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 restrictions - as you mention, "(streetscapes, fabric, ensembles, etc.)" Thanks for your thoughts, Melani Melani Lamond, Associate Broker Urban & Bye, Realtor PA License Number AB048377L 3529 Lancaster Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19104 cell phone 215-356-7266 - office phone 215-222-4800 #113 ************** The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy Awards. AOL Music takes you there. (http://music.aol.com/grammys?ncid=emlcntusmusi00000002)
