Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators
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 other venues, ones I thought more disposed to hear them with respect. -- Tony West 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 thing to complain about. I assume this was true at other neighborhood meetings. This might be why traffic became a major talking point. On the other hand, we were very careful that each of the neighbors speaking at the first PCPC meeting had a different angle on the subject of the hotel so that the Commission would see that there were many concerns, not just traffic. Of course, the minutes, which I know are only supposed to be an outline, don't reflect those. Frank 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.
Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators
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 the spruce hill meeting, in inga saffron's column, and even for pcpc and the developer. it's why pcpc recommended rejecting the hotel on april 15, it's what the developer was responding to when he adjusted the plans on april 25, and it was these height/scale adjustments that pcpc said it would use to approve the hotel on may 20 (even while admitting 'it's still an 11-story building.') in other words, it was all about the height and scale, for everyone involved, up until may 20. but on may 20 the developer cited a traffic study, the pcpc tabled any decision until it could consider this traffic study, and finally in september the pcpc approved the hotel based on the traffic study, telling the neighbors that they would 'get used to' the 'overbearing' height and scale of the hotel. I come back to my original question: what happened to the main issue of the hotel's height and scale? .. UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN 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.
Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators
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 really a valid thing to complain about. I assume this was true at other neighborhood meetings. This might be why traffic became a major talking point. On the other hand, we were very careful that each of the neighbors speaking at the first PCPC meeting had a different angle on the subject of the hotel so that the Commission would see that there were many concerns, not just traffic. Of course, the minutes, which I know are only supposed to be an outline, don't reflect those. thanks. what's still not clear is why the woodland terrace people were being 'informed' to focus on traffic before the may 20 pcpc hearing. traffic only became an issue AT that hearing, when the developer cited a traffic study and pcpc asked for a delay to consider it. how was it that the pcpc did not initiate any request for a traffic study (and prior to may 20 wasn't even considering traffic), and yet, in preparation for pcpc's may 20 hearing the woodland terrace group was being advised to focus on the traffic issue? (and the developer was planning to cite a traffic study)? who was it that initially decided that traffic was the issue -- the developer? the woodland terrace advisor? it wasn't pcpc and it wasn't the neighbors. .. UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN 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.
Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators
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 having to see a big thing where no big thing had stood before -- was one of many points raised. So that's what happened to the main issue; it never was the main issue. There never was any one main issue. Different people see it in different ways. The Campus Inn is a complex case, at least for urban planners. -- Tony West UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN wrote: prior to may 20, the hotel's height and scale was THE issue -- in newspaper articles, at the spruce hill meeting, in inga saffron's column, and even for pcpc and the developer. it's why pcpc recommended rejecting the hotel on april 15, it's what the developer was responding to when he adjusted the plans on april 25, and it was these height/scale adjustments that pcpc said it would use to approve the hotel on may 20 (even while admitting 'it's still an 11-story building.') in other words, it was all about the height and scale, for everyone involved, up until may 20. I come back to my original question: what happened to the main issue of the hotel's height and scale? 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.
Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators
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 city-planning problem. It would be odd indeed if PCPC did not consider traffic at this site. It's possible PCPC chose to decide the traffic question in September, after reviewing the traffic study, rather than in April, before reviewing the traffic study. Studies are studied by some people before making up their minds, and city planners are under permanent pressure to read and consider studies. -- Tony West UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN wrote: why, then, was traffic so important for pcpc to consider? and why was traffic more important to pcpc than the hotel's height and scale? and why was traffic so overridingly important for pcpc to consider in september, but not in april? 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.
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 have more impact on the City agencies involved and that aesthetics were not really a valid thing to complain about. I assume this was true at other neighborhood meetings. This might be why traffic became a major talking point. On the other hand, we were very careful that each of the neighbors speaking at the first PCPC meeting had a different angle on the subject of the hotel so that the Commission would see that there were many concerns, not just traffic. Of course, the minutes, which I know are only supposed to be an outline, don't reflect those. Frank On Oct 4, 2008, at 09:48 AM, Anthony West wrote: 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 city-planning problem. It would be odd indeed if PCPC did not consider traffic at this site. It's possible PCPC chose to decide the traffic question in September, after reviewing the traffic study, rather than in April, before reviewing the traffic study. Studies are studied by some people before making up their minds, and city planners are under permanent pressure to read and consider studies. -- Tony West UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN wrote: why, then, was traffic so important for pcpc to consider? and why was traffic more important to pcpc than the hotel's height and scale? and why was traffic so overridingly important for pcpc to consider in september, but not in april? 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. 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.
Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators
it's because pcpc couldn't approve the hotel on the basis of its height and scale in april or may. pcpc decided, after tabling the matter and scrubbing neighbors' testimony in may, to use, in september, a stand-in issue as its criterion: traffic. Ray, you are right on target and touching on some very important matters. Of the four city hearings, only the architectural committee of the PHC actually did the job the taxpayers gave them. They had obviously reviewed the plans, and sure enough, they discussed and rejected the hotel for the range of issues our neighbors have been stressing since the secret project was exposed by the UC Review. It was clear to me that the project would not pass them with some simple tweak to the proposal. Clearly, the work of the architectural committee needed to be completely bypassed by Penn and that is exactly what occurred two weeks later. As the PCPC did, the records of the architectural committee had been “scrubbed” so that had the PHC commissioners wanted to review their architect’s proceedings they could not have done so. At the November approval performance, a representative from the architectural committee argued against the prearranged approval. He was pissed. The new secret plans being presented that day used the single issue switcharoo. The change from 10 stories to 11, with a setback of floors 4-11, was asserted by the Penn team, director Farnham, and the unidentified PHC staff as the complete answer to the architects rejection! Farnham argued that it was OK that the public was being surprised with the new secret plans that day because Penn had given them to him earlier (This drew laughter)! First, the entire claim that the illegal lack of setback for floors 1-3, was OK’d by the architects, is complete bullshit. Clearly, it was prearranged in the backroom that the commission would vote to change policy and not send the new secret plans back to the architects as they should have done. Taxpayers and the architects need to ask themselves, why the hell do we provide resources for an architects committee when the records will be scrubbed and they are completely ignored and bypassed From the stupid comments of the other commissioners in this process (eg. The height is shocking but people will get used to it), none of the other commissioners ever reviewed the plans, reviewed the written and oral testimony of opponents, or put any effort into understanding the proposal. Greenberger and Altman at PCPC led the performance for the benefit of the audience and new public access cameras. Making some comments about Vancouver and how they had considered the height, etc., Altman and Greenberger were attempting to give the appearance that work and analysis had guided their decision rather than it being a prearranged deal in a backroom. If they considered the testimony of opponents which had been scrubbed from the record, why did they not direct a single comment as a refutation of any of the other issues raised??? The scrubbed PCPC records identified the traffic study as the only unresolved question from May, and sure enough, the September performance of Altman and Greenberger followed the script exactly while the other commissioners said nothing but dumb shit. If the public had honest transcripts of the PHC hearings, we would all clearly see the outrageous and dishonest pretense of a single issue answered, prior to the prearranged approval. As I immediately realized, when I first read the May 20 PCPC “minutes,” most of our neighbors would have also predicted that; “the traffic study,” would be the central single issue for the charade and that approval of Campus Inn had been prearranged. Concluding, there are two important points. These commissioners do not do the work and analysis that is pretended. Like our civic association boards, a few bad actors make the backroom deals and lead the performance. Their buddies go along with their “decisions” and no one challenges the obviously false records and no one challenges the single issue switch. One member from the architectural committee, the one group that did the work they are charged to do, challenged this performance and seemed incredibly frustrated. Most commissioners show up for their paychecks and play along while a few bad actors make the backroom deals. That is our government. That is the system. -Original Message- From: UNIVERSITY*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 the falsified records put forth only a single unresolved issue behind the delay, the parking/traffic study. Was all of this a simple recurring error? Was the DP editorial board amazingly
Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators
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 have asserted. Andrew might remember this and Melani sat beside him at the PHC architectural hearing. Andrew asked permission to make an independent recording of this public hearing and was denied. Farnham justified the refusal while asserting that an accurate record would be produced. As I later experienced again at the PHC offices, they use the words transcripts and minutes interchangeably. Even the minute by minute recording, minutes is considered to be a much more detailed record than a sloppy outline. The PHC secretary got angry at me when I said, these are not transcripts. That exchange helps me clearly remember that she was calling them transcripts She got angry but never disputed my complaint. I can't recall if Farnham said minutes or transcripts to Andrew. (Melani and Andrew- help me out). The moment they refused to allow Andrew to make an independent recording, they lost the right to produce a sloppy outline of these official hearings! Consider: