Laserfiche WebLink
My observations are as follows: <br />(a) In my estimation, Mt. Carmel is one of at least hundreds of <br />thousands of similar neighborhoods across California and the <br />United States. Even within the Bay Area, I estimate that Mt. Carmel is <br />one of many hundreds of similar city neighborhoods. <br />(b) The architectural execution of Mt. Carmel is unexceptional. Very <br />few buildings appear to have been designed by an architect, and I <br />would estimate that the majority were builder -designed with little or <br />no regard to architectural quality. The quality of construction is also <br />low. <br />(c) In my research, I started by looking for documented examples of <br />notable residential architecture or the engagement in Mount Carmel <br />of notable architects. I found no such evidence. I continued by <br />looking for any reference to any Mt. Carmel residential <br />architecture of note in any publication. I have so far found no <br />such references. <br />The streets of Mount Carmel are attractive owing to the trees and the <br />close -by hills. However, from a "Historic" perspective, the neighborhood <br />itself is unexceptional. Moreover, there is very little consistency of design <br />- in my opinion, this is reflective of a neighborhood that was <br />constructed when the area was cheap and builders paid little <br />attention to either design quality or build quality. <br />My personal observations are compounded by the research I have <br />conducted: I find no evidence that Mt. Carmel should be considered a <br />Historic District. <br />Mount Carmel Redwood City as proposed "Historic District' Page 2 of 4 <br />