Residents discussing 4224 Baltimore Ave. design plans at one of community meetings in 2013.
A coalition of community groups are urging Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell to introduce legislation that would help move along the large residential and commercial complex proposed for 43rd and Baltimore, across from Clark Park.
The project has stalled because the property owners do not want to navigate Philadelphia’s zoning process.
So the Friends of Clark Park are circulating a petition asking Blackwell to take “swift action” to prevent the property owners from abandoning a proposal that has been devised after a series of public meetings. (For a full history of the project, click here.)
The Spruce Hill Community Association and the University City Historical Society have also sent letters to Blackwell asking her to introduce an ordinance that would exempt New York-based Clarkmore LLC from the zoning process, which can be a gauntlet of delays and even legal challenges. Clarkmore already has the right to build a no-frills 92-unit building on the property at 4224 Baltimore Avenue as it is currently zoned and the firm is reportedly willing to go ahead with that plan rather than go through the zoning changes required to build the 132-unit complex proposed after more than a year of consultation with the community.
“We do not want to see that ‘by right’ project to go through,” said Barry Grossbach, chair of the Spruce Hill Community Association’s zoning committee. “It’s going to be a box and it’s going to be ugly.”
The building proposal at 4224 Baltimore Ave. developed with the help of the community is in jeopardy.
The proposed alternative to the “by right” structure is a residential complex that includes a mix of rental units and condominiums, a fitness center and commercial space that includes a large restaurant. Its design was developed following a series of community meetings during which residents advised the developers, U3 Advisors, on everything from building materials to specific uses of the commercial space. The final proposal was well received during a standing-room-only meeting of the Spruce Hill zoning committee meeting last march.
A number of property developers in this part of the city have opted to go with “by right” project rather than go through the zoning process, an important part of city governance during which residents are invited to weigh-in on projects. Some developers have pointed to the ongoing dispute between neighbors and the University of Pennsylvania over the development of 400 S. 40th Streeet, the site of historic Italianate mansion that has resulted in a lawsuit, as an example of how difficult the process sometimes can be.
That’s where Blackwell comes in. She could introduce an ordinance to change the zoning at 4224 Baltimore that would allow the U3 Advisors proposal. The upside of the ordinance is that a proposal that has received a lot of community input would be built. The downside is that further community input on the project during the zoning process would likely be side-stepped, although community members could comment on the ordinance at the City Council.
Community groups and residents usually favor the zoning process as it allows more community input, but Grossbach said that this project has been devised with a lot of community input already.
“We’ve got to persuade her that this is a different kind of project,” he said.
Time is important here too. The contract between property owner Clarkmore and developer U3 Advisors (formerly U3 Ventures) runs out this fall.
– Mike Lyons
The empty lot at 4224 Baltimore Ave where the building is proposed.
September 30th, 2014 at 4:36 pm
For what it’s worth, I figured I’d add a little more detail to this topic.
“The project has stalled because the property owners do not want to navigate Philadelphia’s zoning process.”
4224 Baltimore zoned RM-1 and if anyone wants to educate themselves, this guide is pretty useful: http://phillyzoning.com/newcode/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RM-1.pdf.
In short, the proposal would require a Use Registration Permit for the # of units and a variance for the retail component (and also going over the by-right # of units, I believe). The zoning process requires getting community support, which is the point they are suggesting is redundant.
September 30th, 2014 at 4:49 pm
It doesn’t sound good to allow a Developer to build without Zoning approval.
Also, perhaps the real reason the Developer is having trouble getting the Zoning approval is that some members of the community do not approve of his Construction Plans, that only the residents within the so-called Coalition of community groups do. And perhaps the residents within the Coalition want to by-pass the veto of those other residents.
Accordingly, makes more important that the Developer go thru the required process and obtain Zoning approval.
September 30th, 2014 at 5:04 pm
Translation: The developer doesn’t want to be tied up in Court for five years because a handful of disgruntled neighbors file an appeal. And it’s no secret that there are zoning lawyers who are independently wealthy who take cases on behalf of neighbors just for the fun of it. (See 400 S. 40th St.)
September 30th, 2014 at 5:29 pm
To Vieux Pay:
Objectively, your point could sometimes have merit; however, myself as a homeowner am too well aware of times when a Developer’s plans are acceptable to only some of the community and those persons whom you say are just disgruntled and thereby the implication is that their objection lacks merit; nevertheless, to those residents their objection is very important and the Developer’s plans as proposed, if approved, may severely impact their quality of life.
September 30th, 2014 at 7:41 pm
The ZBA has tightened up on the number of variance they’ll grant.. usually a project will only get one variance anymore. I’ve seen very reasonable variance requests get shot down, even with near-unanimous community support.
(Which, by the way, this project does not seem to have. “Well received” is not the same as unanimous support.)
Even though retail is a no-brainer for 43rd and Baltimore, that’s already one variance that the developer is asking for.
I see the ZBA taking issue with this.. so I understand the attempt at the workaround.
September 30th, 2014 at 9:38 pm
Let me get this straight, the ‘normal’ process is for the owner/developer to submit their plans to L&I, and if they are rejected one has to ask for a variance, and that’s well community support or community opposition or both gets considered.
But in this case the owner is, after owning this property for 6 to 8 years, saying that the normal process might be too messy for them, and they want to have City council pass a law just for their benefit.
From this article there is no mention that the owner is actually requesting this help. All we are told is apparently the these 3 community groups are doing the leg work for the owner. Why? Because they are apparently afraid that the only option to the messy City process is to build something that’s ugly.
To me this sounds like a very weird form of blackmail and I believe that if the premise is ugly or treat me special is actually whats going on then somebody is being badly fooled. Yes, one can build a ugly box, such as whats going up a block away at 42th & Chester Ave. but any architect worth their degree can design a 92 unit apartment house and not have it look ugly.
Any variance that is given and I imagine any special law that basically does the same thing, will allow more units and/or greater height and/or mixed use, etc. but neither is going to spell out how the end result will look. Plans always change and developers or well known for their bait and switch games. If the developer wants to put up a cheap box that can be done with 92 units or 132 units. Likewise if they want to build a well designed and thoughtful building that too doesn’t have to be dependent on the number of units. Its a matter of desire and care as much as anything.
I have real questions with why UCHS would concern themselves in this matter at this time. This is a group that pretty much does nothing other then a house tour every so often, so why suddenly do they want to get involved with a new built from the ground up project? Isn’t this the same group that couldn’t be bothered by trying to do anything to restore the mansion at 40th. and Pine.
By the way, the owner/developer of this project is also involved in a high rise concept in CC, they aren’t babes in the woods who don’t know what they’re doing. They spent a huge amount of money buying this property, alot of $$$’s tearing down a fine very serviceable twin, they’ve had taxes and other carrying costs for the years when they did nothing, they’ve paid architects and planners and advisors, and now they want the community to believe that getting a variance is just too much work. Something doesn’t smell right to me!
And what makes this one project so important that all these community groups think that the only way to get a reasonable looking outcome is to have the whole City council make a decision on whether its a worthy of a special law. This just doesn’t seem like the sortof affair that City council should be dealing with.
Lastly, I’ve heard drum beats that some people might challenge the present zoning of this property once the owner files for a building permit. So Clarkmore might have some legal issues regardless of their present plans.
September 30th, 2014 at 10:04 pm
I keep wondering where the 92 new tenant cars will be parking in the neighborhood, since less than a dozen will have onsite parking.
September 30th, 2014 at 10:14 pm
Who are these other developers that have apparently chosen to build “by right” instead of applying for a variance? Who is pointing to 400 S. 40th as example of the process being difficult? This whole piece almost sounds like a press release for the ‘put pressure on Blackwell’ people.
And what difference does it make when Clarkmore’s and U3’s contract runs out?
Come on, you can come up with a better piece then this.
October 1st, 2014 at 11:33 am
Honestly, just through my own selfish quality of life perspective, I don’t look forward to the edge of Clark Park being a construction zone for God knows how long. I hope that they take as much time as they need to figure it out.
October 1st, 2014 at 12:57 pm
Interesting that no one has mentioned that the foundation for the building is already partially completed. And, that on this morning, I saw workers to excavating the ground there in preparation for building.
October 1st, 2014 at 1:42 pm
That’s not this building, Strongforu. That’s a 26 unit project on Chester: http://www.ocfrealty.com/naked-philly/west-philly/big-apartment-building-coming-on-chester-avenue
October 1st, 2014 at 2:11 pm
I agree, and it seems most are in agreeance that this project needs to go through the zoning process. Janie can step in and push through the project if she wants to, regardless if there is community opposition or not (that onus would fall on her any which way, whether she pushed through zoning, or side steps the process altogether as is being proposed). But the building design MUST go through zoning. Perhaps the community group and the developers overlooked something critical that would get picked up in a zoning review. How would we know otherwise? And how do we know that the community groups have not had the wool pulled over their eyes on this one. Personally I am for progress and for building up west philly, but it must be done using the proper procedures.