These commissions record these official public hearings. They refuse to allow independent recording while asserting transcripts will be available. Then, when the published record appears, the mistakes follow an identifiable pattern. (Thank God for the new public access TV cameras) As I just responded to Ray's comments, the traffic study was never relevant. When I went to the PCPC office requesting to inspect the public submissions, no one knew where the file was located! Most of those commissioners never read all the submissions our neighbors worked on. Very few of our neighbors attended both PHC hearings. Like I said to Ray, it was very clear to me that the traffic study was nothing more than a smokescreen placed in the minutes to be pointed towards at the approval show. Think about it. Did any of those commissioners say anything specific about the traffic study? Matt mentioned the problem of the promised valet parking and shuttle buses turning on 41st St. Did they point to any part of the traffic study to refute his argument or any other potential problem raised by the opponents? I believe the traffic study and parking won't be a problem, is the red flag which shows its real purpose. If anyone presented their study, as support, like that in the real world; they would be laughed at. (The Clark Park dog park advocates were publicly humiliated when I demanded their survey and data being asserted. They left it at home 'cause they didn't think anyone would be interested! I could see and hear the reaction of the attendees and one woman appropriately called their survey propaganda) It's a terrible situation which I've witnessed first hand. All the written testimony of opponents and all but the cover page of the traffic study went directly into the trash. The staff 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 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 thing to complain about. I assume this was true at other neighborhood meetings. This might be why traffic became a major talking point. On the other hand, we were very careful that each of the neighbors speaking at the first PCPC meeting had a different angle on the subject of the hotel so that the Commission would see that there were many concerns, not just traffic. Of course, the minutes, which I know are only supposed to be an outline, don't reflect those. Frank On Oct 4, 2008, at 09:48 AM, Anthony West wrote: 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 city-planning problem. It would be odd indeed if PCPC did not consider traffic at this site. It's possible PCPC chose to decide the traffic question in September, after reviewing the traffic study, rather than in April, before reviewing the traffic study. Studies are studied by some people before making up their minds, and city planners are under permanent pressure to read and consider studies. -- Tony West UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN wrote: why, then, was traffic so important for pcpc to consider? and why was traffic more important
Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators
In my experience with city/town governments, minutes ere pretty much all that were kept. Transcripts were rare. If anyone was using those terms interchangeably, they were simply incorrect and/or choosing to mislead. Also in Provincetown the Board of Selectmen were dead set against their weekly meetings being taped and televised on public access but we had to tell them they really had no choice about it. It was in the Town's contract with Comcast as well as Federal Law. Town government has become at least a little more transparent. Mabe the same thing will happen here. 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 have asserted. Andrew might remember this and Melani sat beside him at the PHC architectural hearing. Andrew asked permission to make an independent recording of this public hearing and was denied. Farnham justified the refusal while asserting that an accurate record would be produced. As I later experienced again at the PHC offices, they use the words transcripts and minutes interchangeably. Even the minute by minute recording, minutes is considered to be a much more detailed record than a sloppy outline. The PHC secretary got angry at me when I said, these are not transcripts. That exchange helps me clearly remember that she was calling them transcripts She got angry but never disputed my complaint. I can't recall if Farnham said minutes or transcripts to Andrew. (Melani and Andrew- help me out). The moment they refused to allow Andrew to make an independent recording, they lost the right to produce a sloppy outline of these official hearings! Consider: These commissions record these official public hearings. They refuse to allow independent recording while asserting transcripts will be available. Then, when the published record appears, the mistakes follow an identifiable pattern. (Thank God for the new public access TV cameras) As I just responded to Ray's comments, the traffic study was never relevant. When I went to the PCPC office requesting to inspect the public submissions, no one knew where the file was located! Most of those commissioners never read all the submissions our neighbors worked on. Very few of our neighbors attended both PHC hearings. Like I said to Ray, it was very clear to me that the traffic study was nothing more than a smokescreen placed in the minutes to be pointed towards at the approval show. Think about it. Did any of those commissioners say anything specific about the traffic study? Matt mentioned the problem of the promised valet parking and shuttle buses turning on 41st St. Did they point to any part of the traffic study to refute his argument or any other potential