My responses are in bold after the text I'm responding to.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 19:01:38 -0400Subject: Re: [UC] Update on the 40th St. hotel proposalTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] -How do you defend erecting a modern ten story building in an area comprised of 1850's Italianate three story homes? "Italianate homes"? The area is mixed. On the S side of the 4000 block of Pine, there are 1850s Italianates converted to apartments, plus the subject property at 400 S. 40th, converted long ago to a personal care home and long wrapped in a cinder block shell. Across Pine St. and also on the N side of Baltimore, there are late Victorian houses, now almost all apartments. Across 40th St. from the subject property, there are townhouses and an apartment building. Nearly all are tenant occupied properties. What is the relevance that you, Lussenhop and other supporters make of the fact that these are tenant-occupied properties? This has been constantly trotted out with a figurative wave of the hand and a tone that suggests "Forget it, don't worry about it; it's just a bunch of tenants in there". The implication seems to be that owners can throw anything into an area if tenants are the majority of the occupants. Don't tenants deserve a decent quality of life too? Slightly south of the subject property, across 40th St., is the empty commercial space, part of it still with a sign showing that it was once a travel agency, with several floors above which may or may not be occupied. Just across Baltimore Ave., a half block from the subject property, is the modern trolley portal. In the other direction, one short block north of the subject property, there's the modern one-story Allegro Pizza on the east side of 40th, and the much-altered building housing Copabanana on the west side. From the corner of 40th & Pine, one can see two of the Penn high rises to the NE. That's a more thorough description of the surroundings, and I'd urge anybody interested in this discussion to take a walk over there and view it for yourselves. You've addressed every point in my question EXCEPT the part about the 10 story building being put there. Granting that the area is as you describe, how does a ten story building fit in that area? ... but I do know that no owner occupant or landlord neighbor from any of the locations I described above showed up at the HC hearing last week to complain. As I understand it, a majority of the owners are absentee landlords. If they do not have to live near the proposal, why shouldn't they approve the plan? Chris O'Donnell appeared in opposition. He owns property one block away. Doesn't his opinion count? At some point, to have the local community association impose its will on a site, in absence of complaint from the neighbors, would seem inappropriate. To have you and me, as busybodies from the next neighborhood over, impose our will on the project seems even more problematic. I'm only piping up about this project because I want to see the Italiante building get unwrapped and renovated! So basically what you're saying in code is "why don't you shut up and mind your own business; YOU don't live in that neighborhood". And you're also saying that YOU voicing YOUR opinion is valid and ME voicing MY opinion is not. Well, I'm only piping up about this project because I don't want to see a ten story building forever destroy the skyline in that area, and set the stage for the same thing happening in the entire neighborhood. There is a "busybody" organization in the neighborhood called the University City Historical Society. I am a member busybody of UCHS. And to borrow your habit of outing other people in your posts, so are you. The UCHS claims to represent ALL of University City, from Powelton to Cedar Park, in historical preservation matters. UCHS does not limit its membership to people living in any specific community in UC. In short, the University City Historical Society TRANSCENDS community association boundaries. In doing that, UCHS HAS CREATED A PRECEDENT that ANYONE who lives in UC and is concerned about historic preservation issues has the RIGHT to speak on those issues. If I don't have a right to speak on this issue because I don't live in Spruce Hill, then UCHS has no business involving itself in similar issues, and should disband. You can't have it have it both ways. -How is supporting this project consistent with the drive a few years back to have this area designated as an historic district? One might reverse that and ask, "how is opposing this project consistent with the drive a few years back to stop this area from being designated as an historic district?" To some extent, I think folks in UC tend to support or oppose change based on the identity of the entity proposing the change, rather than on the merit of the proposal. I think there may be some of that happening here, and I think it's unfortunate. As I wrote, I support preserving and restoring the building - and if this project will allow for that, I think the project has merit and should be considered. Asking the reverse is not answering the original question. You didn't answer the original question. You will recall that in 2004, when the HD controversy was alive on the listserv, I was a vocal supporter of the concept of a Historic district, and again I was told I should shut up. Back then, you were quoting my posts because they agreed with you, and my not living in Spruce Hill did not seem to be an issue to you then. I don't recall hearing of any controversy when Lussenhop built those condos on Osage. Nor have I heard of any controversy involving Penn projects that are within their campus boundaries. Frankly, I have better things to do with my time than be concerned every time Lussenhop or Penn decide to slap some building up somewhere. But when those projects threaten the very fabric of what makes UC an attractive and desirable neighborhood, I do care. I agree that people use identity as the basis of support, but that bias runs in favor of Penn and its surrogates. Imagine the outrage if some Average Joe (or Josephine) tried to enclose a porch or brick up a window, or use those dreaded Home Depot spindles. Only the one building would be affected. Here, Penn and its surrogate wants to build a ten story building to tower over everything around it, while being totally out of character with other buildings, and those same critics see nothing wrong with that. If it were financially feasible to remove the cinder block additions, restore the exterior, porch, original drive and gardens, and operate it as a 5- or 6-room B&B, I'd prefer that! But I don't see financial feasibility in a use with so little income, or in a use as a single family home again. That's what I said at the HC hearing. I think we need to be practical if we want this corner to be beautiful and in use. It will be far better than it's been since the 1960s, almost 50 years ago, if developed basically as currently proposed. I made the suggestion that Penn seek out dedicated funding from donors to restore the building for Penn use, but that doesn't fit with their agenda for the building, so it's not "feasible". -Does the current lack of an historic designation that would compel new buildings or building renovations to conform to certain standards become a reason to ignore those same standards? Or to cite the lack of that designation as a reason for support? I'm a little lost on this question. 400 S. 40th does have an historic designation which will compel new building renovations to conform to "certain," if you mean "historic" standards. No one is suggesting ignoring them. The question is whether or not the Historical Commission will allow additional development on the lot. The HC staff favored the idea, in theory. The HC Architectural Committee voted against it (as currently proposed, though they made suggestions that some of the opponents found acceptable), 4-2. The full Historical Commission has yet to consider it. To clarify the question, it pertains to the interaction between the 10 story building and the 3 story neighborhood. -Shouldn't those who profess to support historic designation demand that developers voluntarily comply with those standards before throwing their support behind those developers' projects? I don't think that "demanding" how a developer spends his/her money is the best way to build a good working relationship, but in this case, we don't have to consider that! The developers are agreeing to comply to those standards - and they must, due to the building's designation. Again, the HC is considering whether or not to allow this additional development of the lot - so long as the developers comply with HC standards for the Italianate building. This is hardly the first time a project of this sort has come before the Historical Commission. They work things out; they make compromises. In short, the streetscapes of the block the buiding sits on and the surrounding blocks within sight of the 10 story tower are not protected. Apparantly they are not worthy of being protected, so long as that one building is restored.
