- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: House in BR built in 1956, previous owners trying to save it
Posted on 4/15/19 at 8:40 pm to Martini
Posted on 4/15/19 at 8:40 pm to Martini
Apparently you know nothing about zoning. The lot is 1.37 acers and is zoned A-1. The requirements for a lot in A-1 zoning are a minimum of 10,500 square feet and 75 feet of frontage on the city street. Do the math and you could possibly get 5 houses on the lot depending on the demensions of the lot and frontages. Unfortunately there is nothing any of the neighbors or the city can do about this because the lots would meet the minimum requirements of A-1 zoning.
1
Posted on 4/15/19 at 8:43 pm to Vestigial Morgan
quote:
What about the 40's..or Frank Lloyd Wrights 1930's stuff...but 3 tract houses crowbarred into the space that one one used to reside on, that's acceptable? Unfortunately the developer has the right (presuming code allows for 3 houses on it) but ...maybe the developer will do something worthwhile, something other that three floorpans but in differnt colors
Read up on Falling Water and the efforts (and MONEY) it has taken to keep it intact.
Posted on 4/15/19 at 8:48 pm to Martini
quote:
And it should be preserved
why?
Posted on 4/15/19 at 8:51 pm to theantiquetiger
quote:
They didn’t sell it to a developer, they sold it to a couple, thinking they were going to move in, fix it, but the buyers sold it within an hour to the developer. They basically were the developers, acting as a couple.
That counts.
Unless you put it in the purchase agreement, you don't get to decide what is done with the property...nor should you.
Posted on 4/15/19 at 9:02 pm to Outboard
Maybe so. It’s been done all around there. But I’m guessing this preservation society is going to argue it and hope for a loud voice.
Posted on 4/15/19 at 9:06 pm to liz18lsu
quote:
Hideous. Reminds me of that house on Sherwood, which I spent a lot of time at. Modern art deco. Flat roof, just awful.
My grandfather might have designed that house. Before he died he told me to tell you to go frick yourself.
Eta: nevermind, he didn't design that piece of shite.
This post was edited on 4/15/19 at 9:16 pm
Posted on 4/15/19 at 9:09 pm to moneyg
quote:
why?
Because I like old houses and hate to see them go and turned into cookie cutters with faux French chateau designs. I’m not going to lose any sleep if they turn it into a one street logjam but I’d have to say it would be nice to see it brought back. I like MCM and ranch style. I like terrazzo floors and people just don’t build like that anymore. We live in a disposable architectural society.
And while the people definitely got their money I do believe they were purposely mislead and I just don’t care for shady douchebags. I could be wrong though.
What are the odds of Notre Dame Cathedral being rebuilt as it was? Probably end up like Healing Places auditorium.
Posted on 4/15/19 at 9:10 pm to theantiquetiger
If the previous owners loved it so much they should have put a
on it.
on it.
Posted on 4/15/19 at 9:12 pm to theantiquetiger
quote:
The new owners turn around and sell it to a developer.
Why was it done this way, and the developer just bought it originally?
Dont really care what happens to the house, but just find it odd
Posted on 4/15/19 at 9:12 pm to liz18lsu
Is this the one Billy Cannon lived in?
Posted on 4/15/19 at 9:14 pm to LSUFANDS
Billy Cannon’s House was directly across Sherwood from the Country Club entrance.
Posted on 4/15/19 at 9:18 pm to theantiquetiger
quote:
Exactly. Robert E Lee High School was a masterpiece when it was built in 1958. People came from all over to see it. But once again, flat roofs and other designs that don’t work in south Louisiana (plus lack of maintenance by the school board), caused it to deteriorate.
They were using a lot of asbestos and lead paint that restricted some maintenance beginning in the 80s.
Posted on 4/15/19 at 9:20 pm to theantiquetiger
(no message)
This post was edited on 9/30/20 at 11:14 pm
Posted on 4/15/19 at 9:27 pm to moneyg
quote:
Unless you put it in the purchase agreement, you don't get to decide what is done with the property...nor should you.
I know the purchasing “family” and the development company. They’re all connected and have done this before. In this case the developer tried to buy the house and was told no so they brought in the “investor”.
I agree with you. However it’s a slimy/shitty way to operate.
This post was edited on 4/15/19 at 9:32 pm
Posted on 4/15/19 at 9:28 pm to dixiechick
quote:
Damn, I wonder who the con artist developer is. I kinda feel bad for the original owners.
The developer is the guy that bought the house from the owners, he just acted like he was buying it for himself. He bought it and then turned around and sold it to his development company.
Posted on 4/15/19 at 9:29 pm to TOSOV
quote:
Why was it done this way, and the developer just bought it originally?
Dont really care what happens to the house, but just find it odd
Because everyone knows what the Doiron’s do in the area (buying houses on large lots, tear down, and sub divide) and the homeowner wasn’t going to sell it to them.
This post was edited on 4/15/19 at 9:31 pm
Posted on 4/15/19 at 9:30 pm to dixiechick
That house kinda reminds me of the old house on Goodwood at Audubon. It went in the market recently and looking at the interior photos was like stepping back in time.
Posted on 4/15/19 at 9:34 pm to dixiechick
quote:
Damn, I wonder who the con artist developer is.
This information is literally in the links to articles about this house which have been posted earlier in this thread.
Posted on 4/15/19 at 9:34 pm to dixiechick
quote:
Damn, I wonder who the con artist developer is. I kinda feel bad for the original owners.
Yeah it is sketchy. Probably to late to do anything. Sad thing is that many older people are getting duped this way. The property tax debate here in TX has brought up the gentrification of areas with lots of older Dallasites that are dealing with higher property taxes in their smaller homes they've been in for 50yrs. All being forced on them due to houses going through this. They dont care about the value as much as others, but dont want to leave what theyve known for most their lives. Especially older widows.
it's an interesting dilemma that the people effected dont have a voice strong enough against the developers eying their 1/2 acre lot that is worth over $500k w/o the house on it.
Posted on 4/15/19 at 9:37 pm to TOSOV
They were exactly dubbed, they are walking away with $800,000 from a house worth a lot less than that.
Plus, they’ve only owned it for 20 years.
Plus, they’ve only owned it for 20 years.
This post was edited on 4/15/19 at 9:38 pm
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News