Photos West Philly Local
Editor’s Note: After this story was printed, Spruce Hill Community Association’s zoning chair Barry Grossbach said that they “begged the owners of 243 [S. 45th St.] not to take the building down. My impression is that they are building a multi-unit structure.”
Developers continue to buy properties and land around Penn and Drexel and turn them into apartments buildings mostly aimed at students. The photo above is from a new project at 41st and Ludlow. Ludlow Brothers LLC purchased a single family home at that location in 2014 and demolished it to make room for a four-story apartment building.
Another Spruce Hill development project, luxury apartments on S. 45th Street between Spruce and Locust, has been completed. As was reported earlier, an old West Philly row home at 245 S. 45th St. was demolished to make room for the new four-story 15-unit building. However, we recently noticed that another old row home, right next door to the new apartment building was also being torn down:
It’s not clear yet what is coming in its place. The 5-bedroom home at 243 S. 45th St. was sold last summer for $399,000 to developer South Fortyfive 243 LLC, according to property records.
March 21st, 2016 at 8:52 pm
Whats the zoning on 45th St. that allows 15 units to be built at one mid-block address?
March 22nd, 2016 at 11:19 am
We have our local council person to thank for this. If Jannie Blackwell had supported the Spruce Hill Historic District several years ago, it would be much more difficult for these tear downs to happen. We can blame her as much as the developers.
March 22nd, 2016 at 11:28 am
RM-1: Residential Mixed-Use
http://phillyzoning.com/newcode/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RM-1.pdf
Even under the Philadelphia2035 proposed zoning remapping, which the councilwoman has not agreed to enact, it looks like this block would remain multi-family (page 75 for proposed zoning map, page 71 for key)
http://www.phila.gov/CityPlanning/plans/District%20Plans%20Library/USW_full%20plan.pdf
March 22nd, 2016 at 2:40 pm
Two lots were added together.
This area is zoned RM-1 which is multi-family. The number of families allowed is based on the total lot size.
These particular lots are extremely deep lots (maybe 150 or 200 feet deep).
March 22nd, 2016 at 3:11 pm
Thanks for clarifying, Bob. It was actually pretty hard to tell how enormous the new building is until its neighbor to the north was demolished. I also think that the next door building going down wouldn’t be as apparent if this giant apartment building didn’t just get completed. Either way, it’s all being done to code, no variances, so we’ll just have to wait and see what comes from it.
March 22nd, 2016 at 3:12 pm
All being done to meet the zoning code is what I meant to say.
March 22nd, 2016 at 8:42 pm
This type of development really sucks.
I like to see most vacant lots being built on, but tearing down good, old building to throw up a bunch of buildings that look like the cheapest possible design is just wrong. This is definitely a case where the City is not working for its public.
Does anybody like any of these tear downs?
Look at the ones on S. 45th near Woodland. Junk.
One of the joys, one of the attractions of this part of the City is its buildings. I’d say easily 80% of whats being built or has been built in the last few years not only doesn’t add to the neighborhood, it takes away from what we’ve inherited from the past.
Are there any other voices out there complaining about this? Any idea if our fearless Council Woman cares any about this?
March 23rd, 2016 at 3:18 pm
The reason that we are getting such cheap and ugly buildings is that that is what the neighborhood can afford. If there was demand for better construction, people would be willing to pay for it.
The neighborhood was not originally built for the working class, and even what counts as “middle class” has substantially less purchasing power now than it did in the last 19th century.
March 24th, 2016 at 12:42 pm
I actually don’t think the apartments at 245 are bad. They went with a brick facade, and while it’s not a charming historic Victorian, I think it is pretty classic. It has some nice decorative details without going overboard. The home that was there was in terrible, terrible shape (porch was structurally unsound, wood details were rotted, abandoned for a long time, etc.). I can’t imagine how much money it would have taken to rehab it and, like the Ship of Theseus, would it even have been the same house at the end given all the repair it needed?
243, on the other hand, is a crying shame. It had tenants up until a few weeks ago. As someone else said, I like seeing vacant lots built on. But not the destruction of a beautiful and livable home.
We do need more apartments that are studios, 1, or 2 bedrooms to stop the (honestly pretty crappy) conversion of single family homes into multis and the giant hikes in rent. Single renters in West Philly are presented with a lot of “you can live in a giant Victorian with 6 people you met on Craigslist!” or “you can pay $900/month for a crappy 1 bedroom because they’re in crazy high demand!” But tearing down a livable home in OK repair is not the way to do it.
March 24th, 2016 at 1:04 pm
243 S 45th was in great shape too – What is wrong with people!
https://www.redfin.com/PA/Philadelphia/243-S-45th-St-19104/home/38743656
March 25th, 2016 at 1:57 pm
I love it!! Keep Em coming!! Why settle for a house only yielding two rentals?! Tear that mother down, build up an apartment complex. Get 6 units instead!! Ahh, money. The things we do with it when we earn it. And the things you all complain about when you don’t have enough of it to do what others doing with it. Deep down inside you know you don’t want to live in that apartment with nine other people anyway….
March 25th, 2016 at 8:16 pm
Don’t tell me there’s no way to stop this, I don’t believe it.
A while back I opposed turning the entirety of “University City” into a historic district, but if it’s the only way to jettison this trend I hereby reverse my position.
The way the scam works in other places is, Drexel forces its 1st & 2nd year students to live in “Drexel Approved Housing” the kind of crap housing under discussion here.) Guess what gets “approved”” Wonder why? Once the student population declines much of this stuff isn’t suitable for professionals or families or anything but squatters and drug dealers.
March 28th, 2016 at 11:33 am
Not exactly
“First Year (Freshmen) and Second Year (Sophomore) students are not eligible to live in University-Approved Properties for 2016-2017.”
http://drexel.edu/dbs/universityHousing/upperclassmen/2016approved/
Listings
https://offcampushousing.drexel.edu/