PCPC did consider physical size and scale an issue, and a serious-enough
one to reject the proposal in April -- but not, I repeat, as a
deal-breaker. The developer changed the proposal to reduce the impact of
its height, so PCPC approved an amended proposal in September. To quote
from your link:
“'Initially we had major issues with the height of 11 stories,'
explained the Philadelphia Planning Commission staff’s Acting Executive
Director, Gary J. Jastrzab of the staff’s decision to endorse the hotel
towards the meeting’s close. 'But with the cut-outs,' added Jastrzab in
reference to the five rooms that were removed from the hotel’s top
story, giving it the appearance of a reduced scale from certain angles,
'the staff views this development as a very difficult trade-off.'”
Par for the course with PCPC. "Trade-off" is the key word here. It's not
PCPC's style to treat any one troublesome factor in a complex case as a
"line in the sand" that cannot be crossed, no matter what other benefits
might accrue. Instead it'll bash away at such factors until it gets some
give-back, then meet the developer somewhere in the middle.
Not what opponents in Spruce Hill wanted, for sure ... but also no sign
of unusual behavior or special treatment. PCPC acted no differently
before Greenburger from Penn took over its lead.
On to the next inning. The lineup will be different, so perhaps there'll
be pitching changes as well on both sides.
-- Tony West
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN wrote:
from the beginning, the pcpc DID consider the physical size and scale
of the hotel, and deemed it within its scope.
on april 15 the pcpc rejected the hotel based on its height, and even
after considering revisions to the hotel on april 25, pcpc admitted
that 'it's still an 11-story building in the middle of the street'
http://tinyurl.com/4jdug6
again, on may 20, the pcpc considred the hotel's height and scale:
http://tinyurl.com/3p9h3v
> "[pcpc chairman] Altman's remarks responded directly to
> many of the concerns made by those opposed to the
> construction of the hotel at the 40th and Pine Street
> location. These included how the hotel's development
> would not only clash with the surrounding architecture of
> the West Philadelphia Streetcar Suburb and the Woodland
> Terrace's national historic designation where it is
> proposed to be built but also how its height of 115 ft.
> would loom over the other residences of 35 ft."
but on may 20, the pcpc tabled the question of the hotel until a
future meeting.
then, on september 16, the pcpc approved the hotel. how? by approving
a traffic study and telling neighbors that they would 'get used to'
the 'shock' of the hotel's size and scale.
that was the 'job' that pcpc couldn't do in may, but one that it could
do in september: by september, the question of the hotel's size and
scale had been reduced to one of traffic, and penn's alan greenberger
had been appointed head of pcpc.
----
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>.
