Re: [UC] Demolition alert: 4224 Balt imore Ave - Guy Laren's comparison to Campu s Inn project
In a message dated 2/11/09 1:57:35 PM, laserb...@speedymail.org writes: > the reason the developer can't tear down the mansion is > because it's individually designated, that's what lussenhop > originally wanted to rescind when he went before the phc > back in spring 2007. but the phc denied its being delisted > in july 2007: > > http://tinyurl.com/2zmxx9 > Yes, I know that the BUILDING is designated, but the designation protects only the BUILDING itself - not the neighbors' desire not to have to view additional buildings on the property. The neighbors have argued that there is a "de facto district," which would protect them, but the city departments disagree. I am, I repeat, NOT arguing in favor of 10-story buildings - but rather stating that the inn development will allow for the restoration cost. I would not support this project if the original Italianate structure were going to be demolished. > > your argument for supporting historic districts is misplaced > here. in fact, your arguing for a 10-story hotel at 40th and > pine is AGAINST everything that historic districts are > designed to protect (streetscapes, fabric, ensembles, etc.) > A new 10-story hotel would be out of place in an historic district - but we aren't likely to get a local historic district, so I hope to see us do the best we can with the lesser protection we have for this one old building - the individual designation and the PHC encouraging the development of a tall modern building added to the lot. The inn's opponents aren't trying to protect the Italianate building at all; one of them told me at a hearing that they would support asking the PHC to allow this one to be torn down, now.. So under the developers' proposal, we have a restored historic building plus a 10-story new building. Under the opponents' proposed compromise, we have no old building at all. Who is less supportive of historic properties? > > the question has always been a zoning question, and it > happens to involve a property that penn purchased, knowing > that it was a designated property. > > Your memory is selective here; Penn officials have said that they did not know that it was designated. The listserv was skeptical of this when the issue first came up, and I wrote, back then, that an historic designation did not appear on a title report or on an L&I cert. These are documents a buyer relies upon to tell him/her about restrictions on the property being purchased. (The city has since made a change: local designation DOES now appear on the L& I cert! So the city seems to have realized that they ought to be alerting buyers about this restriction - but back when this property was sold, they did not alert buyers.) Further, the condition of the building would not have suggested to a buyer that they ought to search further records to see if it was on the local register. While I can be as skeptical as the next person about Penn, in this case, the records they'd have looked at would not have given them the information you are stating, as fact, that they "knew." What evidence do you have that they knew? > zoning is a tool to > protect residential areas from unwanted commercial (or > other) development; that is what's being defended here -- > and what you are missing, because you keep arguing that the > only way to defend it is with an historic district. > > I'm not missing it. The conclusion of the zoning hearing process will come next for this property. But as I wrote before, Ocean City has restrictions too (on height, in their case), but if developers there tear down all the old places and put up new plastic ones, albeit shorter, then is that really satisfactory for a neighborhood? Wouldn't it be better to have a way to prevent tear downs (a local historic district)? What if, in University City, the buyer of one half of a twin house wants to tear his purchase down and build new? There is nothing to prevent that, without an historic district. How would you feel, if you lived in the other half? > all this was pointed out to you earlier, onlist, in oct > 2007, and I'm surprised you're still trying to make this > argument: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/univcity@list.purple.com/msg20121.html > > I've read the reference you cite, and I think we are both still making the same arguments! And as I wrote earlier today, in the 1920s, large & tall, non-owner-occupied apartment buildings were built in UC locations which have remained extremely popular to this day; the tall buildings didn't hurt the value of the shorter ones. You haven't convinced me, and I haven't convinced you. I would still like to see this Italianate house restored in the only way possible at this time, since the area around it is not protected; and the rest of our historic buildings protected by a district to avoid future losses and provide more peace of mind for the folks who want more restr
Re: [UC] Demolition alert: 4224 Balt imore Ave - Guy Laren's comparison to Campu s Inn project
In a message dated 2/11/09 4:30:50 AM, lom...@aol.com writes: Melani You make a good point about not personalizing issues. I have known you to be passionate about many UC issues, but always with well-reasoned and well-intended purposes. In addition, your passion has always been backed up with action. I agree that I doubt that you will benefit personally in any financial manner from your support of the 10 story hotel. It is always a shame when community members, who share interests in supporting their neighbors and their community, get so passionate about individual causes that they end up angry at each other. However, outside of the issue of keeping Spruce Hill residents united, is the issue that Karen aptly raises: that if the hotel is allowed to obliterate the zoning standards of three story. 35 feet high side yards rear yards adequate parking then how will the neighbors and Spruce Hill justify fighting the same request from other developers all over Spruce Hill? Certainly it's going to be an enormous issue at the 4224 Baltimore Ave site. There's going to be some kind of battle at that site in the near future. The owner, Mr Campanella, is a large developer who does lots of drug store "boxes". He's also done luxury high rise condos and other large-scale projects. I believe that he's also been indicted twice for assorted crimes, but I can only find the one on Google (his recent conviction for bribing a public official). I can assure you that Mr Campanella is not taking the 4224 Baltimore bldg down because he wants to put two or three historically sensitive single family homes up. I guess what I'm asking you is: do you acknowledge Karen's point that the precedent set by the Hotel will make a dangerously strong argument for future developments in the UC area? Guy, you ask a good question here, but I don't see why you attribute it to Karen. Her disparaging email to me, cc'd to the list, didn't comment on precedent; it was personal. My response was that I am saddened by her resort to personal attacks, when her views could better be substantiated with reasoned argument - as you've made here. It is a pleasant change to read a message on this listserv about the proposed Campus Inn from someone who states his thoughts reasonably, without malice or exaggerated accusations. Thank you for setting a positive tone. In answer to your question, first I'll repeat that I would like to see the Italianate building on Pine Street saved and restored. That's my motivation; it is not exactly that I can't wait to see a 10-story building next door - but I don't oppose it, either, because the new building is the trade-off which will provide funds for the old building's restoration. I see this as a pragmatic solution. I believe that the precedent for taller buildings in residential areas was set years ago, when the 6-story Garden Court apartments (1922; now condos, no parking) and the 13-story Garden Court Plaza (1926-1930, with parking) were built adjacent to single homes; and when the 10-story Fairfax Apartments building (1926; no parking) was built right up against the backs of the row houses on St. Mark's Square, without setbacks from the St. Mark's rear yards. In each of these cases, the taller buildings seem not to have had a negative impact on their residential settings; for these locations are about the most desirable and expensive for University City homeowners today! Drive north on 43rd or 46th St. at this time of year, when there are no leaves on the trees - these tall buildings will pop out at you above the house rooftops, if you are looking for them - but if you're walking by and not purposely looking, they blend into the landscape we are familiar with in our neighborhood. I think that a taller building at 40th & Pine won't be any more intrusive, will soon be just as familiar. Alas, the proposed inn's location at 40th & Pine is not in a local historic district! If it were, then the developers would not be able to tear it down, AND they would not be able to build a tall building, and perhaps more UC neighbors would be satisfied! This would be a much stronger restraint than precedent or the lack of precedent! But our community opposed the creation of a local district, some years back. I remember well that time, and the strident opposition to the UC Historical Society/Spruce Hill Community Association's nomination. A small group of extremely vocal neighbors accused these organizations of betraying the neighborhood back then, for somewhat the opposite reasons for which they are making accusations against the organizations now! Some scoffed at me when I wrote on this listserv (probably before you were reading it) that without a local district, in the future we might see buildings torn down and replaced by McMansions and other intrusive structures - as, I wrote then, had already begun to ha