problem raised by the opponents? I believe the traffic study and parking won't be a problem, is the red flag which shows its real purpose. If anyone presented their study, as support, like that in the real world; they would be laughed at. (The Clark Park dog park advocates were publicly humiliated when I demanded their survey and data being asserted. They left it at home 'cause they didn't think anyone would be interested! I could see and hear the reaction of the attendees and one woman appropriately called their survey propaganda) It's a terrible situation which I've witnessed first hand. All the written testimony of opponents and all but the cover page of the traffic study went directly into the trash. The staff 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 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 thing to complain about. I assume this was true at other neighborhood meetings. This might be why traffic became a major talking point. On the other hand, we were very careful that each of the neighbors speaking at the first PCPC meeting had a different angle on the subject of the hotel so that the Commission would see that there were many concerns, not just traffic. Of course, the minutes, which I know are only supposed to be an outline, don't reflect those. Frank On Oct 4, 2008, at 09:48 AM, Anthony West wrote: 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
Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators
In my experience with city/town governments, minutes ere pretty much all that were kept. Transcripts were rare. If anyone was using those terms interchangeably, they were simply incorrect and/or choosing to mislead. Also in Provincetown the Board of Selectmen were dead set against their weekly meetings being taped and televised on public access but we had to tell them they really had no choice about it. It was in the Town's contract with Comcast as well as Federal Law. Town government has become at least a little more transparent. Mabe the same thing will happen here. Yes, I completely agree. And I too am hopeful about the benefits of public access cameras in city hall. It's interesting. The cameras weren't present at the May 20th PCPC hearing. I wonder if the indictment of the Kelly aid, shortly afterwards, finally forced the city to comply with the federal law. If any one knows more about the public access laws and the delays in Philadelphia compliance, please share your experience and knowledge. I've only recently learned about all of this. Best, Glenn -Original Message- From: Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Oct 4, 2008 9:07 PM 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 have asserted. Andrew might remember this and Melani sat beside him at the PHC architectural hearing. Andrew asked permission to make an independent recording of this public hearing and was denied. Farnham justified the refusal while asserting that an accurate record would be produced. As I later experienced again at the PHC offices, they use the words transcripts and minutes interchangeably. Even the minute by minute recording, minutes is considered to be a much more detailed record than a sloppy outline. The PHC secretary got angry at me when I said, these are not transcripts. That exchange helps me clearly remember that she was calling them transcripts She got angry but never disputed my complaint. I can't recall if Farnham said minutes or transcripts to Andrew. (Melani and Andrew- help me out). The moment they refused to allow Andrew to make an independent recording, they lost the right to produce a sloppy outline of these official hearings! Consider: These commissions record these official public hearings. They refuse to allow independent recording while asserting transcripts will be available. Then, when the published record appears, the mistakes follow an identifiable pattern. (Thank God for the new public access TV cameras) As I just responded to Ray's comments, the traffic study was never relevant. When I went to the PCPC office requesting to inspect the public submissions, no one knew where the file was located! Most of those commissioners never read all the submissions our neighbors worked on. Very few of our neighbors attended both PHC hearings. Like I said to Ray, it was very clear to me that the traffic study was nothing more than a smokescreen placed in the minutes to be pointed towards at the approval show. Think about it. Did any of those commissioners say anything specific about the traffic study? Matt mentioned the problem of the promised valet parking and shuttle buses turning on 41st St. Did they point to any part of the traffic study to refute his argument or any other potential problem raised by the opponents? I believe the traffic study and parking won't be a problem, is the red flag which shows its real purpose. If anyone presented their study, as support, like that in the real world; they would be laughed at. (The Clark Park dog park advocates were publicly humiliated when I demanded their survey and data being asserted. They left it at home 'cause they didn't think anyone would be interested! I could see and hear the reaction of the attendees and one woman appropriately called their survey propaganda) It's a terrible situation which I've witnessed first hand. All the written testimony of opponents and all but the cover page of the traffic study went directly into the trash. The staff 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 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
Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators
Quoted by Ray from a Penn blog site: What’s most shocking, though, is the developers’ attitude toward their future neighbors. They’ve known of and heard these complaints for a long time now, but they still haven’t done anything to reassure current residents that anything but their worst nightmares about the hotel are true. I’m not too attached to my current address. I probably won’t be around for the hotel’s construction or its completion. But the people who live on this block really are the University’s closest neighbors — so the University’s decision to support the project as it has is a particularly cruel message. Mr Noyce’s casual observation of the U.’s disregard for the community, the people, is on target. Even a passive short term resident can easily see through the marketing propaganda. Had he been attached to his current address, he suggests that the powerlessness and bullying from the U. would make an uncomfortable long term home. Ray has noticed the common thread, the planned dishonesty, going back to the DP editorial board endorsement published just after the “unanimous” community rejection of the project and developers’ lies. The Penn propaganda machine had obviously planned the smoke screen, a resolution of parking/traffic as the only issue, from the earliest times. The delay and switch tactic of the university needs such a smokescreen to justify the delay and switch to a single issue when overwhelming community opposition is encountered (remember the Clark Park revitalization delay). The city/corporate process which emerged deliberately reminds citizens that they are helpless against the corporate machine and fool’s for believing in good faith, honest, transparent dealings between citizens and their government. Unlike Tony West, I attended all city “hearings” for the project so my reports aren’t simply wind blowing from the backside. I recognize that Mr. Noyce needs to move from the city and not just the UC District! Public access TV recorded my testimony from Sept 16, which was forwarded to the list, when I accused both the PHC and PCPC of falsifying records of their own “public hearings.” Those less involved would not know if the conduct of these city agencies was gross incompetence or willful complicity with the ruthless dishonest development team. Our city government has a long tradition of both gross incompetence and serious corruption. Because I was present, unlike fantasy intellectual Tony West, I can point to the early DP endorsement of campus Inn, PCPC falsified records of the May 20 hearing, and the PCPC charade captured by the new “eyes” of public access TV on Sept. 16. (I have been told that Philadelphia government has dragged it’s heals with compliance to public access TV law. Not surprising from a government which refused to allow Andrew to make an independent recording of a “hearing” which would have exposed the falsification of PHC records.) 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 recurring error? Was the DP editorial board amazingly prescient so long ago? Why would all other issues not cloaked by a traffic study and worthless U. promises be erased after tabling the matter in May? The government of the city of Philadelphia has no more credibility than Penn Real Estate, Campus Apts, and the development team. This level of corruption revealed by this traffic study smokescreen should remind citizens that they are completely helpless under this system. The views, voices, and concerns which neighbors, (doing their duty as citizens and brought forth in good faith), were always meaningless and doomed. Maybe we can dismiss the corporate weasels doing the dirty contemptible lying, as doing the dirty contemptible things which we expect of them? But I, a subject of a ruthless plutocracy, have a message for the PCPC, PHC, and the current platitude spewing ambitious actor at its helm. 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 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 approving the hotel's height and scale in the face of neighbors' opposition and a pcpc staffer's reservations (even after the developer's revisions). so pcpc tabled their decision in may, scrubbed the neighbors' testimony from their minutes, and instead used
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, 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 removed from the hotel’s top story, giving it the appearance of a reduced scale from certain angles, the staff views this development as a very difficult trade-off.” Therefore, PCPC did not ignore height and scale in the 2nd hearing; it responded to the developers who had responded to the 1st hearing. So that's what happened to this issue in that venue. If you scrub Jastrzab's explanation, it makes it sound like scale was ignored when in fact it was addressed. Might as well leave it in, since it will not be unknown to ZBA. Was it addressed well enough? That's a question awaiting SHCA's and ZBA's decision. -- Tony West UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN wrote: but pcpc couldn't justify approving the hotel's height and scale in the face of neighbors' opposition and a pcpc staffer's reservations (even after the developer's revisions). so pcpc tabled their decision in may, scrubbed the neighbors' testimony from their minutes, and instead used an approved traffic study months later in september as their justification to approve the hotel -- while telling the neighbors they would 'get used to' the 'shock' of the hotel's height and scale. the hotel's height and scale was always an issue that pcpc considered. they chose to ignore it, to minimize its importance, and to choose, instead, another issue (traffic) as their reason for approving the hotel. that is why I originally asked: 'what happened to the main issue: the hotel's massive scale and height and footprint?' 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.
