The University City Historical Society (UCHS) is waging a legal battle to stop the demolition of the buildings at 4046-48 Chestnut Street and the construction of an apartment building in its place. These properties, along with the rest of the block date to the 1870s and are currently nominated to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Due to their nomination, the validity of the demolition permits are in question.
“We currently have a stay on them,” writes Kelly Wiles, a UCHS Board member, and tomorrow (Thursday, June 23) at 11 a.m., a hearing is scheduled in Room 232 of City Hall to determine their fate. The public is welcome and encouraged to attend.
“We welcome community support and involvement by those who are interested in maintaining the character and preservation of West Philadelphia’s built environment as well as those who are concerned with the changing patterns of large-scale development, poorly-constructed and out of place building stock, zoning issues, the displacement of non-student residents,” writes Wiles.
“This trend seems to be here to stay, and starting a precedence and making our admiration for the built environment and our concern for the community as a whole known is crucial to preserving our entire now-threatened neighborhood.”
The building adjacent to 4046 Chestnut St. – at 4042 Chestnut St. – has already been demolished to make room for apartments.
June 22nd, 2016 at 11:22 pm
Although I opposed the original proposal to make all of UC an historic district, I now believe this is the only way to stop them from sticking more of this garbage housing in our faces every time some New York developer gets a windfall.
June 23rd, 2016 at 8:33 am
This is indeed a growing trend – see also the report in the UC Review for May 11 (http://ucreview.com/index138.htm) for a nine storey building at 49th & Spruce – note that yet another fake ‘community meeting’ was held to ‘approve’ this.
June 23rd, 2016 at 1:16 pm
Any word on how the meeting went??
LW: I think that the project proposed in the article and the one at 49th and Spruce are vastly different. One proposes the demolition of a productive, occupied, and historically significant building for the construction of likely over-priced, poorly constructed student housing, while the other presents a mixed-use apartment building, with units reported to rent 15-20% below market value, on the site of a surface parking lot. Not all development is bad development, but certainly the garbage proposed for Chestnut Street is.
June 23rd, 2016 at 1:19 pm
Why is the LOCAL not reporting on the corruption of FATTAH?
June 23rd, 2016 at 1:26 pm
Another great job sponsored by Blackwell. Maybe the FBI will investigate her too. I hear theres a cell waiting for her. next to FATTAH the CROOK
June 23rd, 2016 at 1:41 pm
Matt: Yes they are different in terms of specifics. But constructing a nine-storey building on an existing block of two-storey row houses is not ideal either. None of the residents here were invited to the ‘community’ meeting about this. These are the same developers as the ‘West Philly Village’ development up on 48th between Haverford and Lancaster, which they have been building for years. “With units reported to rent 15-20% below market value” – yeah right, this has the same level of veracity as the rest of that UCReview report of community involvement and approval – i.e. none.
This will also likely end up being exactly what you don’t want to see at 40th Chestnut – cheap student housing. You are of course though more than welcome to come and knock on the doors around here, and pitch your ideas about good/bad development to the people who actually live here. I’m sure you will receive some constructive feedback.
June 23rd, 2016 at 2:07 pm
And Janie Blackwell’s name is being floated as a candidate for the special election we’ll have to fill Fattah’s seat. I would actually consider voting for her as that would at least that would get her out of City Council, where probably does more harm than she would in Congress
June 23rd, 2016 at 3:39 pm
I would just absolutely relish to see a well needed row of restaurants there. I would prefer if they mix it up like possibly an Asian fusion vibe next to a Cinnabun or maybe a family style dining/pub meets Tennessee style BBQ! Or an Ice Cream parlor with a twist like maybe, singing servers. If you walk down that block it just smacks of empty space. Waste of possible city tax dollars.
June 24th, 2016 at 7:43 am
I would like to see honest reporting. FATTAH GUILTY. BLACKWELL selling out west philadelpphia
June 24th, 2016 at 11:35 am
Fattah’s guilty is a joke in Philadelphia. With so much corruption going on in this city. All they have is him? That’s like the joke Katt Williams said when they arrested him while Suge Knight stood standing their looking innocent. That’s like arresting a mob accountant while the mob boss is watching him get in the police car. Its a Philly thing
June 24th, 2016 at 11:54 am
Lots of Philly politicians have been indicted for corruption
June 26th, 2016 at 9:00 pm
It is shame that the city is trying to make this block historic. It is the least ornamental of buildings since it was built as apartment buildings. This is the initial step in making all buildings in U. City historic if they are going to force through historic nomination for this building. It makes very little sense to have onerous requirements imposed on landlords. This will just squeeze out all the smaller landlords and all the buildings to be owned and managed by few who will only raise the rents to cover their costs. This nomination does not make much sense.
June 26th, 2016 at 9:41 pm
RE: local building owner. Do think what has already happened—demo of one twin and construction of its ugly replacement—makes sense? If it does, what’s to stop from happening all over the neighborhood?
June 26th, 2016 at 10:59 pm
I am not for demolishing old buildings and replacing it with ugly ones. However, I just dont think it is fair to have to deal with very high cost (in both time and money) for every building owner in U. city to comply with historic commission (not so clear) requirements. This will only cause most of the small owners without deep pockets to go out of business. None of the small landlords I am aware of are trying to demolish their buildings. Only developers with a lot of connection and money is able to do deal with such endeavors. It seems unfair to put a restriction on my building after I spend decades to improve the building. I can not think of any small landlords who would want to buy a building that is historic since the pain would be too much to bear…
June 27th, 2016 at 12:40 am
Well maybe then a compromise could be reached to designate all UC buildings as historic in terms of them not being able to be torn down, but not in terms of monitoring every little improvement. Also individual owners could appeal the designation of specific buildings as historic if they present just cause.
June 27th, 2016 at 6:54 am
There is not an option. I would love to know if the owner can request for such a lower designation. But I do not think so from what lawyers tells me. This seems like it is do something for the community but it is really a way to continue pushing out small building owners.. To change the door bells in front might be a year long process and that does not seem to be appealing.
June 27th, 2016 at 8:55 pm
I may be wrong but I believe the historic designation of the entire block of 3500 Powelton, which was almost torn down, was modified to apply only to the exterior. It’s likely the Historic Society might be flexible around details to save entire buildings. I also would think that some buildings could be conceded to have no historic value and be exempted.
June 27th, 2016 at 8:57 pm
Correction, I think I mean the 3600 block of Powelton.
June 30th, 2016 at 11:24 am
So the dining options you want, more or less, is a PF Changs, a cinnabon, one of those fake ‘vintage’ ice cream diners? Dude, you just described a NJ strip mall. Those are the whitest white people suggestions I’ve ever heard, and I’m a white people.
June 30th, 2016 at 8:49 pm
I would like updates. I saw this late. And I support preservation.