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 were, then the developers would not be able to tear it down, > AND they would not be able to build a tall building, and perhaps more UC > neighbors would be satisfied! This would be a much stronger restraint than > precedent or the lack of precedent! But our community opposed the creation > of a local district, some years back. I remember well that time, and the > strident opposition to the UC Historical Society/Spruce Hill Community > Association's nomination. A small group of extremely vocal neighbors accused > these organizations of betraying the neighborhood back then, for somewhat the > opposite reasons for which they are making accusations against the > organizations now! Some scoffed at me when I wrote on this listserv > (probably before you were reading it) that without a local district, in the > future we might see buildings torn down and replaced by McMansions and other > intrusive structures - as, I wrote then, had already begun to happen in Ocean > City, New Jersey, where the block upon which I own a 1920s Craftsman style > house sees tear-downs of that era every year, and cookie-cutter replacement > McMansions with, among other atrocities, vinyl-sided chimneys! The character > and heritage of Ocean City is being lost, building by building, and it is all > completely legal. Oh, they've got a height limitation - but what does it > matter, when the replacement buildings are all shlock modern plastic duplex > boxes that will look dated and worn out in just a few years? > > I'm not alone in seeing the addition of the hotel structure as a viable > trade-off at 40th & Pine; the Philadelphia Historical Commission encouraged > and worked with the developers to go this route. For over a year, the PHC > reviewed the plans that resulted, tweaking this and that, asking the > developers to make it taller, make it shorter, change the restaurant side, > change it again, change the exterior materials, change the signage - changes > that the developers continued to make in accordance with the PHC's directions. > Then - the PHC voted against the building which had been altered to their > specifications, for no stated reason! Then - the PHC looked at some further > changes and voted in favor of it! The PHC board and PHC staff didn't seem to > be in agreement, and the flip-flopping actions seemed very unprofessional and > very costly for developers - a city agency should not lead a developer in one > direction for over a year and then change courses for no reason - don't you > agree, Guy? If Philadelphia developers can't expect more consistency and > professionalism than this, why and how will anyone develop anything in > Philadelphia? After seeing the PHC act in such a capricious way, I can > understand the reluctance of the UC neighbors who didn't want to be at the > PHC's mercy if we'd had a local historic district! But I think that the PHC > staff and board need to have their responsibilities stated to them more > clearly - and I think that that happened in this case; the city attorney gave > the board a clear "charge" before the board's later vote - instead of us > giving up on them, and giving up on historic districts in University City. > > 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. And if we continue to demean and attack > one another instead of working together to come up with possible "big picture" > solutions, we will probably continue to be stressed, split and unhappy > neighbors. A number of people have written to me off list about the > demolition notice for 4224 Baltimore: I don't know of a way to stop it. > And I don't know of a way to bring neighbors together for a productive search > for possible compromises. Compromise doesn't seem to have much of a chance in > our current community climate, nor does an ad hoc group; nor does an > established group. There are too many folks who will tell us why all of > these are wrong. > > If anyone has positive suggestions, I'd love to hear them! > > Melani Lamond > > > > > > 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)