October 1st, 2014 at 5:57 pm
I like this project and I hope it gets built and becomes a good part of UC. But I see no reason for the owner to hold the neighborhood hostage. As someone above said, it seems like blackmail.
If this project needs variances let Clarkmore and Co. go thru the zoning process just like everybody else. This isn’t Comcast proposing a 1000ft tower.
There’s no way in my opinion that the past meetings, held, run and directed by the owners advisors and architects, should replace the regular process which is required to get a City building permit.
I hope Blackwell stays far away from these so called community leaders and their short sighted desire to give in to what seems to me to be a very contrived pressure play by Clarkmore.
October 1st, 2014 at 7:00 pm
Do the (presumably) board members of the three named local community organizations who have decided to take up the cause of the developers of 4224 Baltimore know the details of the ordinance that they are urging Ms. Blackwell to propose to City Council? If they do, then they should certainly make these details known in a public forum to the community whose interests and wishes they are claiming to represent. There is no mention of either the specifics of such an ordinance nor copies of their letters to Ms. Blackwell on the SHCA and UCHS websites. If they do not know the specifics of what the developers are proposing, then perhaps their support is unwarranted, or at least, premature.
October 2nd, 2014 at 11:08 am
There seems to be a big misunderstanding in this discussion. Let me explain:
If every neighbor who lives within a mile of this proposed project all agreed about every detail about this project, and then showed up at the ZBA holding hands with unity candles lit praising the projects: The ZBA likely would and should turn down the variance requests. The reason being that there is no legal rationale for granting a variance when there is no economic hardship. And there is no economic hardship. There is just a desire to build something different than what the zoning allows. I’ll leave it to all of you to debate if this because they want to make more money or because they want to build a better project, etc.
Zoning and development should not be done project by project, with massive community discussions. It should be done by an informed City Council who listens to the recommendations of a strong planning department who in turn listens to community input city wide as to what they want to see and synthesizes that into an adequate zoning code. But we have a terrible zoning code that doesn’t allow good projects, and allows plenty of terrible ones by right (see all the garbage being built as Drexel housing).
So while you all argue with each other, your Councilwoman sits back and laughs at the fact that she hasn’t done jack **** about improving her district and encouraging good development.
The zoning process is a joke, it is not something to be desired by anyone.
October 2nd, 2014 at 1:13 pm
This was posted on a local listserv (TotLot), same thing, it was framed as a kind of ‘community action thing,’ save the neighbourhood, etc. Ironically it was posted along with an artist’s impression of the building, which looks godawful too, IMHO.
The thing to do is have a local block meeting and invite Jannie and express opposition to any proposed variance, especially for 50% more units. This has worked well in other cases. It would work better with established block captains and good local turn out.
I was sitting outside Green Line the other day, and there were already chainsaws and woodchippers going, so I assume the trees are coming down. It was very, very noisy.
October 2nd, 2014 at 9:39 pm
As a board director of Friends of Clark Park & a journalist who has researched the new Zoning Code (which I support overall) in several articles, I must add my plea not to desecrate one of the city’s loveliest parks in a fairly-lovely neighborhood, by framing it in pure architectural crap that sends chills down the spines of all neighbors.
The new Zoning Code is a great idea, but like all new products it contains some launch glitches. One of them is that it doesn’t understand parkfront architecture is a special case. If parks are “pictures” meant for public use, parkfront properties are picture-frames. Nobody tacks the Mona Lisa onto a frame of bare 2x4s.
Site preparation is not yet complete. Most of what has been done so far can easily be converted to the community-approved design, which is intended to make the owner *more money* in the long run.
But I can’t blame the owner for fearing the crapshoot of a run at Phila ZBA. It has earned a rocky reputation when it comes to balancing the wishes of communities & developers in a judicious, yet ultimately productive, way.
The time for debate is short, though. The time for action is now. If you care about Clark Park & West Philadelphia, please support us now.
October 2nd, 2014 at 11:43 pm
Glad to see that Jannie Blackwell and the ZBA are not going to be bulldozed by this developer into jeopardizing an already well-used and indeed stressed by overuse area of West Philadelphia: don’t turn a neighborhood jewel into blight by stressing the infrastructure and upsetting the balance of a mature and thriving area of West Phil. As a resident of the area, I can readily confirm that we have significant parking, traffic, and public school enrollment overload: the last thing we need is a 100-unit dormitory: that is a tipping point writ large. Not only that, but one dormitory-style building will establish a precedent for more along the 45th St. corridor, and soon Clark Park will be the front yard for a bunch of cheap student high rises that the developers will cash in on and let go to ruin, blighting the neighborhood and upsetting a rather amazing balance of users. At this stage of this part of West Phil’s development, we need thoughtful planning–this is not a neighborhood in need of help but instead of mindful refinement and maintenance. It can’t sustain an influx of 100 plus people There is a need for development and new housing stock further up Baltimore, no doubt, but not around CP: we have apartment buildings, single family housing, etc. Instead of seat-of-the-pants-blackmail development, how about a bona fide usage and community study? Where is the need for a student ghetto to be built around Clark Park? How is parking and traffic going to be affected by the sudden intrusion of such a large unit? How will the character of the park and neighborhood be affected by this large apartment building, particularly jutting up right next to the already rather blighted health clinic? How about sticking to the original zoning and putting single family housing in the vacated area? ZBA and Blackwell, please don’t ruin the neighborhood to help one developer make a big profit.
October 3rd, 2014 at 10:36 am
Did anyone see the Inquirer article about this matter? http://www.philly.com/philly/living/20141002_In_W__Phila___Blackwells_silence_holds_up_worthy_project.html
October 3rd, 2014 at 12:09 pm
@Val Ross – The building that U3, SHCA, and other are advocating for is hardly a “seat-of-the-pants” design as you suggest. The community study, assessment of parking, etc. that you want HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE. There were many meetings over the past year which hundreds in the neighborhood attended. Input from those sessions was incorporated into the design. Look back at the WPL archives or read Inga Saffron’s piece in the Inquirer today for more background.
I live and own a home right around the corner from where this will go up. Is the U3 proposal exactly what I want there? No. But it’s far better than the by-right structure that the developer seems likely to build if Blackwell doesn’t grant a variance, or the empty lot filled with garbage and furniture that’s been there for several years.
October 3rd, 2014 at 10:35 pm
Who created the empty lot filled with garbage and furniture in the first place? THE DEVELOPER. This is absolutely classic developer tactics – buy a lot (in this case a large Victorian twin and a community garden) – destroy it – let blight set it – and then wave their hands and say “Look at this horrible blight! Why not let us build something, as anything is better than blight!”
October 4th, 2014 at 12:29 am
Tony, I assume you are familiar with the contents of the ordinance that you are urging Jannie Blackwell to put to City Council. I also assume that neither the FOCP, SHCA nor UCHS drafted it themselves, but are nevertheless aware of its contents. Perhaps you could share those details with the West Philly Local’s readership, so we can all draw our own conclusions about whether going to City Council is a good idea in this instance. If, in fact, you are ignorant of the specifics, then maybe the author of this article could ask U3 or the owners themselves to fill the rest of us in. You can’t ask us to support a particular course of action without giving us the facts.
October 4th, 2014 at 1:45 am
A couple points I get from the Inquirer piece is that the City Planning Commission supports the zoning change for this project and that Blackwell is holding up the remapping to the new zoning code, which, as it happens, would make the favored project by right.
October 4th, 2014 at 11:23 am
Replying to: “..I have real questions with why UCHS would concern themselves in this matter at this time. This is a group that pretty much does nothing other then a house tour every so often, so why suddenly do they want to get involved with a new built from the ground up project? Isn’t this the same group that couldn’t be bothered by trying to do anything to restore the mansion at 40th. and Pine.”
