In a message dated 11/2/2007 1:07:31 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can always tell when I ask good questions because they get ignored. Those of you who support this proposal: let's have a real dialogue; answer these questions (and asking me "why do you hate America" doesn't count as an answer). Karen Allen Hi, Karen, these are good questions. I don't know about anyone else, but my hesitation to reply is to avoid being overly argumentative. I've spoken too often already, just to try to dispel inaccurate statements. But if you truly want to hear another viewpoint, I'll be happy to share mine. This isn't personal - it's only in response to your request for other points of view. -How do you defend erecting a modern ten story building in an area comprised of 1850's Italianate three story homes? "Italianate homes"? The area is mixed. On the S side of the 4000 block of Pine, there are 1850s Italianates converted to apartments, plus the subject property at 400 S. 40th, converted long ago to a personal care home and long wrapped in a cinder block shell. Across Pine St. and also on the N side of Baltimore, there are late Victorian houses, now almost all apartments. Across 40th St. from the subject property, there are townhouses and an apartment building. Nearly all are tenant occupied properties. Slightly south of the subject property, across 40th St., is the empty commercial space, part of it still with a sign showing that it was once a travel agency, with several floors above which may or may not be occupied. Just across Baltimore Ave., a half block from the subject property, is the modern trolley portal. In the other direction, one short block north of the subject property, there's the modern one-story Allegro Pizza on the east side of 40th, and the much-altered building housing Copabanana on the west side. From the corner of 40th & Pine, one can see two of the Penn high rises to the NE. That's a more thorough description of the surroundings, and I'd urge anybody interested in this discussion to take a walk over there and view it for yourselves. "Modern"? As has been written earlier, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards don't allow a developer to build "faux-old." The new addition is not allowed to look old. The Historical Commission would guide the developer to make the new part "sympathetic" - in materials as well as height. When I spoke at the hearing, I urged the HC committee to work to make it more "sympathetic." How does one "defend"? Also as was written earlier, community zoning committees generally respect the wishes of the nearby neighbors when taking positions on new development. So the local community group's zoning committee would check first with those closest by, to see if they object. I am not privy to their deliberations, so I don't know where they are in that process, but I do know that no owner occupant or landlord neighbor from any of the locations I described above showed up at the HC hearing last week to complain. At some point, to have the local community association impose its will on a site, in absence of complaint from the neighbors, would seem inappropriate. To have you and me, as busybodies from the next neighborhood over, impose our will on the project seems even more problematic. I'm only piping up about this project because I want to see the Italiante building get unwrapped and renovated! -How is supporting this project consistent with the drive a few years back to have this area designated as an historic district? One might reverse that and ask, "how is opposing this project consistent with the drive a few years back to stop this area from being designated as an historic district?" To some extent, I think folks in UC tend to support or oppose change based on the identity of the entity proposing the change, rather than on the merit of the proposal. I think there may be some of that happening here, and I think it's unfortunate. As I wrote, I support preserving and restoring the building - and if this project will allow for that, I think the project has merit and should be considered. If it were financially feasible to remove the cinder block additions, restore the exterior, porch, original drive and gardens, and operate it as a 5- or 6-room B&B, I'd prefer that! But I don't see financial feasibility in a use with so little income, or in a use as a single family home again. That's what I said at the HC hearing. I think we need to be practical if we want this corner to be beautiful and in use. It will be far better than it's been since the 1960s, almost 50 years ago, if developed basically as currently proposed. -Does the current lack of an historic designation that would compel new buildings or building renovations to conform to certain standards become a reason to ignore those same standards? Or to cite the lack of that designation as a reason for support? I'm a little lost on this question. 400 S. 40th does have an historic designation which will compel new building renovations to conform to "certain," if you mean "historic" standards. No one is suggesting ignoring them. The question is whether or not the Historical Commission will allow additional development on the lot. The HC staff favored the idea, in theory. The HC Architectural Committee voted against it (as currently proposed, though they made suggestions that some of the opponents found acceptable), 4-2. The full Historical Commission has yet to consider it. -Shouldn't those who profess to support historic designation demand that developers voluntarily comply with those standards before throwing their support behind those developers' projects? I don't think that "demanding" how a developer spends his/her money is the best way to build a good working relationship, but in this case, we don't have to consider that! The developers are agreeing to comply to those standards - and they must, due to the building's designation. Again, the HC is considering whether or not to allow this additional development of the lot - so long as the developers comply with HC standards for the Italianate building. This is hardly the first time a project of this sort has come before the Historical Commission. They work things out; they make compromises. I hope that this point of view is helpful to the discussion. Would others like to address the questions? It needn't be a dialogue just between me and Karen. - Melani Lamond Melani Lamond, Associate Broker Urban & Bye, Realtor 3529 Lancaster Ave. Philadelphia, PA 19104 cell phone 215-356-7266 office phone 215-222-4800, ext. 113 office fax 215-222-1101 ____________________________________ Melani Lamond, Associate Broker Urban & Bye, Realtor 3529 Lancaster Ave. Philadelphia, PA 19104 cell phone 215-356-7266 office phone 215-222-4800, ext. 113 office fax 215-222-1101 ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
