Melani Lamond wrote:
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.
KAREN ALLEN wrote:
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".
I think what's happening here isn't people 'taking sides',
but rather people not hearing what's actually being said.
I don't think I've heard anyone objecting to ANY development
of that corner lot. I think what we've heard is objections
to the KIND of development, the size and scale of it, and
its impact on the neighborhood, and the precedent it sets.
surely there are solutions for that corner that respect the
character of the neighborhood and honor the aesthetics of
the existing mansion, solutions that uchs have worked so
hard in the past to procure, solutions that shca's zoning
committee have so publicly pledged to seek. and surely uchs
and shca could foster dialog or conversation about possible
solutions here, rather than maintain a position that
tacitlly favors the identity of the project's backers over
the neighbors they claim to serve and represent.
examples of some of these solutions are staring us right in
the face. for example, this week's uc review reported on
another building being built on 40th street (4001 chestnut),
right across from the 9-story hub. it's to be 5 stories,
mixed use, built on top of an existing structure, and it's
adjacent to 3 well preserved period houses along the north
side of chestnut. that proposal isn't being contested; it's
in keeping with scale and character of the area.
(http://tinyurl.com/33oxoj)
also, this week's dp reported on one of the old houses on
4000 pine -- the old mansion that was once the provost's
house -- now owned/rehabbed by lubovitch house, and backed
by perelman $$. this, too, is not being contested, it's an
example of 'neighborhood friendly' development, keeping
things in scale/character with the neighborhood (and, btw,
providing us with an example of how penn can pay for
million-dollar white elephants: with donors endowing or
sponsoring a programmatic use for the space).
(http://tinyurl.com/3bpyr6)
questioning the 40th and pine project is not about being
against any change, but about seeing that it's done right.
if penn saddled lussenhop with this project and told him to
put a 10-story hotel on 40th and pine, that's too bad, but
the fact remains that some of his friendly neighbors (and
the hc's architectural committee) are telling him he's
trying to squeeze a round peg in a square hole, when there
are other round holes available, other square pegs.
why doesn't uchs or shca propose a public meeting with the
developer to discuss alternatives, solutions? that way they
could be true friends and facilitators for the neighbors,
rather than silent players in a contest between developers,
neighbors, and city agencies. there's a real opportunity
here for a win/win, a model for future proposals.
..................
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN
[aka laserbeam®]
[aka ray]
SERIAL LIAR. CALL FOR RATES.
"It is very clear on this listserve who
these people are. Ray has admitted being
connected to this forger." -- Tony West
"Ray's falsehoods are more sophisticated,
more believable" -- Tony West
----
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>.