There seems to be a perception here that UCHS has some ability to stop private property owners from using their properties in ways that historic-building enthusiasts don’t like. If only that were the case! What is it that you think UCHS would have been able to do, but didn’t “bother” to do? ____
October 5th, 2014 at 1:48 pm
If there has been a study of infrastructure–parking, traffic, park usage, and catchment school capacity (which is over-capacity now, so…): please do share! Meanwhile, this extortion model, with (according to Tony West) the developer threatening to throw up something shoddy if he doesn’t get his way–should be a cause of concern for us all. So too the effort to bully Jannie Blackwell into pushing this developer’s plan. I live parkside and can attest that the parking is bad, the traffic is bad (children have gotten hit by cars as they head to the park; someone was hit by a truck this morning on 45th & Baltimore), the park is overused (and increasingly neglected), and the school is past capacity: so how will a 100-unit apartment building add to this? And what study shows us that this is just what we need? Where will the trucks delivering to retail park to load? Where will all the cars owned by tenants be parked? How will traffic entering and exiting this corner be managed? What will it do to the character of the area? “Planning” at this stage should be comprehensive and there should be a real vision. All those in the immediate vicinity, property owners and residents, should be surveyed: no one contacted me or any of my neighbors. There were only a series of “here are our designs, how do you like ’em” meetings that should never be confused with urban planning. We need to know how every aspect of this piece of construction will enhance rather than destroy the neighborhood infrastructure. So many things to think of, including along with infrastructure how this will affect the character of the neighborhood, which is one of trees, gardens, low buildings, yards, residences; a big 100 unit building fronting the park and filled with Penn students and young professionals is bound to gentrify the park itself, which is currently a remarkable mix of ages, races, economic statuses, families, singles, students, groups, etc. West Philadelphia needs to get up to speed with current thinking in urban planning, which involves thinking about more than $$ for a developer or “gee it would be cool to have a big glass building with stores,” and get to the point where we thoughtfully consider development in a much more expansive framework of what will, over the long term, contribute to a vital neighborhood or to its blight.
October 5th, 2014 at 1:54 pm
Put simply: I’m not for or against a glass or brick 100 unit or 50 unit or 25 unit building. I have no idea, nor does anyone else, what the developer is actually proposing, nor any idea of how it will affect the area, nor does anyone else–because no comprehensive planning or study has been done. The only “community” involvement was developer-managed, and that’s not how one defines comprehensive planning or how one goes about getting community input. Which is why everything is in the crazy state it is right now, with the developer threatening to throw up a bad building and our so-called “community” organizations attacking our city councilperson, all to protect a developer who’s trying to work around the system, it seems.
October 5th, 2014 at 2:19 pm
One last thing: we should all be thanking Jannie Blackwell for resisting this pressure to spot zone. It would be totally inappropriate for Blackwell to rezone lots specifically for an individual speculator. Spot zoning is reserved for situations where existing zoning is shown to *harm* property owners and residents in the immediate area. I do not believe any of us in the area of 43rd and Baltimore feel harmed by the way that corner is *zoned* though none of us appreciated how they bulldozed a beautiful old building and thriving community garden, and then left it vacant for years on end. I do know that some of us who live in the immediate area believe that a big apartment building is quite likely to harm the propety owners and residents living around the park. Spot zoning–remapping existing zoning–must be done only on the basis of clear identification of the harm current zoning is doing to property owners and residents, and offering a *comprehensive* plan that ensures that the identified harm is rectified and that the rezoning does not create additional stressors and harm to the area. None of these conditions have been met. In this case it’s pretty clear that a 100 unit building is going to stress the area in all sorts of ways. And that’s why the developer is reluctant to take this to the ZBA and instead wants to push Jannie Blackwell into doing spot zoning. If U3 were such a terrific plan, it would be a no-brainer. This is about money, not thoughtful community development.
October 6th, 2014 at 2:34 am
There is some real confusion here about what exactly U3 and the developers at 4224 Baltimore Ave. are asking Councilwoman Blackwell to do. They have announced that they do not wish to take the normal route of applying to L&I for a permit and following up an expected denial with an appeal to the Zoning Board for all of the variances they would need. Instead, they want changes made to the zoning of this parcel through the passage of an ordinance by vote of City Council. The question is: are they simply asking Councilwoman Blackwell to get on the ball and introduce an ordinance that would finalize the re-mapping of the University City/Southwest District devised by the City Planning Commission as part of the re-mapping of the entire city? Or are they asking her to introduce legislation covering only their parcel of land and specifically tailored to the building they want to put up? Inga Saffron seems to think it’s the former, but that really makes no sense. The planned re-mapping will upzone that parcel from RM 1 to CMX 2.5. Since CMX 2.5 allows a maximum building height of 55 feet, or roughly 5 stories, and the proposed building at 4224 rises to 8 stories, the owners would have to go to the ZBA for a variance anyhow. So what gives? Do the folks at SHCA, UCHS and FOCP who are urging this really know what’s up? And if they do, why don’t they let the rest of us in on it, if they want to rally our support?
October 6th, 2014 at 1:55 pm
@Val Ross – Please stop claiming that “no planning has been done” Just because YOU didn’t attend and/or don’t like the outcome of the meetings about this over the past year doesn’t mean they didn’t happen. I’m just a random citizen who lives around the corner, so don’t have an archive of documents to send you but it should be obvious from the news reports and changed renderings over time that significant thought was put into this building.
Here are some links with background —
http://bit.ly/1q4hcy1
Again, the building’s not exactly what I’d want to see there, but I do very much want to see something built. So do the great majority of your neighbors that attended planning meetings leading up to the current proposal (for example, one of the articles above notes 30 of 40 attendees approved when a poll was taken at the end of a session).
We now have a choice between two options (the by-right proposal and U3’s). There’s no magic 3rd option where everything gets put on hold so we can rehash arguments over whether the neighborhood should stay the same or change a bit. By telling Blackwell to deny a variance, you are voting for the plain, no-amenities, by-right structure. If you walk by the lot today, you’ll note that site preparation is already underway.
Is the owner motivated by money? Of course! It’s a private lot owned by a commercial developer. Asking for studies that are “comprehensive” enough for your liking is silly. U3 made an effort to engage the community…perhaps not as much as you would have liked, but there was no requirement that the developer do even this much.
October 6th, 2014 at 3:38 pm
Anon123: As a community member who attended 3 out of the 4 meetings that addressed the 4224 Baltimore Avenue proposal (2 held by the developers and one convened by the SHCA), perhaps I pass your test for neighbors who are allowed to criticize this project, as well as the process that has unfolded over the past year. First, let me correct you on your assertion that “30 of 40 attendees approved when a poll was taken at the end of the session”. Despite your criticism of Val Ross over attendance at these sessions, you yourself were obviously not there. I was. At the end of this last meeting, Omar Blaik, the head of U3, told those present, in so many words: “I need to go back to the owners of this property and tell them that I have community support for this proposal we have devised here, otherwise, they are going to build the really bad building they have a conditional zoning permit for. So, I’d like a show of hands. Who will raise their hands for this project and, alternatively, who wants me to just walk away and tell the owners to go ahead and build their nasty building?” Omar counted 25 hands raised in favor of his first alternative, while about 5 or 6 people voted against it. It seemed that there were a few abstainers, obviously those who believed that both options were unpalatable. Several people spoke up and said as much. There were two problems with this approach. First, the vote itself should not be cited as evidence of community support. It doesn’t come near the standards for voting employed by many well-run RCO’s in the city. Those organizations require anyone voting to provide proof of residence, ballots are numbered and the voting is secret. Secondly, framing the choice of how to treat this parcel of land as either “support this overly-large, mediocre design which departs from every zoning regulation” vs “or else, we dump this godawful box full of undergrads next to your park” has been the owners’ plan since Day 1. Just go on the SHCA web site and read the letter sent to Barry Grossbach last year. As to your claim that the current proposal is the result of the community input they received, well, if you believe that, you are far too innocent to live in Philadelphia – you should move to Mayberry! There was indeed a 3rd option in this case – a proposal made in good faith. Obviously, that ship has sailed. It’s clear that the owners realize they are overreaching with their current design and that the professionals at the Planning Commission, the ZBA and the Design Review Committee would expect some changes to be made to produce a plan that both provides the owners with an acceptable return and doesn’t blight the neighborhood with an inappropriate development. Hence, their decision to avoid the scrutiny of the ZBA et al and their appeal to Blackwell.
October 7th, 2014 at 11:05 am
Fairplay well describes in the post above why many in the neighborhood have despaired of so-called “community meetings” in which SHCA (or even more comical, the profit-seeking developer himself!) give us predigested “choices.” Dog meat.
SHCA and FOCP are still mired in a 1960s notion, circa Robert Moses, model of urban development, in which citizens are mostly idiots unless they worship at the altar of large scale development. Like Moses, SHCA and FOCP run roughshod over the community and are in bed with developers. One has only to look at the fruits of the Moses’ approach: large-scale development, chain stores, etc., bring blight to intimate urban neighborhoods.
