You're exactly right -- extremely right -- and your point rewards deep
meditation.
The problem becomes even messier, though, when we note the property in
question is zoned commercial, and has been for a long time. It has long
been lawful to use it for commercial purposes, as it is for other
properties immediately across the street from it.
Mixed, patchy land uses are typical of older urbanisms like
Philadelphia, as opposed to the huge, neat swatches of contrasting land
use that typify suburbia. So it doesn't surprise me that duking it out
over land-use planning should get messy in Philadelphia. Perhaps, in
fact, we should glory in this messiness.
We all need to live and shop and work and travel, all at once. These
needs are typically classed as land-use conflicts, but they could as
well be seen as potential harmonies of living.
Messy problems tend to invite messy solutions. That doesn't necessarily
mean they're bad solutions, though. What could be scarier than an
overly-neat child's bedroom? It hints the child is missing.
-- Tony West
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN wrote:
what I'm trying to convey is that it's not 'this feature' or 'that
feature' that drives this hotel proposal, so pointing to examples
which imitate this feature or that feature (or this empty lot or that
empty lot) isn't really useful (beyond a limited point) and it's also
a distraction. because it misses the 'gestalt' of the proposal (the
sum total, all the features taken together -- even the process, the
consequences, etc.) which we consider when taking a position one way
or another.
it's the commercial nature of the proposal that makes all of its
features what they are (and these features aren't changing or being
compromised) and it's the commercial nature of the proposal that's
raising the re-zoning question. and so the basic public question is
one of commercial interests vs residential ones (in this case, penn's
commercial interests and our residential ones)...
(and THAT is the precedent that would be set, if the hotel were
approved: others' commercial interests upheld over our residential
interests, not simply 'this kind of building' with 'these kinds of
features' appearing all over the neighborhood...)
----
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>.