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, 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 removed from the hotel’s top story, giving it the appearance of a reduced scale from certain angles, the staff views this development as a very difficult trade-off.” Sorry to interject if Ray or neighbors wanted to correct this odoriferous West wind. Had Mr West attended the hearings for which he provides expert analysis; he would know that Mr. Greenberger and not Mr Jastrzab had been the person (new Penn/Nutter director and commissioner) who interjected this charade. Mr. Greenberger compared the new, hidden, drawings/plan to another city (I believe Vancouver) and made comments similar to the ones above. Mr. Greenberger was ostensibly suggesting that PCPC commissioners had actually thought about the old drawings and new drawings and had arrived at some rational approval of this new bullshit as being a Penn improvement. Let that West wind blow, Mr Moyer, citizen journalist -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, 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 removed from the hotel’s top story, giving it the appearance of a reduced scale from certain angles, the staff views this development as a very difficult trade-off.” Therefore, PCPC did not ignore height and scale in the 2nd hearing; it responded to the developers who had responded to the 1st hearing. So that's what happened to this issue in that venue. If you scrub Jastrzab's explanation, it makes it sound like scale was ignored when in fact it was addressed. Might as well leave it in, since it will not be unknown to ZBA. Was it addressed well enough? That's a question awaiting SHCA's and ZBA's decision. -- Tony West UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN wrote: but pcpc couldn't justify approving the hotel's height and scale in the face of neighbors' opposition and a pcpc staffer's reservations (even after the developer's revisions). so pcpc tabled their decision in may, scrubbed the neighbors' testimony from their minutes, and instead used an approved traffic study months later in september as their justification to approve the hotel -- while telling the neighbors they would 'get used to' the 'shock' of the hotel's height and scale. the hotel's height and scale was always an issue that pcpc considered. they chose to ignore it, to minimize its importance, and to choose, instead, another issue (traffic) as their reason for approving the hotel. that is why I originally asked: 'what happened to the main issue: the hotel's massive scale and height and footprint?' 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. 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.
Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators
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 on Market St. on this very list, not one month ago. Every claim Glenn publishes at, or about, public meetings should be dismissed by choosy readers, unless backed by independent testimony. -- Tony West Glenn moyer wrote: 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 removed from the hotel’s top story, giving it the appearance of a reduced scale from certain angles, the staff views this development as a very difficult trade-off.” Had Mr West attended the hearings for which he provides expert analysis; he would know that Mr. Greenberger and not Mr Jastrzab had been the person (new Penn/Nutter director and commissioner) who interjected this charade. Mr. Greenberger compared the new, hidden, drawings/plan to another city (I believe Vancouver) and made comments similar to the ones above. Mr. Greenberger was ostensibly suggesting that PCPC commissioners had actually thought about the old drawings and new drawings and had arrived at some rational approval of this new bullshit as being a Penn improvement. Let that West wind blow, Mr Moyer, citizen journalist 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.
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 the falsified records put forth only a single unresolved issue behind the delay, the parking/traffic study. Was all of this a simple recurring error? Was the DP editorial board amazingly prescient so long ago? Why would all other issues not cloaked by a traffic study and worthless U. promises be erased after tabling the matter in May? what's laughable is that pcpc even bothered to consider a traffic study when they were so confident that the neighbors would 'get used to' the height and scale of the hotel. by pcpc's reasoning, surely neighbors would also 'get used to' the hotel traffic, along with the permanent fact of the hotel's height and scale. by pcpc's reasoning, there shouldn't have been any need to even consider traffic. neighbors would simply 'get used to it'. why, then, was traffic so important for pcpc to consider? and why was traffic more important to pcpc than the hotel's height and scale? and why was traffic so overridingly important for pcpc to consider in september, but not in april? it's because pcpc couldn't approve the hotel on the basis of its height and scale in april or may. pcpc decided, after tabling the matter and scrubbing neighbors' testimony in may, to use, in september, a stand-in issue as its criterion: traffic. .. UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN 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.
Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators
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 link: “'Initially we had major issues with the height of 11 stories,' explained the Philadelphia Planning Commission staff’s Acting Executive Director, Gary J. Jastrzab of the staff’s decision to endorse the hotel towards the meeting’s close. 'But with the cut-outs,' added Jastrzab in reference to the five rooms that were removed from the hotel’s top story, giving it the appearance of a reduced scale from certain angles, 'the staff views this development as a very difficult trade-off.'” Par for the course with PCPC. Trade-off is the key word here. It's not PCPC's style to treat any one troublesome factor in a complex case as a line in the sand that cannot be crossed, no matter what other benefits might accrue. Instead it'll bash away at such factors until it gets some give-back, then meet the developer somewhere in the middle. Not what opponents in Spruce Hill wanted, for sure ... but also no sign of unusual behavior or special treatment. PCPC acted no differently before Greenburger from Penn took over its lead. On to the next inning. The lineup will be different, so perhaps there'll be pitching changes as well on both sides. -- Tony West UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN wrote: from the beginning, the pcpc DID consider the physical size and scale of the hotel, and deemed it within its scope. on april 15 the pcpc rejected the hotel based on its height, and even after considering revisions to the hotel on april 25, pcpc admitted that 'it's still an 11-story building in the middle of the street' http://tinyurl.com/4jdug6 again, on may 20, the pcpc considred the hotel's height and scale: http://tinyurl.com/3p9h3v [pcpc chairman] Altman's remarks responded directly to many of the concerns made by those opposed to the construction of the hotel at the 40th and Pine Street location. These included how the hotel's development would not only clash with the surrounding architecture of the West Philadelphia Streetcar Suburb and the Woodland Terrace's national historic designation where it is proposed to be built but also how its height of 115 ft. would loom over the other residences of 35 ft. but on may 20, the pcpc tabled the question of the hotel until a future meeting. then, on september 16, the pcpc approved the hotel. how? by approving a traffic study and telling neighbors that they would 'get used to' the 'shock' of the hotel's size and scale. that was the 'job' that pcpc couldn't do in may, but one that it could do in september: by september, the question of the hotel's size and scale had been reduced to one of traffic, and penn's alan greenberger had been appointed head of pcpc. 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.
Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators
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 approving the hotel's height and scale in the face of neighbors' opposition and a pcpc staffer's reservations (even after the developer's revisions). so pcpc tabled their decision in may, scrubbed the neighbors' testimony from their minutes, and instead used an approved traffic study months later in september as their justification to approve the hotel -- while telling the neighbors they would 'get used to' the 'shock' of the hotel's height and scale. the hotel's height and scale was always an issue that pcpc considered. they chose to ignore it, to minimize its importance, and to choose, instead, another issue (traffic) as their reason for approving the hotel. that is why I originally asked: 'what happened to the main issue: the hotel's massive scale and height and footprint?' 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.
Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators
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 scale, because every issue about that hotel has to do with its size and scale. some have tried to get around this by distorting drawings, others by scrubbing testimony from meeting minutes, others by telling us that we'll get used to it, and still others by reducing the issue to one of traffic. and now some will tell us it's really nobody's business. .. UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN 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.
Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators
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 perhaps ... social scale, to coin a clumsy term: the integrity of social interactions that are shaped by certain spaces and sizes. That's what I've been trying to figure out with you. Zoning is a body of regulations that takes literal, visual scale seriously. Clearly it is ZBA's business to pass judgement on it. PCPC's opinion should be valuable in deciding some questions -- whether the public infrastructure affected by a large-scale project is up to the task, for instance. A nod from PCPC may resolve some, but not all, questions of scale. Both proponents and opponents of the Campus Inn will now move ahead to the next inning. -- Tony West 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 scale, because every issue about that hotel has to do with its size and scale. some have tried to get around this by distorting drawings, others by scrubbing testimony from meeting minutes, others by telling us that we'll get used to it, and still others by reducing the issue to one of traffic. and now some will tell us it's really nobody's business. . UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN 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.
Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators (Was: Re: Did anyone see this from the DP?)
