----- Original Message -----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: [UC] 11-Story Hilton Hotel - pushed through at the full
commission
Lussenhop and Penn thumbed their noses at the appropriate city process and
simply ignored the architectural committees' recommendations.
The manner which this was pushed through at the full commission proceedings
was very very stinky. The new 11-story plan should have gone back through the
architectural committee as some members pointed out. What I saw happen was
very very stinky, and in my humble opinion, looked like some inside pressure
had been used to push this through. You may have all guessed that it was "the
tight schedule" used to circumvent the appropriate process.
I am not sure if this is a totally accurate representation of the board and
how it works.
Craig,
Of course, I don't know what you are calling into question about my report or
the accuracy. Let me explain for the list what occurred.
The changes made after the architectural committee, including taking the
hotel to 11 stories, made this a completely new plan being presented. The
commission wanted to know if Penn had made the new plans available to any of us
from the public whom had testified to the architectural committee. None of us
had.
Maybe Lindsay Johnston, Melanie, Dan DeRitis, and Mike Hardy had? They were
present with the Penn team to testify in support, so I assume they may have had
coffee over the new plans.
It was pointed out by commission members that this new plan was not a
response to some specific recommendation made by the committee and it was about
tto be sent back to the committee. One member made a motion to hear the new
plan and it was seconded by another. They made no comment as to why this
special privlege should be granted.
The member from the architectural committee seemed quite frustrated that this
occurred. As I posed in an earlier post, why have an architectural committee
that all other applicants need to go through but not Penn? One of the Penn
lawyers argued that the "tight schedule" must allow Penn this special privlege.
Another member of the commission asked them, why not concurrently schedule
zoning if the project must be jammed through?
One of the original objections by an architect was about the 10 story wall
coming all the way to the sidewalk on 40th St. The new 11 story plan still has
4 stories coming to the sidewalk and then adding an extra floor on top. It
neither responded to the one architect's original objection nor the other
objections and was a completely new plan.
It was very clear to me that the normal process for the commission would
send such a new plan back to the committee.These committee meetings happen all
the time, one today, so the delay would not have been so bad. Penn has owned
the building for 3 years.
Of course, the member from the architectural committee must have been
frustrated to have other members give this free pass to Penn. Here is the
thing that seemed fishy to me.
The members supporting hearing a completely new plan being unveiled before
our eyes did not give one single reason for doing so. The other members made
points as to why it should go back to the committee, but the others simply said
that they wanted to hear it.
I gave my opinion that that looked stinky to me. Penn won the point without
a single argument put forth from the the commission members. The only argument
was the Penn lawyer arguing their "tight schedule." That is what I observed.
Glenn
Looking at the Board http://www.phila.gov/historical/members.html their are
the "usual suspects and friends of UPenn", however, the Commission is just one
tool the City uses to develop and maintain a historic, diverse, economically
vibrant city.
Looking at the Ex-Officio members did anyone take their concerns to Anna
Verna's office? Is her designee Kathleen Murray still living in the Hood? Also
Deborah McColloch (UPenn grad?) now works for Secretary of Housing Kevin Hanna.
Did anyone express their concern for the hotel's possible adverse impact on the
adjacent housing stock.
Philly is probably not the first and only city faced with such a challenge.
Ciao,
Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]
Sent: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 9:01 am
Subject: Re: [UC] 11-Story Hilton Hotel vs the new La Quinta Inn & Suites at
PHL
I was at the architetural meeting to confirm this. One of the members of the
committee was talking about La Quinta and it was near the airport.
Sorry I forgot to repond to this point in Lew's post. Lussenhop pretended to
show interest in pursuing this corporation instead of sticking with the Hilton
requirements. At this point that was an obvious charade.
Lussenhop and Penn thumbed their noses at the appropriate city process and
simply ignored the architectural committees' recommendations.
The manner which this was pushed through at the full commission proceedings
was very very stinky. The new 11-story plan should have gone back through the
architectural committee as some members pointed out. What I saw happen was
very very stinky, and in my humble opinion, looked like some inside pressure
had been used to push this through. You may have all guessed that it was "the
tight schedule" used to circumvent the appropriate process.
