A rendering of the proposed 48-unit building at 42nd and Chester, which would replace the Millcreek Tavern (HarmanDeutsch Architecture).
A strong majority of nearby residents at Wednesday’s public meeting focused on a proposed five-story apartment building that would replace Millcreek Tavern at 42nd and Chester opposed the plan, arguing that it would accelerate gentrification and exacerbate parking problems.
The proposal, which calls for the demolition of Millcreek Tavern, includes 48 studio, one- and two-bedroom apartments. Four units would be designated as “affordable,” bringing the price of a studio with utilities included down to $918. A one-bedroom, market-rate apartment would rent for $1,300 a month, according to developers.
“What we’re proposing is in line with the other three corners,” said Peter Spain of Core Development, which also owns apartment buildings nearby at 4134 Chester (across 42nd Street from the proposed building) and 4213 Chester.
The plan requires variances for height, number of units, parking (none is proposed) and lot coverage. The proposal includes about 3,200 square feet of ground-floor commercial space. Core Development officials at last night’s meeting said two local restaurateurs have already approached them about expanding into the space.
The lot is zoned CMX-1 and developers could build a more modest structure with “pedestrian friendly” ground-floor commercial space with a handful of upstairs residential units “by right,” meaning they wouldn’t need zoning approval. Or it could repurpose the existing Millcreek Tavern building.
Core Development bought the building last December and its principals have met with neighbors informally to gauge interest. They also presented the plan informally to the Spruce Hill Community Association zoning committee. The handful of affordable units were a result of those discussions. “This is something we’re doing because it was asked of us,” said Spain.
But there was strong opposition at last night’s official meeting hosted by Southwest Philadelphia District Services (SWPDS).
Valerie Ross, a member of West Philadelphians for Progressive Planning and Preservation (Facebook page), argued that the proposal would contribute to the acceleration of gentrification in the neighborhood.
“There’s nothing positive for the community in this being built,” she said. “It’s only positive for the investors.”
Wednesday’s vote is not binding (the project is not necessarily dead), but it will prompt SWPDS to write a letter in opposition to the project to the Zoning Board of Adjustment, which is scheduled to consider the project on August 28.
June 27th, 2019 at 12:00 pm
Accelerate gentrification? That area is gentrified. It’s over. Failing to build dense, transit-oriented development will only exacerbate the rising cost of housing in the area.
June 27th, 2019 at 12:44 pm
Limiting the supply of housing increases the prices of homes and is the chief cause of displacement, and adding parking adds to the cost of building, which also causes rents to be higher.
June 27th, 2019 at 1:26 pm
This is a perfectly fine project– the self-loathing “progressive” neighbors demand affordable housing and other gimme’s even though they themselves are from wealth and privilege and need this self-flagellation to assuage their mental issues.
The proposal is appropriate for the area and they even designed a facade that matches surrounding architecture. NONE of the neighbor’s concerns had ANYTHING to do with zoning, by the way– just a bunch of emotional and political reasons that they’ve been conditioned to believe.
June 27th, 2019 at 1:40 pm
The Southwest District Services RCO’s registration should be revoked. The head of the group lives in Pottstown.
June 27th, 2019 at 2:00 pm
You all don’t know what you are talking about. It is so hard to be a developer in West Philadelphia with all this complaining. wah wah wah..that’s all I hear.
June 27th, 2019 at 3:09 pm
You mean from the “hands-out” crowd who failed to invest in this neighborhood and now are complaining they can’t have three cars to park and under-market value rent, right? Because that’s all I read and hear.
June 27th, 2019 at 5:24 pm
The density in this neighborhood is too high as it is. We don’t need any more large buildings without parking or concern for the long term residents. Outside developers just want to maximize their profits without any care about the repercussions of their cheap, high-density projects. That is why we complain. That is why we need this to stop. Give us nice architecture, reasonable sized buildings, and a place for their cars. Then we will work with the developers.
