If this was true -- and it makes some intuitive sense -- and if I were a
Woodland Terr. resident, to whom esthetics absolutely would matter --
then I might try to present an argument rich in civil-engineering issues
such as traffic when working PCPC, and to concentrate my esthetic
concerns in
Glenn moyer wrote:
As I just responded to Ray's comments, the traffic study was never relevant.
well, the traffic study DID became relevant at some point.
and that point was at pcpc's may 20 hearing.
prior to may 20, the hotel's height and scale was THE issue
-- in newspaper articles, at
Frank wrote:
At the Woodland Terrace meetings I attended we were informed that
aesthetics, including scale, would not be as important to focus on as
things like traffic. We were told that a traffic concerns would have
more impact on the City agencies involved and that aesthetics were not
Not so at all. In the spring '07 1st Thursday meeting, more questions
were about traffic than any other factor. In the first fall '07 Spruce
Hill meeting, traffic concerns were frequently mentioned by neighbors
along with parking, trash collection and sunlight blockage. Scale
alone -- simply
Traffic was one of the most frequently-expressed concerns I've heard
community members raise about this project at two meetings. It also has
a large potential impact on public infrastructure, as well as on
community members who don't live right next to a project. Traffic is a
meat-and-potatoes
At the Woodland Terrace meetings I attended we were informed that
aesthetics, including scale, would not be as important to focus on as
things like traffic. We were told that a traffic concerns would have
more impact on the City agencies involved and that aesthetics were not
really a valid
*CITOYEN [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Oct 4, 2008 12:06 AM
To: univcity Univcity@list.purple.com
Subject: Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators
Glenn moyer wrote:
Throughout this smokescreen of propaganda, all important
relevant issues raised by the community were erased from
all the city records while
couldn't even locate the file for me to look at!!!
glenn
PS In my opinion, I don't think the organized group got very good legal
advice.
-Original Message-
From: Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Oct 4, 2008 11:27 AM
To: UnivCity@list.purple.com
Subject: Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators
]
Sent: Oct 4, 2008 11:27 AM
To: UnivCity@list.purple.com
Subject: Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators
At the Woodland Terrace meetings I attended we were informed that
aesthetics, including scale, would not be as important to focus on as
things like traffic. We were told that a traffic concerns would
To: UnivCity@list.purple.com
Subject: Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators
Frank
On Oct 4, 2008, at 01:58 PM, Glenn moyer wrote:
Of course, the minutes,
which I know are only supposed to be an outline, don't reflect those.
Frank,
This is not what Farnham, director of PHC, and the PHC secretary
. Fuck you!
A subject of the regime,
Glenn
-Original Message-
From: UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Oct 3, 2008 12:03 AM
To: univcity Univcity@list.purple.com
Subject: Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators
Anthony West wrote:
PCPC did consider physical size and scale an issue
And that's why I originally quoted a remark by Gary Jastrzab of PCPC
that you ignored in the original news article, and that you just ignored
again: “Initially we had major issues with the height of 11 stories. But
with the cut-outs, added Jastrzab in reference to the five rooms that
were
-Original Message-
From: Anthony West [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Oct 3, 2008 6:38 PM
To: univcity Univcity@list.purple.com
Subject: Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators
And that's why I originally quoted a remark by Gary Jastrzab of PCPC
that you ignored in the original news article
This quotation derives from Nicole Contosta, who has covered this issue
extensively for the University City Review for many months.
Neither Contosta nor any other journalist is free of error. But I'll go
with her report against that of a citizen journalist who faked an
imaginary nursing home
Glenn moyer wrote:
Throughout this smokescreen of propaganda, all important
relevant issues raised by the community were erased from
all the city records while the falsified records put
forth only a single unresolved issue behind the delay,
the parking/traffic study.
Was all of this a simple
PCPC did consider physical size and scale an issue, and a serious-enough
one to reject the proposal in April -- but not, I repeat, as a
deal-breaker. The developer changed the proposal to reduce the impact of
its height, so PCPC approved an amended proposal in September. To quote
from your
Anthony West wrote:
PCPC did consider physical size and scale an issue, and a serious-enough
one to reject the proposal in April -- but not, I repeat, as a
deal-breaker.
pcpc DID consider the hotel's height and scale, from the
very beginning. it was that serious.
but pcpc couldn't justify
Anthony West wrote:
My post didn't ignore anything; it modestly addressed the question of
whose job it is to weigh in on an issue of scale, if you'll pardon the
pun.
and my modest point is that, whether anyone admits it or
not, everyone IS weighing in on the issue of the hotel's
size and
Traffic is one consequence of scale. So when PCPC talked traffic, it was
dealing with one aspect of scale it deemed within its scope. Not to your
satisfaction, perhaps; still it did that job.
You dismissed its work. So you seem to be using the term differently, to
describe visual scale, and
Anthony West wrote:
SHCA's warrant doesn't reach east of 40th St.
false. it goes east to 38th street.
http://www.sprucehillca.org/map.html
the rest of your post, like phc and pcpc and shca, simply
ignores the height and scale issue of the proposed hotel.
the hotel's massive height and
Oh, I didn't know that about SHCA boundaries, Ray. Thanks.
But SHCA does tend to represent off-campus homeowners much more than
highrise student residents (has anyone ever met a highrise-resident SHCA
member?). Since the latter neighbors live in blocky 16-story buildings,
their view of scale
Very, very interesting question, that deserves at least a stab at an answer.
Scale couldn't have much of an issue when the Campus Inn went before
the Historical Commission. HC's reasoning is opaque to me, but in
general it seems not to be a body that deals with scale. The HC is
about the
22 matches
Mail list logo