But yes, it was La Quinta that was mentioned
Glenn
----- Original Message -----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: [UC] 11-Story Hilton Hotel vs the new La Quinta Inn & Suites
at PHL
Penn "needs" Hilton to make this work, and that any such flagship will
insist on this many rooms, even though one of the architects on the ArchComm
stated that he is currently working on an extended stay hotel at the airport
with far fewer rooms for another brand. (Although I can't remember the name
since it doesn't have a famous daughter.) So, like the rest of us, you don't
have all the facts either.
This may be the five story 72 room La Quinta Inn & Suites project that I
worked on with another community group out by PHL.
The particular site is at 88th & Tinincum Blvd, directly across the parking
lot from Ruby Tuesday restaurant, which some of you might be familiar.
There are similarities but mostly dissimilarities with the two projects and
development styles.
The owner/developer Kaushik Patel and JAI Santosi Realty, LP, identified a
need and worked with the development arms of Korman Corp and the RDA to
identify and site the project in an appropriately zoned area. They asked the
local councilperson who in the community they should meet with and met with
them. The developer/owner accepted input from the community, agreed to two
provisos (community protective covenants) the community requested, and to
become an active participant in the local community organization, including
providing real estate consulting and planning services when requested.
The need for zoning variances were due to some unique site limitations:
Airport height restrictions, coupled with the limited size of the site, and
a deed restriction requiring a 40,000 sq ft minimum building, meant the
required distance between windows and lot lines fell short, and did not allow
for the two loading areas required by zoning.
Despite the fact most guests would be "bused-in" from the airport, a one to
one relationship of rooms to parking spaces was not waived.
Ciao,
Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: Lewis Mellman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 8:34 am
Subject: [UC] 11-Story Hilton Hotel
"...Also, I don't think Lussenhop said anything about a Hilton affiliation
of his project. I think this is something Glenn just made up all by himself.
-- Tony West"
Tony,
Unlike Glen, YOU weren't at the Historical Commission Architecture
Committee review meeting where it was stated that Penn "needs" Hilton to make
this work, and that any such flagship will insist on this many rooms, even
though one of the architects on the ArchComm stated that he is currently
working on an extended stay hotel at the airport with far fewer rooms for
another brand. (Although I can't remember the name since it doesn't have a
famous daughter.) So, like the rest of us, you don't have all the facts either.
Hilton HAD a hotel on campus with a ped bridge to CHOP and a parking lot
that is now offices. Is there any chance that the demand for extended stay
rooms has been miscalculated and some of the rooms will "need" to be converted
to short-stay rooms and/or offices to avert a financial hardship? If such a
change is a possibility, will these added guests, office workers and clients
also be provided with free valet parking to a nearby Penn lot, or will they be
circling the neighborhood looking for a parking spot, dialing their cell phone
to say they're late for their appointment and parking in some resident's
driveway? Or will they be directed to make a left onto Baltimore into the Vet
School grid-lock. Can we get a commitment that this hotel will always have a
required minimum stay and that is the only use it will ever have during the
zoning process? My magic eightball is a little fuzzy, but I think it says,
"Unlikely."
What concerns me about this project is that it may set a precedent that
will impact what goes in on top of the community garden on the SE corner of
43rd and Baltimore. If someone really did spend $5 million to acquire the
property, how many units will they "need" to cram in there to "make the numbers
work"? Are we going to get a study indicating that our beloved park and coffee
shop park will only be in shadow for a few hours during certain months? a
Starbuck, a WaWa and a CVS? Beyond plowing the garden under, does anyone know
who is buying this property and what are their plans? Will it have 2 dedicated
off-street parking spots for every unit? Or is Clark Park expected to provide
the parking for this highrise?
For benefit of partial disclosure: I was born and raised in the
historical monstrosity on the site of the Swain Mansion at 45th and Spruce.
-Lew
----
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>.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.30/1125 - Release Date:
11/11/2007 9:50 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.31/1128 - Release Date: 11/13/2007
11:09 AM
