• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

Dragnet

Beach Comber
Dec 25, 2008
32
2
The best scenario for planners would be tiers, you get a view, I get a view, and they get a view. A bunch of 50' saltboxes isn't the answer.
 
The best scenario for planners would be tiers, you get a view, I get a view, and they get a view. A bunch of 50' saltboxes isn't the answer.

The Seahighlands subdivision in Seagrove was platted before nearly everything else in the whole 30A corridor and it did just what you said. That was in the 1940's before all the geniuses were born.

In this case, and many others in Walton County, there is nothing open and honest about it.
 

wrobert

Beach Fanatic
Nov 21, 2007
4,134
575
61
DeFuniak Springs
www.defuniaksprings.com
Thank goodness! There but for the grace of a height restriction goes Sowal! :love:
Given the current infrastructure, population, and density of this area, there is absolutely no reason to build anything over 50'. Many long established urban areas have a similar height restriction to promote a healthy density and living environment.


Actually, DCA has said in the past that these height limitations are increasing urban sprawl, this in turn increases our carbon footprint on the world and in the overall scheme does a lot more damage to the planet than building everything together in huge skyscrapers like they do in Asian countries. We just do not like it and since we have had no problem in the past taking more than our fair share of resources from the rest of the world we continue to justify this aberrant behavior is some misguided intellectual argument that it is actually good for us.

Just remember, height limitations are a serious cause of global warming. So if you are going to talk the talk........
 

Matt J

SWGB
May 9, 2007
24,646
9,496
Actually, DCA has said in the past that these height limitations are increasing urban sprawl, this in turn increases our carbon footprint on the world and in the overall scheme does a lot more damage to the planet than building everything together in huge skyscrapers like they do in Asian countries. We just do not like it and since we have had no problem in the past taking more than our fair share of resources from the rest of the world we continue to justify this aberrant behavior is some misguided intellectual argument that it is actually good for us.

Just remember, height limitations are a serious cause of global warming. So if you are going to talk the talk........

Until you provide a reliable link* to such a study I'm gonna call BS on your statement.

*The society for buildings over 50 feet is probably a little biased.
 

wrobert

Beach Fanatic
Nov 21, 2007
4,134
575
61
DeFuniak Springs
www.defuniaksprings.com
Until you provide a reliable link* to such a study I'm gonna call BS on your statement.

*The society for buildings over 50 feet is probably a little biased.


I can see where basic logic could be elusive to some here. But given time you too will see the error of your ways. Just think about it as you drive from the suburbs to the urban areas to do your shopping.
 

Matt J

SWGB
May 9, 2007
24,646
9,496
I can see where basic logic could be elusive to some here. But given time you too will see the error of your ways. Just think about it as you drive from the suburbs to the urban areas to do your shopping.

Hmm, I rarely leave 30A to get anything. In fact I haven't left 30A since December 21st.

Still waiting for that link to that study you are quoting... :popcorn:
 

TooFarTampa

SoWal Insider
Actually, DCA has said in the past that these height limitations are increasing urban sprawl, this in turn increases our carbon footprint on the world and in the overall scheme does a lot more damage to the planet than building everything together in huge skyscrapers like they do in Asian countries. We just do not like it and since we have had no problem in the past taking more than our fair share of resources from the rest of the world we continue to justify this aberrant behavior is some misguided intellectual argument that it is actually good for us.

Just remember, height limitations are a serious cause of global warming. So if you are going to talk the talk........

I agree with wrobert that sprawl is a big problem and the above is true in urban areas. I live in the middle of town and while I don't walk too much (too many children in tow) I hardly ever go more than a mile or two in any direction.

But unless there will be a grocery store, dry cleaner (scratch that - bad environmental mojo), major shopping, restaurants and schools within walking distance of Jolly Bay, the idea doesn't really seem to apply here. :wave: Building a bunch of units destined to stay empty for awhile also would seem to be a problem, environmentally speaking.
 

Dragnet

Beach Comber
Dec 25, 2008
32
2
If you look at the Jolly Bay.com website, it sure does look like the start of what DCA is looking for. The buildout space is about the same amount of acres as Rosmary Beach, 16+ acres.
 

Bobby J

Beach Fanatic
Apr 18, 2005
4,043
600
Blue Mountain beach
www.lifeonshore.com
I still think they are lucky this thing was canned. It would be a big empty building with a lot of money spent on marketing the 1.5 foot deep bay. The math simply does not work on condos/apartments in Freeport. Do the math. Construction cost alone will not sell it. Then throw in land cost! The courts will determine if their rights were violated but I say they got lucky on this one...
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter