Re: [UC] HD : an Ad Hoc, Non Binding, lots of time and reasons to change your...
Just a couple of comments: -- Old City certainly is an example of (1) high densities of population and activities; (2)mixtures of primary uses; (3) small-scale, pedestrian-friendly blocks and streetscapes; and (4) the retention of old buildings mixed in with new. With Historic Designation, it now will be able to keep these qualities instead of dealing with future pressures to build more and bigger condos for the club crowd. -- An important fact we all need to keep in mind is that only 18% of the properties in the proposed Spruce Hill Historic District are owned by single families. All other properties are owned/controlled by developers and landlords. That's less than one out of five. We can fight over the facts and nuances of period designation, paint colors, spindles, slate, etc. but except for zoning, historic designation, is the only other city program that has the ability to give such a minority some control over what happens to a neighborhood as unique as ours. Do we really believe that the majority of other 82% cares at all what happens to Spruce Hill outside of making money for themselves? This is a prime rental area and it always will be no matter what their buildings look like. They don't want anyone, not just you and me, telling them what to do. Who do you all think is keeping this battle going for so long? THE 82%!! Whatever happened to Ms. Blackwell's public meetings last month to open this up to democracy? You think maybe someone other than you and me is calling the shots here and we're all just flogging ourselves, much to their delight? Here's something to ponder -- a local handyman (who shall remain nameless at his request, for fear of retribution) told me about a year ago that when he asked a local landlord why he was putting metal siding on his facades covering up the original siding and some victorian detail instead of painting, replied, "What do I care, I won't be here in ten years!" Jim Lilly
Re: [UC] HD : an Ad Hoc, Non Binding, lots of time and reasons to change your...
In a message dated 4/6/2004 12:38:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Just a couple of comments... (no need to quote them, you can go back and read them). Just as I've said since day one. The proponents aren't interested in preservation. All this pretentious talk about our precious historical heritage is just a red herring. Theyare grasping atthe straw of historic designation will give them control over what other people do. How it will achieve such a thing is beyond comprehension... I doubt whether they've really thought this out. Preventing the installation of vinyl-clad thermopane windows or porch spindles from Home Depot certainly won't do anything to change what they really object to ... a high rental population, inadequate infrastructure for their God-given right to park in front of their homes, too much trash for once-a-week collection, neighbors with different cultural values or norms of behavior, ..., well, I could go on but you get the idea. Thanks for admitting it so openly, Jim. Shame on you, but thanks. Your posting ranks down there with Neil Lifson's mendacious Letter to the University City review as revealing the truth of the pro-HD faction. Always at your service and ready for a dialog,Al Krigman
Re: [UC] HD : an Ad Hoc, Non Binding, lots of time and reasons to change your...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- An important fact we all need to keep in mind is that only 18% of the properties in the proposed Spruce Hill Historic District are owned by single families. All other properties are owned/controlled by developers and landlords. That's less than one out of five. We can fight over the facts and nuances of period designation, paint colors, spindles, slate, etc. but except for zoning, historic designation, is the only other city program that has the ability to give such a minority some control over what happens to a neighborhood as unique as ours. Doubtful. As Jim certainly knows, historic designation would put that control not in the hands of the 18% minority of homeowners, but the PHC. Those homeowners would be as without a say in preservation policy as anyone else. This business about giving us homeowners control is nonsense. The only people it'll empower are busybodies who are itching to send the city after their neighbors. Do we really believe that the majority of other 82% cares at all what happens to Spruce Hill outside of making money for themselves? This is a prime rental area and it always will be no matter what their buildings look like. They don't want anyone, not just you and me, telling them what to do. Who do you all think is keeping this battle going for so long? THE 82%!! Here we have yet another example of the scare tactics employed by the advocates of HD. They cannot believe that people could possibly oppose the HD in good faith: they continually claim that opposition is the domain of landlords, speculators, and carpetbaggers of all stripes. (Considering that neither Sharrieff nor I are landlords, and that the initial opposition to the HD came out of the decidedly non-capitalism Neighbors Against McPenntrification, one wonders if th advocates even _bother_ doing research.) Here's something to ponder -- a local handyman (who shall remain nameless at his request, for fear of retribution) told me about a year ago that when he asked a local landlord why he was putting metal siding on his facades covering up the original siding and some victorian detail instead of painting, replied, What do I care, I won't be here in ten years! Gee whiz, Jim, I can make up tales like that too. Here's something to ponder, too: a local ---, who shall remain nameless for fear of retribution, told me about a year ago that the SHCA had bribed the PHC. or told me Jannie Blackwell was bribed by Al Krigman to present her bill, or told me a year ago that Michael Karp started this whole thing to drive up the prics of his properties. I prefer to discuss facts Jim, not wild rumors and terror-tales. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
RE: [UC] HD : an Ad Hoc, Non Binding, lots of time and reasons to change your...
Do we really believe that the majority of other 82% cares at all what happens to Spruce Hill outside of making money for themselves? Jim, was that statement a personal insult to Al Krigman, the ODonnells? Sounds like it to me, and I am not instigating anything. Again, you never answered my questions. Ignoring my post and trying to ignore me is a tactic that only makes you folks look either prejudiced, ignorant or both. It happens often on this listserv. Frankly Jim, I am not interested in your opinions about what you think is going on. I am interested in the code, the facts surrounding the process, and what you can prove in writing. Gossip is another tactic that is often used in this community to try to discredit an individual when a rational argument can not be made. I would have shot myself by now if I listened to all the gossip about me in this community. I am honored to remain in popular folklore. Soback to the facts, you pro-HD folks need to answer my questions. S. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 11:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [UC] HD : an Ad Hoc, Non Binding, lots of time and reasons to change your... Just a couple of comments: -- Old City certainly is an example of (1) high densities of population and activities; (2)mixtures of primary uses; (3) small-scale, pedestrian-friendly blocks and streetscapes; and (4) the retention of old buildings mixed in with new. With Historic Designation, it now will be able to keep these qualities instead of dealing with future pressures to build more and bigger condos for the club crowd. -- An important fact we all need to keep in mind is that only 18% of the properties in the proposed Spruce Hill Historic District are owned by single families. All other properties are owned/controlled by developers and landlords. That's less than one out of five. We can fight over the facts and nuances of period designation, paint colors, spindles, slate, etc. but except for zoning, historic designation, is the only other city program that has the ability to give such a minority some control over what happens to a neighborhood as unique as ours. Do we really believe that the majority of other 82% cares at all what happens to Spruce Hill outside of making money for themselves? This is a prime rental area and it always will be no matter what their buildings look like. They don't want anyone, not just you and me, telling them what to do. Who do you all think is keeping this battle going for so long? THE 82%!! Whatever happened to Ms. Blackwell's public meetings last month to open this up to democracy? You think maybe someone other than you and me is calling the shots here and we're all just flogging ourselves, much to their delight? Here's something to ponder -- a local handyman (who shall remain nameless at his request, for fear of retribution) told me about a year ago that when he asked a local landlord why he was putting metal siding on his facades covering up the original siding and some victorian detail instead of painting, replied, What do I care, I won't be here in ten years! Jim Lilly
Re: [UC] HD : an Ad Hoc, Non Binding, lots of time and reasons to change your mind, POLL - Just Do It!
Thanks you 2 for some thoughtful conversation. It sure
beats the personal attacks
-Mark
-Original Message-
From: L a s e r B e a m [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Apr 5, 2004 10:10 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [UC] HD : an Ad Hoc, Non Binding, lots of time and reasons to change your
mind, POLL - Just Do It!
KAREN ALLEN wrote:
I support the historic district designation, although I do not live in
Spruce Hill. I think that some valid concerns have been raised regarding
how the Historic Commission functions, but these issues can and should
be addressed separately and apart from the concept of a historic district.
I am almost 50 years old, and I lived in Philadelphia my entire life. I
grew up in South Philadelphia, in the neighborhood now known as
Southwest Center City. ...[rest of story snipped]
thanks, karen, for your story. it's another example of how
complex the hd issue is. for example, you cite the wholesale
destruction that occured in your old neighborhood. and then
point out that that wholesale destruction did not happen in
this neighborhood, that it survived more or less intact and
has a cohesive aesthetic. it makes one wonder, doesn't it,
about the extent to which wholesale destruction is going on
in this neighborhood, and, related to that, the extent to
which historic districting would be the appropriate tool
necessary to stem it... many factors are responsible for
fostering healthy stable neighborhoods over time, and some
would argue that these factors should include those which
encouraged a mix of uses and people in an area, factors
which would prevent an unhealthy and vulnerable
'homogenization' ('ghettoization') of an area... the very
factors which, it could be argued, historic designation
would mitigate, if not eliminate. something to think about.
karen, have you ever read jane jacobs' book, written 1960 I
think, called the life and death of great american cities.
she describes four urban design principles necessary for the
creation and preservation of vibrant, diverse cities: (1)
high densities of population and activities; (2) mixtures of
primary uses; (3) small-scale, pedestrian-friendly blocks
and streetscapes; and (4) the retention of old buildings
mixed in with new. jacobs was critical of a planning style
that destroyed communities, separated land uses, and
fostered homogenization -- the very effects of the urban
renewal and garden-city movements of her time. she often
challenged established orthodoxy. for example, she called
for the preservation of old buildings not for aesthetic or
historical reasons, but on economic and social grounds: part
of the physical diversity of a healthy district, she argued,
was the retention of old buildings *mixed in with the new*.
jacobs also argued that urban health and vitality require
effective local participation in the political process, as
it affects all areas of city life, including land use.
I mention this because I see in all this discussion about
the neighborhood a contest of visions -- one of
neighborhoods as organic and dynamic vs one of neighborhoods
as managed/engineered and static. I think there's a middle
ground somewhere, where these two visions come together, and
I think jacobs offers an interesting model/set of principles
that many consider sound (at least, she's still taught in
urban design courses). I also mention jacobs because in an
earlier post you talked about drafting a zoning letter, and
along the way you said UC community groups will challenge
zoning changes that will adversely impact on the community
-- it reminded me that what you and these groups think of as
'adverse' to the community may well be precisely what jacobs
would call 'healthy,' namely, a mix of uses that prevents
homogenized 'ghettoization' and fosters thriving, healthy
cities. something to think about.
.
laserbeam
[aka ray]
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
http://www.purple.com/list.html.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] HD : an Ad Hoc, Non Binding, lots of time and reasons to change your mind, POLL - Just Do It!
Ray, Thanks for your response. I did read The Life and Death (or it may have been The Death and Life) of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs in Urban Studies 101 at Temple. It's been a long time since I read it, but I do recall the points you raised: that buildings should have human scale (3 or 4 stories instead of skyscrapers) , and that a variety and mix of buildings and uses on a street keeps an area vibrant. Maybe those of us who have been writing on the HD issue can take some time to read or reread this book. It was pointed out to me by other correspondents that other reasons for the deterioration in Philadelphia that I mentioned included economic and racial changes, redlining, and other causes that would not be addressed by designation of an Historic District. This may be true. But I thought it was important to express the emotional response I have when I see what has happened in the other areas of the city even with zoning and other various laws that are supposed to govern land use. Another correspondent pointed out that it was better to suffer the occasional tacky renovation than to be subject to an oversight body with draconian rules, but the point I hoped to make was that we can demand of our elected representatives that the rules for any designation be rewritten to be fair and reasonable, and not set unreasonable costs. The worst case scenarios most often cited are those of the HC dictating paint colors, or demanding things that are unreasonably expensive. I am not particularly swayed by the paint argument, because Spruce Hill, and in particular the area around the 4200 block of Pine Street, is awash in newly painted buildings which spectacularly highlight the artistic details of the facades. I can't foresee the HC coming in and telling everyone they have to repaint everything in Philadelphia Brown (an actual color, you know!). We don't now live in 1890 or 1900, so I would not expect, nor should anyone else expect that a building owner is going to be able to replicate a building component that existed then. But at the same time, it is not unreasonable, nor should it be unduly expensive to make a repair that is at least visually compatible with the age of the building in question. A Home Depot porch spindle is not going to be identical to an original one, but it's more in keeping with the original aesthetic than putting up a cinderblock wall or ripping off the porch altogether. If the HC does not allow the Home Depot spindle, it is being unreasonable; if the property owner wants to rip off the porch altogether, he or she is being unreasonable and flat out destructive. I wouldn't necessarily agree with your dynamic vs. static argument, however. While it could be said that preserving the past is static, I don't believe that preserving the physical remnants of the past to be, insofar as architecture is an art form, and probably one of the few that is rourinely subject to alteration and destruction (for example, think of the demotiion of the old Pennsylvania Station in New York in the 1960's in the name of progress). I've been inside of some absolutely magnificent homes in this neighborhood, and to me, the fact that these homes are still stunning 100-plus years later speak to their quality as works of archetectural art. Your mention of a managed/engineered neighborhood may be the only way some of these structures will be able to survive. Thanks again for your response. Karen From: L a s e r B e a m [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: L a s e r B e a m [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [UC] HD : an Ad Hoc, Non Binding, lots of time and reasons to change your mind, POLL - Just Do It! Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 13:10:46 -0400 KAREN ALLEN wrote: I support the historic district designation, although I do not live in Spruce Hill. I think that some valid concerns have been raised regarding how the Historic Commission functions, but these issues can and should be addressed separately and apart from the concept of a historic district. I am almost 50 years old, and I lived in Philadelphia my entire life. I grew up in South Philadelphia, in the neighborhood now known as Southwest Center City. ...[rest of story snipped] thanks, karen, for your story. it's another example of how complex the hd issue is. for example, you cite the wholesale destruction that occured in your old neighborhood. and then point out that that wholesale destruction did not happen in this neighborhood, that it survived more or less intact and has a cohesive aesthetic. it makes one wonder, doesn't it, about the extent to which wholesale destruction is going on in this neighborhood, and, related to that, the extent to which historic districting would be the appropriate tool necessary to stem it... many factors are responsible for fostering healthy stable neighborhoods over time, and some would argue that these factors should include