Urban planning now favors small, intimate urban neighborhoods and small scale construction because–surprise!–it stabilizes and vitalizes urban neighborhoods, attracting and retaining people who are drawn to its specific character. Large-scale construction appeals mainly to transient populations who seek anonymity and mobility. They aren’t laying down roots; they are on their way elsewhere, as befits residents of a 100-unit glass building towering over Clark Park and environs, as out of place as, well, an 8 story glass building with upscale retail chains on the first floor must be in a residential, historical area.
Consider what years of construction on 43rd & Baltimore is going to do to traffic, parking, and the park itself, and how much it’s going to do to the park and traffic and character once it’s built!
Compare this with the intimacy that, for example, building some quality 3-4 story single family homes would mean to the block and the park. One brings a few more rooted homeowners to the area, who will take care of their property and invest in the community, help to keep the park safe and tended, and not put undue stress on the infrastructure.
SHCA and FOCP need to get out of the 1960s and 70s and catch up with the 21st century findings in urban development. Maybe take a tour of thriving urban neighborhoods, and take a keen look at the parts of West Philly that are thriving: what are their main characteristics? Who’s being drawn to the area and why? I’d like to suggest that West Phil is a residential, not commercial, neighborhood, intimate, lots of trees, gardens, greenery unusual for an urban space, few buildings over two to four stories, historic character, small owner-operated stores and restaurants. It’s a nice neighborhood for families and singles, and middle aged and older people as well as students. It isn’t Center City or King of Prussia.
Please let’s not try to change the neighborhood to please a developer! Let’s respect what we have and build on it, not drive current residents out of their homes or turn the finally revitalized Clark Park to blight thanks to irresponsible profit-oriented development and ignorance of best practices in urban development.
The best urban neighborhoods are those that have true community involvement and investment. Seattle, for example, has some of the best and most creative and well-planned and much-beloved urban parks in the nation, and it’s because Seattle communities really invest in their parks. People who live around the parks genuinely participate in the process, which is not run by developers (absurd!) nor by “community leaders” (ie, people who want to run things) but instead by facilitators. As a consequence Seattle people put a lot of their own money and sweat equity into their parks, and it shows. In contrast, FOCP and SHCA hand-pick their board members and have a bad habit of silencing and turning off anyone who doesn’t agree with them. SHCA and FOCP are like the helicopter parents of West Phil, hovering over and attempting to micromanage other people’s lives and neighborhoods: time to let go! Allow the creation of a genuinely community-oriented process. That could be a real legacy and long-term gift to the West Phil community.
October 7th, 2014 at 11:59 am
@Playfair – I’m not saying Val and others shouldn’t criticize the project, just that it’s not helpful to claim that the U3 proposal came out of nowhere. Saying things like “no comprehensive planning or study has been done” or ” I have no idea, nor does anyone else, what the developer is actually proposing” isn’t right, and that’s what I was reacting to.
As you note, the “ship has sailed” on getting a 3rd option on the table beyond the by-right building and U3’s proposal. It’s a private lot owned by a developer who seems likely to start construction on something very soon – given all that, denying a zoning variance and arguing for further study, community input, etc. isn’t going to get you what you want. It will likely get you an ugly by-right structure that folks who know a lot more about urban planning than me (Inga Saffron, Barry Grossbach, Tony West, etc.) think will be worse than the U3 proposal.
If you want better urban planning in the neighborhood, let’s work together to get our city council rep to be more proactive. Blackwell’s office has been quite bad about this. For example, well into the citywide Philadelphia 2035 planning process last year, Blackwell scheduled a hearing where she was the only council-member present and demanded that the Planning Commission go through council first instead of soliciting community input directly (http://planphilly.com/articles/2013/06/07/city-council-committee-of-one-holds-hearing-on-philadelphia2035). And now her office won’t comment or even return calls from the Inquirer about the 4224 project. It sucks that development on this corner is dependent on Blackwell’s discretion, but it’s the reality of where things are.
October 7th, 2014 at 12:20 pm
@Val Ross – how do you suggest we get from where things are today to the 3-4 units of single family housing that you want to see at 43rd & Baltimore? Will you or someone else buy the property from the current owner in the next couple months (it sold for $3.5M in 2009)? Should we ask Blackwell to try and seize the property under eminent domain?
October 7th, 2014 at 3:37 pm
anon123:While I take a less jaundiced view of the leadership of the local community groups than @Val Ross, I do believe that over the last few decades, the direction of development in West Philly has been mostly determined by landlords and real estate agents. (Why else would there be historic designation of neighborhoods like Girard Estates in South Philly, but not in our neighborhood, undoubtedly one of the most worthy of that protection of all neighborhoods in the city?) But times have changed and the goals of all members of the community, but especially those with a demonstrated committment to its future, i.e., homeowners, should be recognized. And, no, I wouldn’t ask Ms.Blackwell to “seize the property under eminent domain”. But I wouldn’t mind her investigating the circumstances that led to a property owned by the Redevelopment Authority, and essentially leased to Women Against Abuse for $1, being sold to these new owners (in 2008, not 2009), with the money going to WAB and not to us taxpayers. Oh, and what did Women Against Abuse do with that windfall? Why, they returned a sizeable portion of it to one of 4224’s owners (Campenella Construction)in the form of a large construction contract. That helps explain the rather high price Clarkmore paid for the site.
As far as wondering whether anyone in the community would be willing to buy the property, well, it’s hard to say, since I don’t recall the property ever being put up for sale publicly. Unless you can prove me wrong, anon123, I’ll hold on to my suspicion that this was an inside deal all the way.
October 7th, 2014 at 5:30 pm
What are the variances that this developer seeks?
October 7th, 2014 at 6:00 pm
@playfair
I like other people are alittle confused—-who actually owns this property, and if its a Corp./LLC who owns that?
Thanks for the info re: the history, you answered some questions and raised some. Such as, can you say more about WAB ‘kickback’ to Campenalla, and when and why did RDA buy (whatever) the property?
Does anyone know anything about the zoning history behind this property?
October 7th, 2014 at 7:18 pm
I’d like to learn more too, but this is what I understand (I think) about ownership etc. Please correct me if necessary!
It was bought by Thylan Associates of New York (thylan.com) for $3,500,000 in January 2008. It is now owned by a subsidiary(?) of Thylan, called Clarkmore Group LLC.
Clarkmore Group was also created in January 2008, and is registered in Philadelphia. I’m guessing maybe Thylan created Clarkmore to ‘own’ the plot after it was bought by Thylan. I’m not sure what other business Clarkmore has. Maybe it was set up to just to own 4224.
The developer is/was James Campenella and Associates, I’m not sure if this is still the case, probably is so for the low-rise version?
U(superscript)3 Ventures are acting as ‘consultants’ for the modernist high-rise alternative. U3’S architects are Cecil Baker + Partners.
Also involved in various capacities are several local groups.
October 7th, 2014 at 7:34 pm
Here’s some background, partly from the UC Historical Society, and partly from looking up 4224 Baltimore in Philadelphia public records.
Public records show that the RDA sold the property in 1980 to Women Against Abuse; sale price may have been $105,200. Women Against Abuse sold it in 2008 to Clarkmore, L.P. Public records show a price of $3,500,000. (James Campanella was involved in that sale; I don’t remember the details but I THINK there was an outcry about Campanella at the time for unpaid taxes.)
While that 2008 sale was pending, some SHCA & UCHS folks thought that there at one time had been some sort of deed restriction during Women Against Abuse’s ownership, so some of us had a deed search done (and paid for it). We also contacted city officials who might have been sympathetic. Unfortunately, we found that the time period for the restriction had expired and Women Against Abuse was free to sell to whomever they chose, for whatever use the new owners chose. Ownership is now shown as “Clarkmore LP, care of Thylan Associates Inc.” with a NYC address.
In 2009, then-UCHS president Belynda Stewart sent a letter to Campanella saying that UCHS had heard that the property was going to be demolished. She expressed strong objections and asked for it to be developed “in keeping with the fabric of our Historic neighborhood.” She asked for the owners to work with UCHS to find an alternative use. She wrote, “It is one of the early West Philadelphia properties built in the 1860s by John Neil McGarvey, and renovated by E.A. Wilson c. 1920. It was owned by the prominent Byrd family during the 1800s, and later was the Phillips Brooks School (he was a renowned minister who among many accomplishments also wrote “Oh, Little Town of Bethlehem”).
Unfortunately, the developers weren’t impressed. A group of UCHS members picketed on Baltimore Ave. when the demo began. I have many sad photos of the demolition. University City does not have a local historic district*, so there was no way then to stop the demo, and there is no way now to control what is built there, if the developers build “by right.”
