Louisville: Innovation Under Siege - dwell ubb

Does Good Architecture Make Good Neighbors?

Louisville: Innovation Under Siege (Page 5)

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

This topic is 5 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: Louisville: Innovation Under Siege
nojj Junior Member	posted 05-14-2002 11:42 AM Had the bag you refer to held “organic fertilizer,” the analogy would be perfect.[/B][/QUOTE] OH... But Mr Observer. Maybe 11 understands that, EVERYTHING comes from the earth. If you were to look at nitrogen under a microscope, you would not be able to tell if it cam from cow dung, or if it was LAB produced. Everything can be broken down to it's essence, and then .... well... that's all we are.......... hmmmmm?
curious Junior Member	posted 06-16-2002 05:00 AM Has this been resolved? What happend?
LakesideObserver Member	posted 06-27-2002 06:41 AM It has been two months since the trial and those of us who are still forced to look at the double-wide plastic palace await the judge's decision. Interesting trial... wish some of you could have been there. Speaking of which, is anyone still here?
lavardera Member	posted 06-27-2002 08:07 AM Still here.
curious Junior Member	posted 06-28-2002 10:14 AM Lakeside Observer, What do you want to see come of this? If the family has to remove the plastic and metal, what would you like to see done to the exterior of the structure? Does anyone have any creative ideas?
LakesideObserver Member	posted 06-28-2002 04:27 PM The lawsuit asks the court to enforce the deed restrictions requiring exterior materials of brick, brick veneer, stone or stucco. For the record, Mr. Wyatt admitted at the trial that after he finally informed Mr. Coker that there were deed restrictions on his property, Mr. Coker suggested alternative exterior materials. Mr. Wyatt said that "as the homeowner," he decided NOT to use Mr. Coker's suggested alternative materials. Interesting...
curious Junior Member	posted 07-24-2002 07:31 AM The case has been resolved. The Wyatts mostly win. click here to read the story.http://courier-journal.com/localnews/2002/07/24/ke072402s247377.htm]http://courier-journal.com/localn ews/2002/07/24/ke072402s247377.htm]http://courier-journal.com/localnews/2002/07/24/ke072402s247377.htm Does anyone care to comment? [This message has been edited by curious (edited 07-24-2002).] [This message has been edited by curious (edited 07-24-2002).]
lavardera Member	posted 07-24-2002 10:20 AM That sounds like a solution. An element which intrudes on the neighbors must be changed, but the integrity of the house design stands and will remain. I imagine there might be an appeal? I hope not. Some great quotes from the article: Lendell Conner, who was among the 12 plaintiffs, said the decision seems to mean that ''basically anyone can do anything they wanted'' with their houses. Sounds good to me From the judge: Knopf cited at least eight houses in the Lakeside area (two of which were built in 1988) that also were in ''total violation'' of the deed restrictions, and said more than 50 of the 189 houses in the subdivision were ''in significant violation.' and again the judge: He added that the fact that the plaintiffs contend that the Wyatts' contemporary-styled house ''is not in keeping with their neighborhood's traditional aesthetics cannot be a basis to selectively enforce the deed restrictions.''

This topic is 5 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 All times are PT (US)	next newest topic \| next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic \| Archive/Move \| Delete Topic
	Hop to:

Contact Us | dwell

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a