What do you think about the rooftop controversy? (Savannah: hotels, house)

[gentlearts]

So, the "always adverse to business" Savannah government (which I hope will be all replaced in the fall, and all I know is what I read in the paper) is now coming out against rooftop dining, sitting, drinking, putting plants on.

Let's just assume that SOME of these establishments will have stuff that impedes the skyline. Like, who cares as long as a bunch of people are up on them spending money?

What is the point of a skyline that no one looks at?
Can I get an amen?

[Padgett2]

I'm one of those that think we go a little overboard with our Historic attractions for the tourists. I think that as the population ages, we will see less and less of those that are interested in the Historic side of Savannah.

We are going to see more and more younger people that are interested in having a good time.
Soooo, which are we going to cater to in order to keep the tourist industry alive and well?

Or do we continue to do dumb things like holding up a much needed widened major street because of a dinky concrete block building (erected 1947....) that happens to be the oldest dry cleaning establishment in the State.????

Did you also read the article relating to the number of eating places that haven't been able to make it?
Maybe we need more inexpensive hamburger joints and fewer of the other kind.

Yeah, I give you a big amen. If we really cared about the historic view, we would still have teepees on the bluff.

[ellie]

It would be nice to lead off your discussion with a link to the article so people can easily read it for themselves.

As Savannah's rooftops become rooms with a view, debate builds over impact on historic character | savannahnow.com

I'm not sure anyone is trying to keep people from using roofs for gardens, restaurants, etc. From what I understand from reading this, some (not all) members of the historic review board were concerned with how it relates to the secretary of the interior's guidelines for historic preservation.

"Board member Reed Engle argued activity on the roof would lead to furnishings on the roof that would be visible from the street and would violate the secretary of the interior’s standards on alterations that change the character of a historic building."

The deciding vote was cast by the board's chair Brian Judson, who said, "The board’s purview is confined to the permanent structures visible from the street and does not include how the space is used or the furnishings placed on it."

Not much left to say.

[WanderingImport]

Originally Posted by Padgett2

Or do we continue to do dumb things like holding up a much needed widened major street because of a dinky concrete block building (erected 1947....) that happens to be the oldest dry cleaning establishment in the State.????

It's things like this that make the word "historic" useless.
It still boggles my mind that anyone in their right mind would even think to consider that stupid dry cleaning business building historic. The building is old. Not historic. The only reason the owners of that building petitioned to make it a historic structure was because they didn't want Bay Street widened. Very selfish.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand...
There is nothing wrong with keeping an eye on the rooftop situation so it doesn't get out of hand and therefore compromise the historic integrity of the area. Anything more than that is just going overboard. Let the people have their fun on the roof! And for God's sake, lighten up on that building height ordinance!

[Prytania]

I live in New Orleans...and I think you will find that many young people today are interested in historic architecture, walkability and preservation (and allowing business development and preservation to go hand in hand...not let one kill off the other)

[Padgett2]

Originally Posted by Prytania

I live in New Orleans...and I think you will find that many young people today are interested in historic architecture, walkability and preservation (and allowing business development and preservation to go hand in hand...not let one kill off the other)

Yes, this is very true. However, are these young people enough to sustain the tourist industry? Do they have the funds to spend to give a boost up for the house museums, etc.? We have only to look at the St. Patrick's Day Festivities to see that the thousands of young people that come are not interest in historic sites. They want to party! That, unfortunately is where they spend their money.

The Convention City format seems to be a good idea to try and develop. We usually have the good weather and enough meeting places to get more conventions. I am not sure that the idea of building another Convention Center on Hutchson Island is the smartest thing we could do. It might prove to be great, but it could also be a big disaster for the hotels within City.

[WanderingImport]

The key is maintaining those historic structures and bringing people to the city where they will spend their money so the businesses here will thrive. After all, would you rather see a restaurant or another abandoned building due to lack of demand?

I certainly am all for bringing those people with more money to spend on historic sites that really matter, but I also encourage all walks of life to experience what Savannah has to offer as well, including those younger people who want to party. Vibrancy and diversity is part of what makes a city wonderful IMO.

With Hutchinson Island, I don't recall hearing anything about a new convention center, just a hotel. Lord help us if it is a new convention center they're proposing... They need to get that arena going up first. (My apologies for going off subject)

[Padgett2]

OOPS! my mistake! I think it was to be a big hotel with large meetings rooms. I wasn't thinking. The rooms were to be large enough to host some of the smaller conventions.

However, since there has been talk about reducing the number of rooms. The convention style meeting rooms may have been lessened too.


And then again, I may have been mistaken about the meeting areas. It wouldn't be the first time that things that I read in the paper gets befuddled.

[koko339]

I think active rooftops are a great thing. I see the desire to keep it from getting tacky, but have they seen River Street lately?

[Prytania]

Originally Posted by Padgett2

Yes, this is very true. However, are these young people enough to sustain the tourist industry? Do they have the funds to spend to give a boost up for the house museums, etc.? We have only to look at the St. Patrick's Day Festivities to see that the thousands of young people that come are not interest in historic sites. They want to party! That, unfortunately is where they spend their money.

The Convention City format seems to be a good idea to try and develop. We usually have the good weather and enough meeting places to get more conventions. I am not sure that the idea of building another Convention Center on Hutchson Island is the smartest thing we could do. It might prove to be great, but it could also be a big disaster for the hotels within City.

Besides tourism even. In today's economic environment, economies need to diversify...and preservation and business development can still go hand in hand.
I can tell you in New Orleans, a city in an economic black hole before Katrina...we have seen thousands of 20-30 somethings move here, to open new businesses, and lure other types of economic opportunity (Forbes has labels us the 2nd best job market in the country). And what lures people here? Its the culture and the architecture. It's a "place worth caring about". Savannah is also one of those places...and its a city/town that could see a surge in economic development because of its prime location (particularly in this new new economy)