But here’s another idea I had for the front of that building. Incorporate a restaurant into that front space…and use the “porch” or whatever that is for outdoor dining. Perhaps you could even use the 60s pocket park for special events or whatnot.

As noted by some important NU person…after street-level retail, the second best option is a porch. 315 has a porch…it just doesn’t use it properly.

You know, I would have totally disagreed with you because there has always been something about that building that bugged the heck out of me facing Ponce…but I was going by it this weekend and realized its not the building that bugs me its the landscape. That is a completely suburban landscape that does NOTHING for that building. It would be nice to see a complete redo of the front yard of 315, something modern and sleek that reflects the building…not just “builder grade” landscape architecture.

First off, that second quote I cited is indeed different from the first. It was on the “styles” page you originally cited. That’s why I mentioned it.

And all I’m trying to say is that there is a middle ground here. Originally you were implying that the rules were very strict, so I was giving examples of elements of the design guidelines that provide wiggle room. Now your previous comment jumps to the other extreme…essentially that the HPC makes the decisions randomly, which requires me to go back to the other side and say “of course the recommendations for materials, etc are important…”

Ultimately what I’m attempting to show is that there’s a middle ground here. And that a good architect still has many more options than some many think.

Ultimately, it comes down to the process to come up with the middle ground. And yes, that requires input from the HPC and homeowner/architect. The impetus is not just on the HPC, but on the homeowner…and if they feel like they are being kept too closely bound to the recommendations, they need to point out the reoccurring “mean nothing’ passages that I keep citing.

The real meat of the guidelines is in the specific chapters detailing what is required for materials, etc. in these buildings. If the guidelines for the historic district really don’t mean what they say, then what are you saying, it is up to the whim of 5 unelected members of the historic commission to determine what my house should look like? That’s scary and also a very good invitation for litigation.

Secondly, you again recite only half the story. Here’s the style guidelines: “new buildings should follow historic architectural styles and details; however they should also be a product of their time and distinguishable as contemporary construction.” Again, there’s room for interpretation. Same is true for the other pages you cite.

As for the front yard drought thing…as Scott said earlier “pul-leze.”

That’s just the way the guidelines are set up to prefer the traditional or historic style over others. It is a historic district (my emphasis). Otherwise, if it is just about scale and mass then zoning laws can handle that without a design review board having to approve the type of surface you can use on your driveway.

One last point I’d like to make, referring back to OAK’s comments. There’s nothing “faux” about a newly constructed Craftsman. Newly constructed homes in traditional or historic styles are either well executed or poorly executed, but there’s nothing false about them. Style revivals have occurred for as long as people have been building things.

Heck, the house that started all this is a revival of a style from a century ago which, itself, was a revival of a style from the middle ages.