*Many years ago, SHCA & UCHS did all of the survey & application work for a local historic district. The next step would have been for the Phila. Historical Commission (PHC) and Councilwoman Blackwell to follow the review process to consider it. However, some residents and landlords opposed it, so Councilwoman Blackwell was not only unwilling; she also introduced legislation to take control of the designation process away from the PHC, and give it to the District Councilpersons. This caused great upset city-wide and nationally; the PHC dropped the application, and national preservation organizations wrote to Philadelphia to express concern about making historical designation political in the historic city of Philadelphia. Jannie’s proposed law expired without being passed. This is why we have no historic district, and why UCHS can’t stop demolitions today.
October 7th, 2014 at 9:45 pm
Wow, many thanks Melani!
October 7th, 2014 at 10:01 pm
Thanks for this background. It sounds like we should apply again as an historic district. Meanwhile, what are the limitations on what the developer can do without Blackwell or ZBA approval? What do they want to do that they are prevented from doing? Tony or Melanie, do either of you know? Also someone told me that the same developer just bought Best House across the street. Anyone know if that’s true?
October 7th, 2014 at 10:16 pm
Hi, Val, what the developer can do “without Blackwell legislation or ZBA approval” is build “…a no-frills 92-unit building” (quoting original article above) with just 6 parking spaces and no storefronts to bring foot traffic to be “eyes on the street” for safety.
Supporters of the U3 Ventures consultants & community-designed plan feel that it is better b/c it has more parking, more thought to appearance, and commercial space that was to be for small businesses (NOT TO BE drug stores or banks – probably a restaurant or 2, fitness center, that kind of amenities).
There is no third option, or option to build nothing. It’s “by right,” or U3 Ventures’ design.
But, it’s unlikely that the unpredictable ZBA would allow U3 Ventures design b/c – get this – the only argument one can make when asking the ZBA for a variance is “hardship,” and Clarkmore can’t claim “hardship” when they are able to build the 92-unit building “by right.”
It’s a real catch-22. No one is saying that the U3 Ventures/community design is the best ever, but it’s a compromise that gets more for the community. And the community has, at least to some extent, “vetted” it at the 3 meetings + final presentation.
The community gets NO SAY in the “by right” design. Not one word,
And yes, the Best House building was just sold (see related W. Philly Local article today) but NOT to Clarkmore!
October 7th, 2014 at 10:36 pm
Thanks, Melani! All things considered, i ‘d like to see the plan for the supposedly shoddy blackmail building. I am not a fan of more retail on 43rd due to traffic and parking issues, which are formidable. Where would trucks unload, for example, and where would customers park? While there is a modest sprinkle of small businesses on this side of Baltimore, it’s overwhelmingly residential, and that is good for the park, among other things.
October 7th, 2014 at 10:48 pm
See http://4224baltimore.com, the Alternative Plans section. The things you mention were certainly of great concern to folks at the planning meetings, and they were addressed:
The expectation is that shoppers would be local and would walk, not drive – same as on other blocks of Baltimore nearby. The very fact that there is so little parking prompts people to make the decision not to arrive by car. And there would be 60 parking spaces for residents plus 50 bicycle parking spaces, compared to 6 parking spaces total in the “by right” building. There would be loading docks, etc. in the rear of the building, off street, accessed via the driveway on 43rd St.
Please don’t think I’m trying to sell you on the U3 Ventures plan! I’m just providing information. As I said, I don’t think anyone thinks it’s the end-all and be-all, but many think it is better than a building geared for 92 student rentals.
October 7th, 2014 at 11:30 pm
Re. the parking, while U3 are adding 54 parking spaces (from 6 to 60), they’re also adding 40 living units (from 92 to 132), so in terms of ‘units without allocated parking who may be parking in the neighborhood,’ it’s 86 in the no frills case, and 72 in the U3 case.
October 7th, 2014 at 11:35 pm
@Melani, I’ll join the chorus, thanks for data.
I disagree that the only two options are a no-frills, by right build or the U3 concept, the owner COULD build a very nice by right building. Yes it might only have 6 parking spots and no commercial uses, but there’s nothing stopping Clarkmore from building something other then a stucco box.
Without knowing more about what type of provision Blackwell is being asked to present to council, I find very hard to place any trust in Clarkmore that they would actually build what U3 has come up with. Zoning can dictate certain factors, but unfortunately quality is not one of them.
After reading the recent history of the demo and what hasn’t happened since, along with the rumors of shady dealings, and this either or threat, unless the Blackwell ordinance is very specific, and I doubt if that’s possible, why would anyone have their hopes up that what we would get is anywhere close to what is being presently talked about.
If the neighborhood is going to end up with a stucco box (for lack of a better description), I’d rather have a 92 unit box and not a 132 unit box.
Although ‘hardship’ might be the letter of the law for obtaining a variance from ZBA, in my limited recent experience it seems to be only a passing concern, at best, to the ZBA. Plus if U of Penn can qualify for a hardship (40th & Pine) that, if nothing shows how broadly that concept can be stretched. In the real world it seems as if the ZBA listens to the City planning folk, and all the usual political crap that’s common place in City government. But Clarkmore certainly knew this when they spent $3.5 million 6 or 7 years ago. (I’d really like to know where that money came from!)
If this is truly a either or situation, and I had a reasonable degree of confidence of what was going to be built, I guess I could hold my nose, support an ordinance and hope for the best. But I’d rather hope that the existing zoning could be challenged. Does anyone out there know anything about how this set of properties got combined and were given RM1 or whatever? After sitting empty and idle for so many years doesn’t a property fall back to the background zoning of the neighborhood?
October 8th, 2014 at 1:43 am
greg: Clarkmore (of which James Campenella is a principal) paid $3,500,000 to Women Against Abuse for 4224 Baltimore Ave. WAA’s IRS Form 990 for 2012 shows that the organization paid $1,340,655 to Columbus Construction Co, LLC (successor to Campenella Construction). And Inga Saffron has the nerve (or naivete?) to characterize this U3-run process as the “new” Philadelphia way of doing things! Smells like the “old” Philadelphia way to me.
October 8th, 2014 at 8:50 pm
Found this comment posted to http://planphilly.com/articles/2014/10/01/october-1-market-east-construction-starting-clark-park-zoning-fight-driving-trending-down that suggests that our two community organizations are involved with some rather shady bedfellows: The developer’s name is James Campenella. He partners with Lenard Thylen of Thylen Associates, a foreign firm registered in New York state. Clarkmore uses Thylen’s NYC address. Campenella has had an interesting and varied career. He:
– Served jail time for running a major drug operation in the 80’s,
– Pleaded guilty several years ago to giving $20,000 to a Philadelphia tax assessor in return for lowering the assessments on a number of his properties by millions of dollars,
– Induced Jannie Blackwell to introduce legislation in City Council giving him a sweetheart deal involving the lease by the city of one of his properties for a homeless shelter (shot down when the Inquirer started looking into it).
Most recently, he somehow persuaded an L&I examiner to issue him a permit illegally on his property at 1601 S Columbus Blvd. It was only through the quick and determined action of the local community organization that L&I finally admitted its error and withdrew the permit. But it was a struggle getting them to admit their error. I think a closer scrutiny by the local community organizations when presented with the sketchy conditional permit issued on 4224 Baltimore Ave. might have prevented what looks to become a real mess. L&I does screw up sometimes, doesn’t it?
October 8th, 2014 at 9:10 pm
@Greg: I agree that a 132-unit box (which is what this is really all about; he gets the spot zoning, throws up a monstrosity nearly twice as big as the 92-unit box he can apparently build. And he’s using SHCA and FOCP to do his dirty work for him; and they in turn are alienating Blackwell: beautiful work all round.
Here is a description of the building this community-minded developer razed, along with a thriving community garden, and then left the lot vacant and trashy for years:
4224-26 Baltimore Ave
John Neil McGarvey, developer
c.1860
E.A. Wilson, architect for renovations
c.1920
Two, three-story, two-bay, brick with stone facade Second Empire, semi-detached houses. Distinguishing features include stone and iron fence around terraced yard, porch, segmentally arched windows, bracketed cornice, convex mansard roof with pedimented dormers and slate shingles, ground floor bay windows.
____________________________________
October 9th, 2014 at 3:26 pm
‘Please don’t think I’m trying to sell you on the U3 Ventures plan!’
Melanie, when you’re the head of an organization (UCHS) that has formed a coalition to urge their neighbors and their councilwoman to support the plan, then I think this statement is a bit disingenuous.
In fact, none of our three neighborhood groups will publicly reveal to their neighbors the exact details of the legislation they are petitioning Blackwell to support. And U3’s website is also silent.
