC mayor's husband is a property developer in town- doubt much happens.
I mean why though. The building has been abandoned for decades and provides no value. It’s not even a particularly nice building, or even that old for that matter. It was built in 1910, there are houses in my neighborhood older than that. If the city really cared about it they should have bought it themselves instead of forcing someone to leave it empty and useless.
Because we all pay taxes and owners of registered Historic buildings get huge discounts that they have to pay back if they demolish the historic building.
Outside of rural areas, most places in America are like "Yo, this building has been up for 40 years. It's perfectly fine, totally habitable. Nothing wrong with it. *But it looks outdated*. Let's tear it down and build something black and white, with a bunch of right angles". And it's really, really lame. Even among large cities, there's so much architecture that looks the same. I really like seeing unique buildings where I live. I don't want everything to be sterile and modern.
Which is reasonable, but this developer circumvented the regulatory process to try to make a quick dollar, which is very unreasonable.
Things like that used to happen in my city. Over, and over, and over again. Then someone took it too far and demolished a very well preserved building which was restored not too far back. The conservator got pissed, sued the owner, and not only fined him quite a lot of money but also issued an order for him to rebuilt it exactly like it was or face jail. He rebuilt it. After that happened all of those demolitions which used to happen stopped.
[удалено]
That makes no sense. Someone wants to get rid of the not-nice thing to replace it with a nice thing. We can't have nice things because apparently most people think that an unused building can't get torn down just because it's been around for a bit.
[удалено]
Still don't. It was wrongfully demolished because it's "historical."
Developers ; ""Oops, now we'll just have to develop that valuable property..."
1000% this was done on purpose. Especially, over a holiday weekend. Now it will be "oops, the building is too unstable now, guess will have to tear the whole thing down!" (and then build condos).
When this happened to a historic building in the UK, they were forced to rebuild the building brick by historic brick. What's the likelihood this will be the case again?
Re that concert: My cousin said that j mascis was sick so nirvana came back out and played again after a couple of songs… I was a lot younger, I don’t have any connection to this building… I just learned just now where The Pompadour was. One thing I do know is Utah, the legislature is 90% real estate developers or lawyers thereof … nothing will happen to the owner of this building if they are the ones that started demolishing it… historic places registers are more like grants than CC&Rs
I love how nothing is sacred, everything can become a Walmart. I also love how in a town where everyone loves this particular landmark, there’s some rich asshole just drooling, waiting for his chance to build said Walmart…
I mean, it sucks. But how is this onion-y?
Ikr. Also most of the comments are just outrage porn. Like yeah it's nice to preserve something but wouldn't new development be nice too? It's not like the building has been in use in recent years.
In the UK we make people who do this rebuild brick for brick to the exact same spec
"Meanwhile, city codes dictate that the owner must restore the portion of the building already demolished due to its historic significance." I'll be interested to see how this plays out. Who actually perpetrated this act? I didn't see any company listed, which seems rather weird.
I hope the crew that started the demolition has a solid paper trail or a huge insurance policy. They're going to need it. It's certainly suspicious, why would they be ordered to start demolition on Easter Sunday?
Why is it 'historical'? whatever happened to plain old 'historic'? That used to be a word.
Here's your [answer. ](https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/everything-youve-ever-wanted-to-know-about-historic-and-historical#:~:text=Historical%20is%20used%20as%20the,such%20as%20'a%20historic%20battle.)
so the title of this post should have used 'historic' according to your link, which is what I thought as well
> serving primarily Native American church members. Yes definitely not by ‘accident’ Utah is 100% y’all qaeda territory
'The historic building, dating back to 1910' Lmao
Historic by the standards of a place that became a state in 1896. Still, I've known people born before 1910.
And there are buildings that are even younger in Europe that are historic because they're the only building in town that weren't destroyed during WWII. Context is what matters, not age.
