As a "hysterical preservationist,"
we've always learned that a building MUST be saved if it is in a federal or local historic district. If DZ owns the cottages now, they can tear them down. If the University owns them, chances are they are using state monies to tear them down--a huge no-no. If the building is significant--not just old, but has some historic significance, it isn't going anywhere. I think a lot of people fail to understand Historic Preservation--we're not trying to save every old building--just the ones that make a positive contribution to the urban fabric. There are plenty of eyesores that everyone wants to have torn down.
Moving is a last resort, as it normally costs 2-3 times the documented value of the property, and the owner will usually cry poor if asked to move them to a safer area. We learned that they would rather demolish and rebuild in another space than move them, since part of the "significance" of the building is its site.
Because I know these are pretty run down, I'm not too sad to see them go.
Threaded Mode