When someone is trying to convince you of something, it’s often a good idea to consider what they are NOT saying, what they are leaving out. In the absence of any information to the contrary, we’re left to assume that U3 is pushing Blackwell to introduce the zoning remapping for our entire area. That would include the city planners’ suggestion to upzone 4224 to CMX 2.5. What they are NOT saying is that the owners could then build by right a building 55 feet high, where the first floor MUST be occupied by retail and where there is NO MINIMUM PARKING requirement.
So, if this passes, the owners can just thumb their noses at the neighborhood, put in a Rite-aid, a bank and a cell phone store on the first floor and 4 floors of undergrad dorms above. And NOT A SINGLE PARKING SPACE. And they can build it out of stucco-faced concrete block, if they feel like it. What do you think they’re going to do?
October 9th, 2014 at 4:42 pm
Many people posting here are using pseudonyms so that no one knows who they are. That, rather than what I’ve written, might seem like “NOT saying,” or leaving something out. That might seem disingenuous. Alon Abramson, Tony West, Val Ross and I are the only ones who are not hiding behind fictitious names. I wrote about the background of 4224 Baltimore only because there was a time when some of the people commenting seemed interested in knowing some background. I don’t want to monopolize the discussion, but I feel like I must add that there IS NO legislation at this time, so there are no “details” to “publicly reveal.” Councilwoman Blackwell is being asked if she will WRITE legislation to build the building designed by U3 Ventures/the community meetings. That building only. She has not agreed to write it! So it’s no surprise that no one can “reveal” it. Also, for the record, I am not “the head of UCHS;” my 2-year term as president ended in September. I have not left the board, but our current president, Elizabeth Stegner, signed UCHS’ letter to Councilwoman Blackwell on behalf of all of the board members.
October 10th, 2014 at 6:15 pm
Critical Mass, a 132-box unit is not “nearly twice as big as the 92-unit box”:
92 x 2 = 184
132 ÷ 92 = 1.43, which is less than one-and-a-half times as big
I agree that 132 is too big, but even unintended misrepresentation cripples any argument.
October 10th, 2014 at 9:19 pm
Mark, Its not just the number of units, its probably more important to count the number of bedrooms and in terms of how big it might be one needs to look at square footage. Plus the U3 plans includes quite alot of commercial usage.
Any way you look at these two ideas, both would be a big change, and I don’t think that they would be for the better.
October 12th, 2014 at 1:55 am
I’ll confess to not having read this thread in its entirety. But based on what I have read I feel compelled to make a comment.
The underlying problem here is that “the community” is constantly in a position to reacting to the agendas of outside developers, rather than proactively driving and controlling neighborhood development.
Our community needs a community-controlled vehicle, perhaps a Community Development Corporation (CDC), that will actively acquire real estate for either preservation as green space or development according to the vision of the community, as opposed to perpetually reacting to the agendas of others, or the market. I think it is rather remarkable that no such entity exists in this neighborhood. The new Land Bank can be a tool to accomplish this, though certainly only one of many. This neighborhood has a host of resources who could accomplish this.
A democratic, grassroots CDC could identify and develop property for affordable housing, for urban gardening and dog parks and other green space, and even for market-rate student housing – all the while proactively driving the agenda, rather than being in the position of reacting to others’ agendas.
Kimm
October 12th, 2014 at 5:07 pm
Kimm, I couldn’t agree more. That is a terrific idea. And it would be good for this organization to be genuinely communal, which means real outreach to the community, surveys, etc, not the current clique calling the shots for everyone else. There is a lot of knowledge, experience, creativity, energy and money in this community and it has never been mobilized. Let’s make this happen!
October 16th, 2014 at 6:01 pm
Fun Fact #1: One of the developers of the current 43rd Street project was also the developer who tried to demolish the historically certified mansion at 40th and Pine in order to build an 11 story hotel back in 2007. When the demolition attempt failed, he then wanted to attach an 11-story tower to the mansion. His efforts were successfully fought by members of the Woodland Terrace Homeowners Assn. and the hotel is now on Walnut Street.
Fun Fact #2: That developer’s 2007 project was supported by numerous individuals and members of local community and historical preservation groups.
Fun Fact #3: That developer’s current project is being supported by the self-same individuals and members of local community and historical preservation groups.
Pass the rubber stamp…
October 17th, 2014 at 2:03 pm
Alon Glasberg and Deborah Grossman. They are the parties responsible for the sudden, almost completed demolition of 245 S. 45th street. They operate as Dvora Peoperties, D&A Real Estate Investments and Glasberg Properties. Lately, they have been involved in the Temple area. (Where the locals have been objecting for a while now to the effects of student housing on their neighborhood – see today’s Daily News). They will replace the building they are tearing down with a much larger structure – eight units – extending well back into the existing back yard. Although their permits were granted back in July, there are no site plans or details yet available on the the city’s website.
A local real estate blog broke this news:
http://www.ocfrealty.com/naked-philly/west-philly/victorian-west-philly-home-coming-down
October 17th, 2014 at 2:14 pm
And this is why neighbors who are struggling with 40th & Pine, 43rd & Baltimore, and now 45th, as well as Temple residents, need to meet and organize. Philadelphia has to catch up with urban planning developments before these developers ruin what has taken years to create.
October 17th, 2014 at 4:09 pm
@Val: Don’t you think it’s possible to work through our existing civic associations/RCO’s, perhaps encouraging them to be more active in their approach to development, land use and vacant properties in our neighborhood?
October 18th, 2014 at 7:19 am
Maybe, though it seems as if our local orgs have turned off many people, and tend to be less than open to considering new ideas or approaches. Thus a great deal of energy and goodwill might be immediately squandered and dampened by having first to persuade them to taking a new approach. Both Barry G. and Tony West are advocates of big scale development and also appear pretty stuck on “this is the way it is, the way it must ever be,” which is not promising attitudes for change leaders, which is what we need now. Not to mention the urgency, with developers pressing for large scale projects at every turn–now that the neighborhood is flourishing. They neither know nor care how much they are jeopardizing West Phil, and it seems there isn’t a single voice in either of our community orgs that knows or speaks to contemporary best practices in urban development. In San Francisco, for example, no one can build higher than their neighbors to protect the character and beauty and views. SF, like Seattle, are models of community driven development and strong, contemporary, successful urban planning. West Phil until recently has been organically developing along similar lines only to now be threatened by that success, attracting big developers and chains.
October 18th, 2014 at 11:11 pm
RE: Maybe, though it seems as if our local orgs have turned off many people, and tend to be less than open to considering new ideas or approaches…. they neither know nor care how much they are jeopardizing West Phil, and it seems there isn’t a single voice in either of our community orgs that knows or speaks to contemporary best practices in urban development.
Reply: That’s because they don’t answer to the neighborhood–they answer to Penn and the developers.
Look at how so-called “community meetings” never seem to genuinely engage the community, but are instead pre-packaged presentations that seek to have the community rubber stamp whatever the developers have already decided upon.
Listen to what the so-called leaders say: they’re not advocating for us or acting in our best interests–they’re trying to convince us to accept whatever the developers want to do, without question.
Look at who always seems to have intimate knowlege of the developers’ projects and why the developers “can’t” make changes that the community favors.
Look at who comes to the developers’ defense whenever anyone dares to question anything.
The answer is to get new blood on these community boards and make them truly representative of this neighborhood.
October 20th, 2014 at 10:04 am
@Val Ross / @Here We Go Again – To say that folks like Tony West and Barry Grossbach “neither know nor care how much they are jeopardizing West Phil” or that SHCA/FoCP/UCHS etc. “answer to Penn” is absurd. Tony and Barry have both lived in the neighborhood for years – why wouldn’t they care about it? How exactly does Friends of Clark Park “answer to Penn”?
Have either of you ever gone to a meeting for these groups? Talked to Tony/Barry? Tony and Barry are both such nice people who have lived in the neighborhood for years and consistently volunteered lots of time to help with neighborhood issues. I’m not very close with either but have run into both at community meetings and they’re always friendly, down to earth, and open to conversation. And this idea that our community organizations have been hijacked by developers? In my experience having casually attended some meetings since moving to West Philly a few years ago, these groups are all very eager to have people join the conversation and/or take on leadership roles. Friends of Clark Park just had elections for new board members last week – barely enough people “ran” to fill the board seats. The group would LOVE to have more people get involved, all board meetings are open to the public. If you don’t believe me, call my bluff by showing up at a meeting and talk with the people you’re demonizing here…I think it’ll be pretty clear to you that there isn’t some grand conspiracy at work, just a bunch of neighbors trying to work together.
