Re: [UC] 40th and Pine Development

[Glenn moyer]

Guy,

Thanks for the honest info and your opinion.  It wasn’t too long.

 

I worked for a decade at the university in a research center, which was expanding.  Since I worked with the leadership, I learned a bit about the internal process for available university properties. 

Departments with approved expansion plans are supposed to get the list of available university properties, and an opportunity to make a proposal before properties are offered to profit maximizing developers.  This 1st stage policy is appropriate for a “non-profit” institution, which claims to serve the public good instead of profit maximization.

 

At an SHCA meeting which became public during the hotel push, a Penn official, apparently accidentally; stated that he had seen many proposals for the property.  I believe Mr. Sanchez said 15 or 16 proposals.  Importantly, he said they were not viable.

I followed the hotel hearings closely, and I want to remind everyone of these details. 

At city hearings back then, Penn had every opportunity to demonstrate that it had fulfilled the requirement to its real estate policy and non-profit mission.  But they refused to provide supporting evidence by transparently demonstrating that none of these university proposals were viable 10 years ago.  (Trust me, my good good friend)

They were not properly pressed on these proposals, back then.

 

Guy, these departments know their budget for expanding, and it seems ridiculous that 15 or 16 proposals would not be viable in a previosly operating building.

The evidence for a financial hardship, which must be examined, are these 15 or 16 proposals made 10 years ago. 

 Even if some confidentiality for the department had to be maintained(which is rather silly), the development/engineering plans of these 15 or 16  DATED files must be transparent, as well as concrete reasons that their proposed budgets were not VIABLE.  Simple viability and not profit maximization is the relevant standard, or else Penn’s non-profit status MUST be examined.

Do you see the reason Penn refuses to release the appropriate evidence and used the tactic of “demolition by neglect” for the past 10 years?

Thanks again for your post,

Glenn

PS: Take a close look at Melani’s post, and her intention may be more clear.    

-----Original Message-----
From: Guy Laren
Sent: Apr 6, 2014 8:01 AM
To: lom...@aol.com
Cc: mlam...@aol.com, ucneighb...@googlegroups.com, univcity@list.purple.com, pf...@ccat.sas.upenn.edu
Subject: [UC] 40th and Pine Development

Melani

 

I wanted to respond briefly to your post about 40th and Pine. But first I wanted to thank you for so much service to the community in so many capacities.  It is commitment from people like you that makes the UC experience so rich.

 

This being said, I disagree with you about the situation at 40th and Pine. 

 

First- The group that is opposing the new development by U Penn at 40th and Pine (the same group that convinced Penn to re-locate the 9 story hotel at 40th and Walnut from 40th and Pine) consists of essentially all the homeowners that live within a one block radius from the site.   I don't know of anyone close to this project that is in favor.

 

Next-  you make your point about your being in favor of the new proposal from Penn because it saves the historic mansion and ONLY requires the construction of a five story building to be built behind the old mansion.   The new proposal will cover the entire rear section of the lot and is essentially a 60,000 plus sq' building in the backyard of an old single family home. 

 

Without getting into too much detail, the opposition asks that you take a walk to 41st and Walnut and take a look at the newly constructed hotel.  See whether you believe that it would have been a good addition to the 40th and Pine block?  If you feel that it would have been an intrusion or that it would challenge the three story previously single-family nature of the block then you will have a better understanding of our position about how this new building won't really "save" the mansion.   The facts are that the hotel is essentially the same cubic footage as Penn's new proposed additional building.  If you didn't like the hotel "saving" the old historic mansion then you should also be opposed to this incarnation of the same building... simply re-configured

 

Lastly- you mention how you really want this blighted property  to be developed and that you are ready to compromise some of your core Historic principles just to get the site improved... the group  opposing this project agrees with you whole heartedly.   There are several excellent developers who have recently completed successful renovations of similarly sized and priced historic buildings in the area.  It is Penn that is claiming a "financial hardship" that they claim makes it impossible to renovate and occupy the building.   The simplest comparable successful jobs are Vong Le on 41st and Pine historic rehab (multi-unit rental)... Mike Levin on 40th and Spruce historic multi-unit rehab... and Chris O Donnell who renovated and moved into an historic mansion at the corner of 41st and Pine.  each of these buildings were purchased as shells and fully renovated to historic standards without claiming hardship.  The owners all paid approximately the same price/per sq' that Penn did for their shell at 40th and Pine.

 

Really lastly- isn't it a bit much to hear Penn claiming "financial hardship" and calling the property "blighted" when they are the caretakers for the past ten years or so???  When they bought 40th and Pine it was a poorly run nursing home and an eyesore, but it was occupied and fully licensed and inspected by L & I.....  much of the worst blight is under Penn's watch.  I've gone on too long so I will leave you to consider the absurdity of Penn's claim (and I omit the discussion about the precedence this will set for demolition or changes to other historic buildings in Spruce Hill and beyond)

 

Guy Laren

 

Guy Laren
lom...@aol.com

---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see .