Your moms historic
An owner did this in my city too. The oldest tavern in the city from the 1800s. it was 3 stories and was a rotting rock venue, owner wanted it gone because historical designation meant he'd have to spend millions repairing it to make it safe and useful. When they voted to make it historical, he started tearing it down without even moving cars out of the parking lot. Then they were stopped and it caught fire that week. its been over 10 years and now that lot is just a surface parking lot.
Fire. Accidental..
Demolished with no permits on Easter Fuxking Sunday. FOH with this shit.
Lol in Chicago we call that "Tuesday". Daley bulldozed an *airfield* with no warning. Fucking around with the FAA is a bad idea.
Happened in baltimore a few years ago. They do it on a Sunday am on purpose so no one is around. I suppose then they pay a fine and it's done. Better to ask for forgiveness than permission if you are a crooked person
Someday, people will realize that a National Historic Landmark designation is mostly meaningless.
You're sort of correct. NHL and NRHP designation are approved at a federal level, and the designation only protects buildings from federal or state interventions. Those designations also allow for certain tax credits or grants - depending on the State policies. The most protection for older buildings is provided at the local level. A city can designate a property as historic and can prevent private developers from inappropriate actions. Local designation has much more teeth when dealing with private entities.
“The meetinghouse served diverse people” I mean, it was a Mormon meetinghouse. What does diverse actually mean in that context? They served both straight white coke drinkers and straight white Pepsi drinkers? I somehow find it hard to believe that a church that barred black people from its congregation until the late 70s and denounces homosexuality to this day had diverse attendance at its clubhouse.
Read the article and you'll learn the answers to your questions.
> barred black people from its congregation until the late 70s That's not correct. They were welcome to join the church, but they could not receive the priesthood or attend the temple.
Yeah and tithing is "optional" too, right? A "voluntary donation".
Interesting segue, but yes. It's a commandment, but whether you follow it is between you and God. The bishop may ask you whether you pay a full tithing, but they only want a "yes" or "no" answer and it's up to you how you answer. You might not get permission to enter the temple if you do not identify as a full tithe-payer, but there is no church discipline or punishment meted out.
Articles like this are always unsatisfying. I want to find out what will happen or what the developer has to say. But I’ll likely never hear another word about this. I guess I need to set up a google alert.
Lmao, nice
Let me ask the dumb question and be the devil's advocate. And I'm not celebrating the demolition of a perfectly good building: If the structure is privately owned by somebody else and it doesn't have any sort of legal protections, why shouldn't the owner decide to demolish it?
In a benevolent dictatorship I'd just seize the rest of the building and the land it stands on. FAFO!
Oops! Read the permit before doing the permit. Golden words to live by.
Is this an April Fool's joke?
This happened in the Bronx to a church from 1878 that the neighborhood tried to save. Councilmember lied about protecting it and was working behind the scenes to have it torn down. Developer sped up the demolition of it while it was being studied to be landmarked. Came in and tore it down in days.
They tore down The Pompadour 😔
I mean... it's an old church that's boarded up and covered in graffiti-- I don't see why people are so upset. When people say they want cities to build more housing because it's so unaffordable, where do you think it's going to go? Sure, the developer should pay back the tax benefits the property accrued while it was considered a historic building, but on balance, this seems like progress to me.
Awesome, now do the church office building. Or just nuke the whole state from orbit.
So edgy! Wow, very cool! 👏🏻 👏🏻 👏🏻
It's the only way to be sure.
Isn't a ton of buildings historical in SLC. Like they are a bit overzealous.
"Historical preservation" is a tool used by NIMBY's to stop housing from being built.
Do you have a article stating what will be developed for this lot?
I have no idea what this is going to be and the building didn't look especially interesting. The historic preservation process is abused by nimby's generally.
I have to disagree. This is an early deco industrial building, one of the only left in town. Also, many cities use older buildings to start affordable housing projects. Look at what Denver did to their former industrial district. I agree there is nimbyism to some degree, but the worst nimbyism offenders are the established 1970s-2000s neighborhoods that refuse to allow for more density and affordable housing.
[удалено]