From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:46:53 -0400Subject: Re: [UC] Historic Commission Rules Against Concept of Hotel Project, as now shown>I don't recall the 2 committee members in favor of the project >saying >anything remotely like Karen has written above. >Various members remarked favorably about the removal of >the 1960s additions which surround and obscure the >Italianate building now. They were definitely in favor of the >restoration of that building and said so repeatedly. That may >be what Karen meant to convey in her report. If you dispute my recollection, fine. But please don't tell people what I MEANT to say. I already said what I MEANT to say.
... So does the idea that this property would become a showplace, with staff not only to watch over their own guests, but also to take care of the long-neglected corner of 40th & Pine. I thought that was the reason we needed UCD? > I'll also note that each of the UC folks who spoke against the project owns > >and renovates his/her own properties without having to consult with the rest > >of us or the Historical Commission - and I don't have to consult with the HC > >either. That's correct. I spoke against the project today. And I did > renovate a property in 2003-2004 at 23rd and Fitzwater for which Melani was > my buyer's agent, so that's how she knows that. And as I discussed with > Melani at the time, I selected that building in large part to "rescue" its > many original 19th Century features, because I knew that otherwise some > other rehabber would have come along and gutted it. And no, I didn't have to > consult with the Historical Commission for that project because I never > attempted or even imagined erecting a 10 story building over, around, or > through a block of two story homes. Because I had sufficient common sense > not to buy a property that required putting 115 units in a one-unit space in > order to make it financially feasible. And because I would never dream of > ruining everyone else's quality of life just to satisfy my own bottom line. I > would never disrespect my neighbors that way. Also, I don't recall any of the UC opponents saying even one kind word about the developers' plan to save the Italianate building on the site. MY testimony was that a ten story hotel was out of character, out of scale and would have a devestating effect on the REST of the neighborhood. That building would be visible from all over and would damage the fabric of the REST of the neighborhood. What good is it to "save" 400 South 40th Street, and in the process destroy 4000 Pine Street, or 400 South 41st Street, and on and on? I take particular pride in the fact that none other than John Gallery, Executive Director of the Preservation Alliance, and the dean of the local preservation community, confirmed every point that I made. He urged the committee to analyze the proposal in light of three criteria: would the hotel proposal be compatible in size, in scale, and in character with both the original mansion and the neighborhood, and concluded that the hotel would not meet any of the three criteria. Is he wrong, too? Are the four committee members wrong? >Their testimony was all "go build it somewhere else," or "don't build it." >They didn't address what would happen to the Italianate building if the >developers were to go away.Penn owns that building. Where are they planning on going? So now Penn, with all of its BILLIONS in fundraising prowess and endowment funds, bought a building but cannot restore it without having to destroy everyone else's quality of life to do it? Penn couldn't restore that building as an upscale guest house for its visiting dignataries, akin to the home that Amy Gutman occupies on Walnut? The reallity is that Penn's attempt to put a hotel, which incidentally could be converted into a dorm later on down the road, didn't fly, so now they will have to go to Plan B. And as I recall, no one suggested that the world as we know it would have ended if another group of developers couldn't ram an unpopular project down the community's throat: remember the 4508 Chestnut Street homeless shelter? How did that one turn out? MY interest was in saving the neighborhood from irresponsible development that would cause people like Lussenhop to put up 10 story buildings wherever he could squeeze them. MY interest was in preventing Penn or Penn surrogates from buying properties, then claiming that the ONLY way to save them is by doing things that causes everyone else to suffer. No one building so important that it's worth destroying the rest of the neighborhood to do it. So, Melani, I'll put the questions to you: would you want Penn and Lussenhop building a 10 story hotel in the 1000 block of South Farragut Street? How do you justify destroying the streetscape of an entire area in order to "save" one property?