October 20th, 2014 at 10:36 am
Hi, ANON123. I’m curious why, if you only have nice things to say about Barry and Tony and all, you are being anonymous! As for me, I didn’t say anything about their character but rather that they are promoters of large scale development. I have in fact attended meetings in the days of yore, and am one of the people turned off. These organizations are not community organizations by any expected standards. They are clubs that hand-pick their members. They never poll the immediate neighbors or the community to find out how the actual property owners and residents feel about large-scale developments on their blocks or in their immediate vicinities. They do no meaningful research about the stress on infrastructures. They have no backgrounds in urban planning, nor do they call upon urban planners. Instead, the routine is something like this: Developer wants to do X (put up a nightclub, put up a 11 story hotel, a 20 story apartment building, etc). Would you like the building to be brick or glass? You decide! That is not urban planning and that is not how a *community* organization works. Nor do community organizations operate like Rotary Clubs or secret societies, picking their members through back channels. A few years ago, Barry–aka Spruce Hill Community Association–approved the creation of Mill Creek Tavern on my block. Only the other insider or two on our block even knew about the owner’s plan to raze the historic buildings on the corner and put a new red brick nightclub in its place. If Barry had conducted SHCA as a community org, the first thing he would have done was alert the residents of the immediate area–the people who were to be most affected–to this proposed plan, and then gotten input, and learned that the majority of us were deeply opposed to a nightclub, but were not deeply opposed to, say, a nice restaurant and bar with music. Sadly, ignoring the actual neighbors and bulldozing ahead ended up destroying the character of the block and, worse still, with a sprawling building and business that does not attract local residents: future blight (in fact, the little store across the street went out of business a few years after). Here was a real opportunity to enhance the block and the neighborhood, lost because of the tunnel-vision unilateral conduct of the developers and Barry. These organizations believe they have the purchase on the truth; they do not understand contemporary urban development nor the value of the hive mind, of collective intelligence and input. Barry may be the nicest man in the world and so too everyone who serves on both of these organizations, but we do not need benevolent neighborhood czars. Those days are long gone. Good intentions are not the issue; real damage is being done to the community, and my immediate neighborhood–where I actually live and pay property taxes and have invested nearly $200,000 into my property, as have many of my neighbors. We care about the neighborhood. This isn’t an idea for us. Enough with the good intentions. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and profit-driven developers. We need comprehensive, knowledgeable, thoughtful, community-driven planning based on an analysis of *all* factors and of the creativity and intelligence of the community at large.
October 20th, 2014 at 10:40 am
Val, how about if you start a new organization?
October 20th, 2014 at 11:15 am
@ Val Ross – I’d ask again as I did on a previous post, how do you suggest we get from where we are today to the urban planning utopia that you think exists in Seattle and SF? Does keeping 4224 Baltimore vacant or building a junky by-right structure there help get to that goal? Will you start a CDC for the neighborhood? Find some urban planners and a broad cross-section of community members to join these groups? Will you at least go to a FoCP/UCHS/SCHA meeting?
When you say things like “we care about the neighborhood” you mean to imply that others don’t, right? If not, what do you mean? Are you just noting that you care about the neighborhood and so does everyone else? Ditto for calling a volunteer zoning committee person a “neighborhood czar” and claiming that these local groups “hand pick their members”. Just because folks disagree with you doesn’t mean the whole process is big conspiracy. Years ago there was probably some opposition to the big bad profit driven developers who built your house and the rest of West Philly on empty farmland…but it’s a give and take process.
I live on the 4300 block of Larchwood. Best House around the corner is changing ownership and needs zoning approval for various things. Barry delivered a flyer to our block and surrounding houses this weekend inviting us to the next zoning meeting a few weeks from now to comment. What else would you suggest the zoning committee realistically do to get community engagement? It’s a public meeting and yet most people don’t attend, as is true of most local government meetings about everything everywhere. Should we force people to attend? If you want detailed studies and input from expert planners, where is the money going to come from to get that done? Some people will agree with whatever zoning issues come up at that meeting and others will disagree…that doesn’t mean those involved are power-hungry or corrupt.
October 20th, 2014 at 4:10 pm
I guess we’ll have to organize, Anon123! It’s true that everyone can’t go to zoning meetings, or to developer’s thinly disguised sales pitches tricked out as “community meetings.” That is why we zoom into the 21st century and use the kinds of techniques readily available for polling the real members of the community who can’t make meetings. In turn, we’d see a far more robust participation–as they have in Seattle and San Francisco–if members of the community were actually good faith participants, rather than the kind of back room patriarchal process that is currently in play in Philadelphia. That old school format worked in the old patriarchal days, I guess, but it’s very ineffective now. The pastures are indeed gone. Resources are scarce. We need urban planning that takes into account all aspects of urban development, including sustainability.
October 20th, 2014 at 4:12 pm
PS: the owner of 4224 had no problems leaving it vacant for several years, after razing a beautiful mansion and flourishing community garden.
October 20th, 2014 at 8:57 pm
@Val – The 4224 Baltimore project has had website with a public forum asking for community input for many months now (http://4224baltimore.com/?post_type=forum). The option to comment there was mentioned several times on West Philly Local, the UCNeighbors listserv, and flyers around the community.
Regarding the “back room patriarchal process” used by groups like Friends of Clark Park — are you referring to the public meeting last week that was advertised on Facebook, the UCNeighbors listserv, FoCP website, etc? The one held in a spacious auditorium at USP across from the park where volunteers were waiting outside to direct people to the room? That “back room” meeting? Or perhaps you meant the top-secret upcoming zoning hearing that Barry Grossbach distributed flyers about to all the surrounding neighbors (flyers which include his email address in case one couldn’t make the meeting or had questions)? Are these the “old school” processes you’re talking about? For every urban planning issue that comes up, should representatives show up in your living room at a time that’s convenient for you (or I guess send a personal email since face-to-face meetings are too “partiarchal”)? Should they also contact you again after talking to your other neighbors in case you weren’t paying attention the first time around?
Philly politics and community development efforts certainly could be better in a thousand ways, but you’re incorrect and unhelpful in claiming that folks aren’t trying to have “good faith” dialog about these issues. What does your improved process look like and, more importantly, what could you do to bring us closer to that reality given the specific, time-sensitive issues currently facing this development?
October 20th, 2014 at 10:45 pm
I think I defined the patriarchal politics of FOCP and SHCA pretty clearly:
1) The membership is hand picked, like a club, not a community organization.
2) The actual community is never alerted to developments or polled about their position. Instead, we get Tony West and Barry Grossbach speaking as/for us like patriarchs.
October 20th, 2014 at 11:41 pm
@ Val – The problem with your argument is that 1 and 2 are false.
The community is NEVER alerted to developments? What? If you mean “I, Val Ross, do not feel that I was sufficiently alerted, as I would have been in the SF or Seattle where all private development is put to a community vote” that’s fine…but it’s just not true that all this is happening in secret.
FoCP had elections for new board seats last week. Barely enough people came to the meeting to fill the open slots. I’ve heard that UCHS also at times struggles to fill it’s board. People are busy and it’s tough to get volunteers to do community work like this.
What really frustrates me about your responses are that they make community development work even harder. You don’t go to the meetings, yet are somehow certain that there’s all sorts of back-room secret dealing going on. Your want “21st century” communication methods, but miss that these groups all regularly post to WPL, Facebook, etc. to try and engage the community. You malign the current leadership but don’t offer any suggestions for improvement other than “be like Seattle”.
You’re entitled to your opinion, but why not engage in the process to make it better rather than just dismissing the work of your neighbors wholesale? We’re part of the “actual community” here in West Philly too, you know.
October 21st, 2014 at 2:04 pm
To @Anon123:
Go back and re-read my post: I never named any individual or organization; I only described the tactics being used by certain people and entities in this neighborhood.
I cannot improve upon what @Val123 has described and it is SPOT ON.
The people pulling the strings behind the scenes in these organizations KNOW that the majority of people are busy living their lives and raising families and don’t have time to get involvedin any in-depth way They KNOW that many people will join the boards initially but get burned out over time from the work involved. But not to worry! The insiders will take care of everything!
The bottom line is: some community associations have been hijacked by a clique in the thrall of Penn who will roll over for Penn and Penn-connected developers.
October 21st, 2014 at 5:00 pm
@ here we go again – So what you’re saying is that people who participate in civic meetings more often have their views represented while those who don’t (because they’re busy, etc.) don’t get their views represented as well? The horror! And I’m so glad to hear you’re not accusing FoCP, UCHS, Barry Grossbach or any other specific group or person. It’s much more helpful to just tarnish all the community groups by referencing “certain people and organizations” that “pull all the strings” – that really gets to the meat of the issue!