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 scale have been at the heart of the opposition to the hotel since the very beginning, and this opposition to the height and scale has been publicly voiced, again and again since 2007, in neighbors writing to uc review, the dp, and the city paper; it has been publicly demonstrated, repeatedly since 2007, in neighbors testifying at phc, pcpc, and shca's public meeting. indeed, the height and scale issue was so important that in dec 2007 the developer himself published distorted drawings of the hotel in an attempt to minimize the appearance of its actual height and bulk. and as recently as last week (sept 16) nilda ruiz and other members of pcpc acknowledged that the height and scale was 'overbearing', a 'shock' and a 'problem', but that neighbors would 'get used to it'. well, the neighbors have not gotten used to it, and the agencies involved have not gotten used to it. while the developer, with the help of penn, squeezes their hotel through the mayor's offices at city hall, the hotel's massive height and scale remains the elephant in the room. ignoring it each step of the way does not mean approval or support, in fact, the very attention and effort given to dismissing it is what's been so necessary to push it this far. .. UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN 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.
Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators
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 and massive might be quite different from that of a resident on 42nd St. Still, SHCA looks like a good venue in which to raise questions of scale for those neighbors that are opposed to the Campus Inn project. 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. PCPC, as you just noted below, does not see preservation of scale as its topmost concern in city planning. SHCA and ZBA look more appropriate for that issue, each in a different way that could be tactically important. The Mayor's Office at City Hall is really separate from PCPC, which is on Arch St. The Mayor's Office is not part of the normal loop for approval of any development. And there's nobody specifically in charge of scale in the Mayor's Office. You can still go down there if you want to, and so can Penn. -- Tony West 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 scale have been at the heart of the opposition to the hotel since the very beginning, and this opposition to the height and scale has been publicly voiced, again and again since 2007, in neighbors writing to uc review, the dp, and the city paper; it has been publicly demonstrated, repeatedly since 2007, in neighbors testifying at phc, pcpc, and shca's public meeting. indeed, the height and scale issue was so important that in dec 2007 the developer himself published distorted drawings of the hotel in an attempt to minimize the appearance of its actual height and bulk. and as recently as last week (sept 16) nilda ruiz and other members of pcpc acknowledged that the height and scale was 'overbearing', a 'shock' and a 'problem', but that neighbors would 'get used to it'. well, the neighbors have not gotten used to it, and the agencies involved have not gotten used to it. while the developer, with the help of penn, squeezes their hotel through the mayor's offices at city hall, the hotel's massive height and scale remains the elephant in the room. ignoring it each step of the way does not mean approval or support, in fact, the very attention and effort given to dismissing it is what's been so necessary to push it this far. .. UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN 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.
[UC] Scale and its adjudicators (Was: Re: Did anyone see this from the DP?)
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 trees, not the forest: i.e., are your replacement windows of the same style as their 1898 original? Since the Campus Inn isn't in a City-recognized Historic District, the HC has no warrant to weigh the scale of an 11-story building on a block with 4-story buildings. So it didn't. It had to respect Campus Inn's vow to restore period details (who else wants to pay for them?); this created pressure on HC to cut the developer the economic slack needed to restore those precious mullions or whatever. Scale might be a more pertinent concern for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I've no experience with its case rulings. However, old hands vaguely opine that its rulings tend to be processual and facilitative, rather than authoritarian and prohibitive: i.e., it likes developers to come up with Response B to Concern A, rather than just decreeing, Thou shalt not. And PCPC approaches neighborhoods from a citywide perspective. Since 40th St. already has several tall buildings on or near it, without much complaint, one more tall building might not look like a deal-breaker to these blokes. Scale should peak in importance in the councils of the Spruce Hill Community Association. SHCA's warrant doesn't reach east of 40th St., so the opinions of neighbors there (who seem to be leaning pro-hotel) can't count for the Campus Inn. Not west of 40th St. was Mary Goldman's cry, and one that resonates in many University Citizens' hearts. The Woodland Terr. group, which is influential and well organized, has every right to appeal to fellow SHCA members for support on their concerns about scale. Scale should matter supremely to the Zoning Board of Adjustment -- but with a narrow warrant. Its relevant boundaries are zoning patches rather than neighborhoods. When it comes to variances, ZBA considers a tightly-drawn radius that takes in Woodland Terr. to the south and the nearest highrise to the north, to confer on only these residents a special right to speak as neighbors. The rest of us are spectators, in theory. ZBA is, however, a political body and can be influenced by political actions. -- Tony West it's fascinating how, as far back as march, the dp was framing the question of the hotel in terms of parking. and here we are now, with pcpc scheduling its hearings about the hotel in terms of parking. what happened to the main issue: the hotel's massive scale and height and footprint? .. UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN 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.
