These houses under construction in Seagrove are quite a contrast to the 1,200 sf, one-story cinder block homes they are replacing. 
Seagrove Mansions
- Thread starter Kurt
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
No comment.
I suspect this might not be the right forum for discussion. Feel free to move or delete if need be.
I thought a lot about this after hearing a lot of people voice negative comments about "too big" houses. Part of me shares some of these sentiments. But part of me can't also help but think- who am I to tell someone they can't build the house they want to build on their land.
It's America. If u work hard and/or get lucky and have the money to build a nice big house in a beautiful place and it meets the local height restriction, setback requirements, etc. then what is the problem- even if it replaces a house that met someone's wants and needs literally a half century ago.
How big is too big? And isn't that rather subjective and a matter of personal taste and preference?
Don't get me wrong. I don't care for the houses for instance in front of Whiskey Bravo. But how can we reasonably tell someone they can't build what they want?
Thoughts?
I thought a lot about this after hearing a lot of people voice negative comments about "too big" houses. Part of me shares some of these sentiments. But part of me can't also help but think- who am I to tell someone they can't build the house they want to build on their land.
It's America. If u work hard and/or get lucky and have the money to build a nice big house in a beautiful place and it meets the local height restriction, setback requirements, etc. then what is the problem- even if it replaces a house that met someone's wants and needs literally a half century ago.
How big is too big? And isn't that rather subjective and a matter of personal taste and preference?
Don't get me wrong. I don't care for the houses for instance in front of Whiskey Bravo. But how can we reasonably tell someone they can't build what they want?
Thoughts?
Fine to discuss. I expected it.
Property rights are property rights. But as a community we can shape rights to some degree through proper procedures. We can also have some design guidelines.
I shot this a few minutes later also in Seagrove.
Property rights are property rights. But as a community we can shape rights to some degree through proper procedures. We can also have some design guidelines.
I shot this a few minutes later also in Seagrove.
Interesting video. The most tangible lesson from it as far as I could tell is that mass deforestation ruined Easter Island. There are of course bigger points made that the island inhabitants valued unimportant material things more than their environment which led to their demise.
But here is the rub. The argument in the video if applied here locally would be to stop development. I don't know that the video lessons apply to the issue of some rich guys house being too big.
In other words- take the same lot. Build a house on it that utilizes 65% of the land. And compare it to a different house instead built on the same lot that covers 50% of the land. Does an area developed with home like the former lead to demise of civilization caused by environmental neglect but the latter doesn't? Does stopping someone from utilizing a little more of the land they own really make a difference? Or is it really all about aesthetics and taste (which BTW for the record I believe are a VERY IMPORTANT factor for our area). I guess that it is the intellectual and philosophical challenge that I personally have with some of the environmental arguments being used on some of our current issues.
But here is the rub. The argument in the video if applied here locally would be to stop development. I don't know that the video lessons apply to the issue of some rich guys house being too big.
In other words- take the same lot. Build a house on it that utilizes 65% of the land. And compare it to a different house instead built on the same lot that covers 50% of the land. Does an area developed with home like the former lead to demise of civilization caused by environmental neglect but the latter doesn't? Does stopping someone from utilizing a little more of the land they own really make a difference? Or is it really all about aesthetics and taste (which BTW for the record I believe are a VERY IMPORTANT factor for our area). I guess that it is the intellectual and philosophical challenge that I personally have with some of the environmental arguments being used on some of our current issues.
What's the difference between those houses and others that have been constructed? They appear unique in their architecture and isn't really any different than what has been built in other places along 30a. As for the multicolor store, I don't necessarily like it, but it is a tourist type store. As I have said in another thread, we all who have moved here or visited here over the last 30 or 40 years are just as much at fault for the current condition that exist. Change is going to take some changes at the political level and at the appointed positions within the government. Just my opinion.
Now the Snappy Turtle photo. I agree with what you stated, Kurt.
I think the ST paint job is tacky and doesn't fit in with what I believe many if not most of us want to see for our area. But here is our challenge. How can we implement rules that would stop someone from choosing decor of the exterior of their business like this? Are you only allowed to use certain colors? Which ones are they? Are you only allowed to paint with solids meaning no stripes? Where are the lines drawn in regulating such things? And how do you not impact another business owner with impeccable taste whose (for instance) striped retro motif on the exterior of their structure would be done in a manner as to really add class, beauty and character to our area. And who is to decide what defines good taste?
I'm not arguing one way or the other. I am torn between property rights and community standards. And I imagine that my true opinion lies somewhere in between via reasonable compromises. Just not sure what that looks like.
I think the ST paint job is tacky and doesn't fit in with what I believe many if not most of us want to see for our area. But here is our challenge. How can we implement rules that would stop someone from choosing decor of the exterior of their business like this? Are you only allowed to use certain colors? Which ones are they? Are you only allowed to paint with solids meaning no stripes? Where are the lines drawn in regulating such things? And how do you not impact another business owner with impeccable taste whose (for instance) striped retro motif on the exterior of their structure would be done in a manner as to really add class, beauty and character to our area. And who is to decide what defines good taste?
I'm not arguing one way or the other. I am torn between property rights and community standards. And I imagine that my true opinion lies somewhere in between via reasonable compromises. Just not sure what that looks like.
Last edited:
There are rules in place for colors of buildings on the U.S. 98/U.S. 331 South Scenic Corridor. All development proposed for those roads is required to undergo review by the Design Review Board for color, architecture, landscaping, site plan, and other aesthetics elements before the proposal goes to the Planning Commission. Kurt, I am assuming that your tourist store picture was taken on 30A. As you know, that is also a county-designated scenic corridor as well as a state-designated scenic corridor. However, rules for 30A and the county's other scenic corridors are less restrictive than for U.S. 98/331 South and don't refer to building color as far as I have been able to see. Also, only U.S. 98/331 South proposals are required to go before the Design Review Board.