I’ve asked you and Val Ross several times if you had any suggestions or plans to make things work better and your response is this nonsense over and over about patriarchy and back room deals. How are you so sure that’s what’s happening if you refuse to engage with the process outside this forum? If you came to the FoCP meeting last week you could have had a board seat. If you brought 5 friends you could have taken over the entire organization. If you just keep posting misinformation to this forum that makes civic dialog sound permanently futile, all it does is risk alienating others who might join these community groups.
October 21st, 2014 at 5:18 pm
Sadly, Anon, you are providing a fine example of how these organizations treat dissenting views: with carelessness, disrespect, paranoia. I don’t understand why you are so determined to defend developers, but so be it.
Meanwhile, as you may have noted, we look to be in the early stages of conceptualizing a community organization that sees its job not as attacking or isolating those who disagree but rather with being as inclusive as possible because it is in gathering together a genuine diversity of views and kinds of expertise that one gets the sort of energy and creativity and investment that is found in progressive neighborhoods. West Philadelphia has such tremendous residents that a community organization predicated on outreach and communication is going to ensure that we become the models for community development, alongside or perhaps even surpassing Seattle and San Francisco, which, by the way, are not utopias but real places doing real things and engaging in comprehensive vision-based, sustainable, small-scale urban development…already.
October 21st, 2014 at 7:40 pm
The readers of this thread will now have two opposing sets of opinions on this subject. They can use both sets to analyze what they see, read and hear going forward, and then reach their own conclusions.
October 21st, 2014 at 10:05 pm
@Val – That’s great (I mean that seriously). Look, we both care about this community but have differing opinions on what things should look like going forward and how to handle projects like 4224 Baltimore. I think it’d be better for the community in the long run for us all to work through a common set of groups but since you can’t stomach that then it’s nice to hear you’re staying engaged by trying to set up an alternative outlet. I’ll try my best to come to your group’s meetings, I hope you’ll consider stopping by some SCHA/UCHS/FoCP/etc. sessions as well.
October 21st, 2014 at 10:16 pm
Thanks! I have by the way come to some of these org’s meetings and was even invited (and then the invitation withdrawn because a more suitable candidate appeared on the scene) to be on the FOCP board. The last meeting I attended was a while ago–maybe last year–at Tony West’s house for an FOCP meeting. My sense of these organizations is that they are, for lack of better words, relationship-laden and encumbered. Broadening the base allows decisions to be made that aren’t about relationships but rather about what the broad base considers best overall, after weighing the facts.
October 22nd, 2014 at 12:29 pm
@anon123: If only a handful of people attend the FOCP annual membership meeting, presumably the most important meeting of the year, where board members are elected, then isn’t it fair to question the degree to which this organization speaks for the community at large? For instance, when the organization announces that it wholeheartedly supports the current development proposal for 4224 Baltimore, it really only represents the personal opinions of a very small number of people.
October 22nd, 2014 at 8:32 pm
@Playfair – Yeah, that’s a fair point. But it’s not as if FoCP (or SCHA, UCHS, etc.) are trying to keep people out. In my experience the past couple years, these groups all have regular public meetings and are hungry for new people to get more involved. In FoCP’s case, I don’t think the group is particularly focused on zoning issues anyway…most of the meeting I went to was about things like soil aeration and water fountain repair. If there really are a ton of people who oppose a project like 4224 but few if any participate in community organizations…I don’t know how to fix that. Even if we held a full neighborhood vote, turnout would probably be very low (I think it averages ~20% for local elections across the country), so you still have to guess at what the community wants based on personal opinions of a subset of the neighborhood.
October 22nd, 2014 at 9:14 pm
Anon, I think you’re right that FOCP is not organized to work on community development nor is SHCA.
I don’t think the ancient practice of insisting on attendance at a meeting is effective any longer. It’s not that people are uninterested. It’s that they just don’t have the time. That’s why we need to use alternate forms of information gathering and easier (and less stressful) ways for people to weigh in.
October 23rd, 2014 at 7:00 pm
Today (Thurs 10/23) I received in the mail University City District’s annual report “The State of University City 2014-2015”. On Page 22 of the UCD Report, the 4224 Baltimore development plan is featured. (to see the report, go to the UCD website and click on “Publications”.
This line stood out to me: “The project’s design was developed in partnership with the community…”
How many meetings with the community other than the one held at Rosenberger Hall, where the project’s final plan was presented, have there been?
Which specific individuals and/or groups contributed to the project at its inception and over the course of its formulation?
January 20th, 2015 at 12:07 pm
Zoning isn’t always well-written, and a community process of a series of open meetings where community members participate in planning and design will typically yield better results than a zoning code that was written, even in the best of worlds, to layer across the entirety of Philadelphia with all its amazing neighborhood diversity. In reality, many components of zoning code may have been written by giant national and international corporate developers whose business plan is cookie-cutter shopping malls, mostly in wealthier suburbs. So Philly’s zoning code may or may not be helpful to a community as it confronts decisions about any particular project. James Howard Kunstler’s “Home From Nowhere” is a staggering critique of municipal zoning codes in the U.S., and participates in a tradition of ‘new urbanism’ that has successfully improved community planning in countless communities — notably through use of a community-integrated planning and design process very similar to what has apparently happened at 43rd and Baltimore. Interestingly, too and again, Jane Jacobs’ “Death and Life of Great American Cities” is a founding document in the new urbanist movement and honors our beloved Clark Park among only a few nationwide, for its successful design embodying what have become new urbanist principles.
Perhaps we should continue in that tradition and grasp the planning and regulation process for ourselves, rather than settle for what will result from a zoning code written for when communities have not organized themselves and therefore need protection against non-compliant development.
January 20th, 2015 at 2:27 pm
Thank you for this overview and set of resources, Robert. I agree with your position and wonder whether it might not be a good thing to form a community reading group where we discuss these as well as share information about the planning and regulation process, planned development in West Phil, and how we might have a more intelligent, substantive, informed community position and voice on these matters. Is anyone up for starting with a reading group?
January 20th, 2015 at 2:29 pm
@Val Ross: I like what you’ve done in reviewing the architectural elements and scale that succeeds in West Philly. You are right that we love our neighborhood and that it is characterized by buildings 4 stories and smaller, for the most part, so why take a chance on a 162 unit building. Definitely something to reflect on.
On the other hand, I find it interesting that the MO of developers typically is to lead with the big project and then glide in at the actual intended project size, giving community stakeholders the impression they fought a hard battle and won concessions from the developer. In this case, the developer is going smaller than the plan they want. Or that’s the story anyway. Could be just a more elaborate bait-and-switch strategy tailored to our particular community politics.
January 20th, 2015 at 2:39 pm
@Val is Clark Park area really “stressed from overuse”? I’m not even really sure how overuse could be possible in a neighborhood where the people we should be concerned with (low- and middle-income) mostly don’t drive, having three trolley lines running through the park. The only people who could really call it overused would be the 3-story single residence and 3-unit apartment building owners. Since these owners are probably really-well represented through FOP and Cedar Park Neighbors, etc., it would seem they’re all for more density, too. I think Jane Jacobs’ “eyeballs on the street” principle applies here. The more pedestrians you have walking around, the better. Unless you want to live in suburban-style homestead where you hardly ever see your neighbors let alone strangers on the street.
January 20th, 2015 at 2:42 pm
Does anyone know if the 162-unit version of the building includes low-income housing units? I think that’s the deal-maker for me as far as supporting it or not. And Janie Blackwell might be able to get some support from her constituents if she can win a significant set-aside on this.
January 20th, 2015 at 2:44 pm
Thanks, Robert. I think in fact even if we didn’t agree on a future vision for west philly, our debates and conversations about it would be far better if they were informed, as you are suggesting, by research and history based on what has and hasn’t worked, and why, and provided by experts, not people who stand to profit from talking us into one thing or another. A book conversation group strikes me as a creative and community-building base for such discussions, far better than trying to have them over a profit-seeking developer’s plans to build a large (and to me hideous-looking) disproportionate structure overshadowing one of west philly’s most beautiful resources and destinations, Clark Park.
January 20th, 2015 at 2:45 pm
@Robert: there’s no space at the school so low-income housing wouldn’t be able to accommodate anyone with children. So first, I think, any large-scale building in the school catchment area needs first to accommodate school overcrowding and resources.
January 20th, 2015 at 3:18 pm
“there’s no space at the school”
Is 4224 in the Penn-Alexander catchment? Is that the only public grade school? What are the laws on City of Philadelphia providing public schooling in our neighborhood? How can a community-initiated design process build the non-Penn-funded public school we want here?