Inga Saffron, the Inquirer Archetecture Critic, wrote about the Campus Inn project in today's Inquirer. Oddly enough, her opinion, from someone who is a professional in the world of archetecture, seems to ratify a number of the opinions that I, untrained in archetecture and a lowly disseminator of misinformation and fear, stated in my UC Review letter of October 17, 2007 (the similarities are noted in bold). So, in keeping with UC Listserv precedent, I will now accuse Inga Saffron of not knowing what she's talking about, question where she went to school, insinuate that she's a liar, and hint strongly that she's deliberately trying to dupe everyone (who, by the way, are mere sheep who cannot independently analyze information for themselves). Karen Allen Excerpt from today's Inquirer : "...The developers of Campus Inn - Campus Apartments, Hersha Hotels and Tom Lussenhop - also argue that their 11-story, 115-foot-tall hotel is an extension of a commercial corridor along 40th Street, between the major transit connections at Market Street and Baltimore Avenue. It's true that there are tall buildings along the street, but they're clustered toward the north end. The street really shifts gears south of Spruce, when it becomes the island of Italianate mansions called Spruce Hill. Ironically, the ruined house is protected as an individual historic building, even though the Historical Commission acknowledges it would never qualify for that honor today. Yet, the commission nevertheless voted to block its demolition. So the developers switched tactics. They offered to restore the old house, in exchange for being allowed to erect an 11-story hotel in the backyard. Like Stamper Square, this hotel design, by Atkin Olshin Schade Architects, tries its best to respond to its surroundings. If the site had been on the neighborhood's edge, say Baltimore Avenue, that strategy could have worked. But the ungainly slab will have to be squeezed between two Victorian houses, virtually flush with its neighbor's property line. The bargain with the Historical Commission does more harm to the gracious neighborhood than demolishing the wrecked house would. This is not preservation; it's re-creation. Better to tear down the house, and allow a reasonably scaled replacement, than jam such a behemoth into the mix. A soaring tower is a thrilling thing that imparts energy and relevancy to a modern city. But there is also undeniable pleasure in walking among blocks of gentle urban buildings that march together at the same height. Philadelphia is lucky to have both types of places. It just has to decide which one goes where."
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [UC] Inquirer covers hotelDate: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:35:35 -0500 Today's Inq confirms what we have heard. The developers seem to have indeed had a plan for a five story hotel had they been allowed to demolish through de-listing. Remember the question was asked directly to Lussenhop. Did you try to get the building demolished? And his answer was no. http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/20080222_Changing_Skyline__Developers_in_the_city_-_Hard_to_hold_em_down.html
