Actually the downside is that they created one of the worst intersections in the city.
Frank PS. Sorry. I'm a little scattered tonight. On May 18, 2010, at 08:53 PM, Anthony West wrote: > Also a sound account. > > But the most important discussion of neighborhood development, of course, is > always whether the development is good for the neighborhood or not. Correct? > > I gassed up and repaired my vehicle at that garage many a time. But it posed > a pollution problem due to an elderly leaking tank, I heard. It takes big > bucks to fix a brownfield problem like this. Fortunately, Penn has big bucks. > So an elderly gas station was replaced with a shining new vet-school > facility. The vet school has always been an asset to UC; now it's even more > of an asset. > > Where's the problem, neighbors and neighborettes? Why are we now whining > about a neighborhood improvement that has no apparent downside? > > I suppose Penn could have led with its Dark Side. It could have said: "We > plan to build a Big Building that will Forever Change the Essential Character > of the ordinary West Philadelphia neighbors who live a peaceful life at 39th > & Baltimore, entirely unaffected by the large university that just happens to > be next door, that they all hate, because all good progressives hate > universities, just like the GOP does." > > But it didn't. Instead, it simply got the building built, bypassing our > neighborhood's pseudo-radical nonsense by any means necessary. How else could > it accomplish anything? > > Dialog is, by definition, a two-way street. If UC leftists wish to be > accepted as equal, rational partners in community planning for this > off-campus neighborhood, they need to quit foaming at the mouth every time a > university tries to solve a festering real-estate sore for us, as it did at > the 38th & Woodland gas station and again at the 40th & Pine nursing home. > > -- Tony West > > > > On 5/18/2010 8:21 PM, Brian Siano wrote: >> >> But I simply cannot believe that Karen's reporting this accurately. What did >> she think-- that the project was _just_ a road reconfiguration? Didn't >> people see the announcements, the artists' conceptions, the maps, the >> website? I sure did. It was _always_ to accommodate a new Vet building. >> Artists' conceptions were always part of the presentations. Every >> presentation I saw, every web site, every announcement, said that a new Vet >> building was going up. This bit about 'they told us it was for traffic flow" >> is hard to believe. >> >> What is Karen saying-- that they kept a _whole building project_ as a >> _secret_? > ---- 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>.
