Re: [UC] Pittsburgh

[Brian Choplick]

Sorry, but I wouldn't put it past Penn to encroach further west when the time is right for them. They are running out of space on the current campus, filling in every open spot with another building. And now since the postal service is not leaving its 30th Street complex any time soon, the only other option is, once again, west.   I just viewed a slide lecture last night that detailed some of the many beautiful homes Penn tore down during their major expansion last century. I wouldn't put it past them to do it again. It was only 30 years ago they attempted to tear down Sansom Row (and they now hypocritically tout its charm and beauty in promotional brochures). All we need is a change in administration at Penn for them to see University City as a viable place to expand once again.   Penn giveth, and Penn taketh away.   Brian ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 11:10 AM Subject: Re: [UC] Pittsburgh In a message dated 5/3/02 10:42:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: massive absentee-ownership and encroachment by an expanding university These two factors kept being tossed around as fear factors. Are they real? Or are they just bug-a-boos brought up by the real scaremongers in the area? 1) As a housing provider, I have lots of contacts among others who own and manage rental properties. There is some "absentee-ownership." But not all that much. The "biggies" in the area are exclusively local. A huge fraction -- overwhelming, actually -- of the little guys are not only local but hands-on. And most of the few "absentee" owners operate through locally based management companies -- who typically require that decisions be made by the people right on the spot. 2) With a few notable exceptions (the 40th & Walnut complex, the Penn-Assisted school -- both of which were welcomed and even applauded by many of the people in the neighborhood), Penn's "encroachment" has involved direct and indirect acquisition of property in which investments have been made that would not be affected in any way by historic designation. The contrary is more apt to be the case. The University isn't about to buy up new blocks of viable buildings and demolish them to put up high-rises; it's mendacious to even suggest such a thing. If Penn or its agents want to buy a building and do what it considers an "upgrading," they're the last people who would worry about the extra expenses associated with installing just the "right" doors and windows, restoring the original look of the porticos, and so forth -- considering the incentives they have for buying and improving property in their back yard, the resources they have shown themselves able to tap, and the exor! bitant rents they have mentioned in the same silly sentences as the words like "moderate" and "affordable." If Penn is to be faulted, its for furthering gentrification and discouraging diversity -- among the prime reasons why the majority of Spruce Hill residents oppose historic designation. Al Krigman