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 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 40th Pine is not in a local historic
district! If it
