Re: [UC] Demolition alert: 4224 Baltimore Ave - Guy Laren's comparison to Campus Inn project

[Matthew Snyder]

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 11:57 AM,   wrote:
> 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.

Does anyone have a link to photos that show the Italianate building in
its former glory?  To me, and presumably to other people, it's hard to
understand why that building at 40th and Pine is worth saving.  I'm
certainly not opposed to historic preservation and I'm sure the
building has some merit I can't see in its current state.  But looking
at it as it is today, and especially considering its awful history,
it's hard for me to grasp why it should be saved, especially when
saving it apparently means having to take on the additional burden of
a hotel at that site.  I do understand that legally the building can't
be torn down, due to its historic status.

--Matthew

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] Demolition alert: 4224 Baltimore Ave - Guy Laren's comparison to Campus Inn project

[UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN]

mlam...@aol.com wrote:
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!



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

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.)


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. 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.


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


..
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN


























































You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] Demolition alert: 4224 Baltimore Ave - Guy Laren's comparison to Campus Inn project

[Brian Siano]

mlam...@aol.com wrote:

/*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?

/*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?
I'd like to make it clear that there is no reason to see this as a 
referendum on the Historic District proposal. _Perhaps_ the HD might've 
made it more difficult for the hotel developers to move ahead on their 
project, but I think it'd have slowed them down at best. And this hotel 
is a genuine _exception_ to development in the area; not a one-time-only 
thing, but relatively rare. In the meantime, the rest of us would have 
other limits and restrictions on our homes under the HD.


Imagine if someone were to say, "We can prevent the construction of a 
ten-story hotel a few blocks from your home... but in turn, you and your 
neighbors would have to give up a lot of your choice on exterior 
renovations to people who can mandate the use of expensive materials and 
contractors." Would you take that deal? Would you demand that others 
take it as well?


(As for the example of teardowns and twins, I think it's possible to 
enact legislation that restricts _those_ profound construction projects, 
without bothering those of us who just want to repair our porches and 
windows.)



You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] Demolition alert: 4224 Baltimore Ave - Guy Laren's comparison to Campus Inn project

[Kimm Tynan]

Melani,

> 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.

It seemed pretty apparent to me that Karen was making the point that the
supporters of the hotel opened the door to the precedent that could lead to
another high rise on Campanella¹s property, which precedent is the reason
many of us oppose the hotel.

> If a small, vocal group of our UC neighbors continues to reject the
> restrictions which a local HD would impose, then, because of the increasing
> popularity of our neighborhood, we are probably beginning an era of tear-downs
> and requests for changes in height.

This is a false dichotomy and red herring.  There¹s absolutely no reason
that a historic district is the only way to maintain height restrictions.
It¹s not an either or choice.

Kimm




On 2/11/09 11:57 AM, "mlam...@aol.com"  wrote:

> 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

Re: [UC] Demolition alert: 4224 Baltimore Ave - Guy Laren's comparison to Campus Inn project

[Anthony West]

That is the $64 question, isn't it?

There are similarities but also differences. A lot of folks will be 
taking a close look at this one, won't they?


-- Tony West



Kimm Tynan wrote:
It seemed pretty apparent to me that Karen was making the point that 
the supporters of the hotel opened the door to the precedent that 
could lead to another high rise on Campanella’s property, which 
precedent is the reason many of us oppose the hotel.




You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] Demolition alert: 4224 Baltimore Ave - Guy Laren's comparison to Campus Inn project

[UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN]

Kimm Tynan wrote:


Melani,

If a small, vocal group of our UC neighbors continues to reject the
restrictions which a local HD would impose, then, because of the increasing
popularity of our neighborhood, we are probably beginning an era of tear-downs
and requests for changes in height.



This is a false dichotomy and red herring.  There¹s absolutely no reason
that a historic district is the only way to maintain height restrictions.
It¹s not an either or choice.



I agree, kimm.

and this was spelled out here pretty early on, back in 
october 2007, about the proposed hotel at 40th and pine. how 
this a ZONING question, not a historic preservation question:


http://www.mail-archive.com/univcity@list.purple.com/msg20121.html

it's odd that anyone would still be stuck on seeing this as 
an issue about historic preservation, and then use that 
false premise to justify support for a 10-story slab on that 
property.


hotel opponents have been trying to protect a NEIGHBORHOOD, 
through responsible zoning, and have argued that neighbors 
would welcome 'responsible development' of the site:


http://www.mail-archive.com/univcity@list.purple.com/msg21283.html


..
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN

























































You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.