>And that's why I originally quoted a remark by Gary Jastrzab of PCPC >that you ignored in the original news article, and that you just ignored >again: “Initially we had major issues with the height of 11 stories. 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.”
Sorry to interject if Ray or neighbors wanted to correct this odoriferous West wind. Had Mr West attended the hearings for which he provides expert analysis; he would know that Mr. Greenberger and not Mr Jastrzab had been the person (new Penn/Nutter director and commissioner) who interjected this charade. Mr. Greenberger compared the new, hidden, drawings/plan to another city (I believe Vancouver) and made comments similar to the ones above. Mr. Greenberger was ostensibly suggesting that PCPC commissioners had actually thought about the old drawings and new drawings and had arrived at some rational approval of this new bullshit as being a Penn improvement. Let that West wind blow, Mr Moyer, citizen journalist -----Original Message----- >From: Anthony West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Oct 3, 2008 6:38 PM >To: univcity <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators > >And that's why I originally quoted a remark by Gary Jastrzab of PCPC >that you ignored in the original news article, and that you just ignored >again: “Initially we had major issues with the height of 11 stories. 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.” > >Therefore, PCPC did not "ignore" height and scale in the 2nd hearing; it >responded to the developers who had responded to the 1st hearing. So >that's what happened to this issue in that venue. If you scrub >Jastrzab's explanation, it makes it sound like scale was ignored when in >fact it was addressed. Might as well leave it in, since it will not be >unknown to ZBA. > >Was it addressed well enough? That's a question awaiting SHCA's and >ZBA's decision. > >-- Tony West > > > >UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN wrote: >> but pcpc couldn't justify approving the hotel's height and scale in >> the face of neighbors' opposition and a pcpc staffer's reservations >> (even after the developer's revisions). so pcpc tabled their decision >> in may, scrubbed the neighbors' testimony from their minutes, and >> instead used an approved traffic study months later in september as >> their justification to approve the hotel -- while telling the >> neighbors they would 'get used to' the 'shock' of the hotel's height >> and scale. >> >> the hotel's height and scale was always an issue that pcpc considered. >> they chose to ignore it, to minimize its importance, and to choose, >> instead, another issue (traffic) as their reason for approving the hotel. >> >> that is why I originally asked: 'what happened to the main issue: the >> hotel's massive scale and height and footprint?' > > >---- >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>. ---- 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>.
