Excellent letter, Karen. Kimm
On 10/17/07 12:52 PM, "KAREN ALLEN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Listserv Members, > The October 10th edition of the University City review reported the proposal > to build a 10 story hotel on the southwest corner of 40th and Pine, on the > site of the former Thoroughgood Nursing home. After reading this article, I > found myself feeling very fearful of what would happen to this community if > this project were allowed to go forward. > > I wrote an editorial letter in response to that article, and it has been > published on Page 3 of today's University City Review. I copied it below. > > I urge everyone to act to STOP this dangerous proposal. > Karen Allen > > > > 40th Street Hotel Proposal a Dangerous Idea > > Karen Allen, > University City > > I read with great concern the article in the October 10th edition of UC Review > which detailed the proposal to build a 10 story hotel complex ant 40th and > Pine Streets. This proposal presents many dangers to the UC residential > community, and would be in direct contradiction of the historical, > architectural and aesthetic character of the neighborhood. > > In defending this location, the developer argued that 40th Street is ³becoming > a commercial corridor². While it is true that there is much commercial > activity along South 40th Street, that activity does not extend to the > street¹s terminus at Baltimore Avenue. The intersection of 40th and Spruce > Streets marks the transition from the institutional and retail uses to the > north and east, to the residential uses to the south and west. South of Sp! > ruce Street, 40th Street makes a dramatic transformation into a quiet > residential area. > > More importantly, the proposed use would extend commercial activity onto the > wholly residential block of 4000 Pine Street, which consists exclusively of > lovely, architecturally significant twin residences, none of which rises above > three stories tall. Although a majority of the properties on the block are > owned by Penn, from whom the developer would lease the proposed site, and > commercial landlords including Campus Apartments, the developer¹s partner in > the venture, ownership alone should not be the determining factor. This > proposal would forever destroy the residential character and the architectural > significance of the entire block, and indeed, the entire area. Although many > of th! at block¹s buildings have undoubtedly been altered in the years since > being built, none have suffered the inalterable effect of having a ten-story > building appended to it. > > Placement of a hotel within that residential district would alter its ambiance > forever. It would introduce an increased level of traffic, parking issues and > noise, as well as 24-7-365 disruptions caused by the constant ebb and flow of > the hotel¹s guests. Indeed, the community is being asked to forever change > the landscape of a residential area for a use that would primarily benefit not > the residents, but visitors to the area. In light of the recent eastward > expansion of Penn¹s campus, it would seem that there would be plenty of land > in that area for such a project. > > To defend the height of his project, the developer cited Chestnut Hall at 39th > and Chestnut, which stands ten stories tall. That is not a valid comparison, > because that building is not within a residential area. It is squarely within > the predominantly commercial and institutional section of UC, an area which > includes other high rise buildings along Market, Chestnut and Walnut Streets. > Additionally, Chestnut Hall does not present the visual anomaly of having a > ten-story tower appended to a much smaller building, with a height that would > be grossly disproportionate to the amount of land it would occupy. Unlike the > 40th Street proposal, ! Chestnut Hall is a solidly square building whose > length and width is in proportion to its ten-story height. Where it is > located, Chestnut Hall is not out of character with its surroundings. > > The developer also claimed that the ten-story building would be the same > height as other apartment buildings in the surrounding area. The fact is that > the vast majority of UC apartment buildings stand no more than four stories > tall, and are well within the character of surrounding three-story homes. > There are only three apartment complexes in the residential area of UC that > stand ten stories tall: they are The Fairfax at 43rd and Locust, and the two > buildings of the Garden Court complex at 46th and Pine, none of which is > close to the ! proposed site. These buildings were built 80+ years ago, and > like Chestnut Hall, their overall dimensions are in proportion to the site it > occupies. > > To allow a developer to erect a building whose size and proposed use is so > dramatically out of character with the area it would to occupy would set a > dangerous precedent. Other developers would cite this project to attempt to > place similar projects on every vacant lot or scrap of land. It would open > the floodgates to a boom of irresponsible building from which UC would never > recover. > > > > >