June 27th, 2019 at 7:45 pm
Don’t really see the problem. Mill Creek is not exactly a scenic building and the overhead wires make that corner a lot less vibrant than the surrounding areas. Also the whole other side of the block is apartments already.
June 27th, 2019 at 9:09 pm
My big concern is always the parking availability in the neighborhood.
June 28th, 2019 at 9:42 am
It is NOT a density problem. Philadelphia as a whole, West Philly in particular, are WAY below the population peak reached in the 1940-1950’s period. Check out actual data in westphillyhistory.archives.upenn.edu or census data. Population for West Philly in the golden years was about 300,000 people. Now is under 220,000. This is 80,000 LESS people than 60 years ago!!! If that does not blow your mind, then I don’t know what.
Yes it is a parking problem. Funny that with one side of the mouth some mumble about affordability, with the other about parking space.
June 28th, 2019 at 11:46 am
What are all these “variances” every time this comes up?? Follow the rules. They are there for a reason.
June 28th, 2019 at 1:32 pm
you all are a bunch of complainers…my family has been developing this community for years and it only makes it better. No one complains about our condos/nails/ice cream on 46th and Baltimore- more to come!
June 28th, 2019 at 2:01 pm
Actually Nick, on some other post here, someone was complaining about that development.
Personally, I think it is fine. I don’t love or hate it. Its nicer than what was there but that was parking.
You’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t so hust do your best!
June 30th, 2019 at 11:46 pm
Actually Nick #2. All work is hard. That’s why it’s called work. No one made you become a developer. You’re complaining. Maybe keep your opinion to yourself. And read the reviews not everyone loves your ice creams or nail salons.
July 1st, 2019 at 3:45 pm
New apartment buildings should absolutely not include off-street parking. Many, many studies have been done and have proven that a given building will put the same pressure on street parking regardless of how much off-street parking is included in the project, short of offering something insane like 2 parking spots for every unit or whatever.
In other words, by not including off-street parking, these projects will attract mostly residents without cars, which will contribute the least possible amount to both traffic in the area, as well as polluting carbon emissions. In fact, an apartment building will contribute as little to the parking pressure in the neighborhood as would be contributed by a couple of new row homes.
July 5th, 2019 at 12:59 pm
Good for them in turning down this project. No more multi-unit homes. Single family homes only please. We dont need any more density or apartments. We need to stop the development and keep west philly uncrowded. There is plenty of room for everyone in this city–they dont all need to be packed into the same small corridor.
July 5th, 2019 at 6:50 pm
Thankfully they’re completely impotent.
These people are all poverty pimps who gain their power by preventing tax dollars from getting to schools and keeping the youth ignorant and dependent on hand-outs.
Gentrification can’t come soon enough.
July 12th, 2019 at 6:21 pm
To anyone saying “no more multi-unit homes”, I can only reply “No more suburban-style suburban developments in the city (and no more obscenely oversized McMansion sprawl cul de sac developments in the countryside, either).”
Hello, cities are ALL about density, pretty much every neighborhood in Philly, including this one, already has – and should have – a mix of housing. It’s not as though they’re knocking down a beautiful Victorian to build this. The location, right by USP and very close to U Penn, already has apartment buildings across the street and is right on a trolley line. It’s replacing a tavern, not a house.
July 17th, 2019 at 4:39 pm
“Four units would be designated as “affordable,” bringing the price of a studio with utilities included down to $918. A one-bedroom, market-rate apartment would rent for $1,300 a month, according to developers. ”
As a long time rental resident and disabled (I can walk) senior, I’d love to have a decent 1 bedroom to call home instead of havto turn to close to a 5 year waitlist for an apartment in a low income affordable building. Unfortunately the developer’s version of “affordable” and the reality of lower income workers along with people on fixed incomes are very different. That $1,300 is more than my Social Security! And I’m far from alone. We make, mostly – there’s good and bad tenants/landlords- good long term tenants who keep most of our dollars in the neighborhood supporting local businesses, we respect where we live. Why is there no place for us? Everything is high end luxury for students and young professionals. If you’re over 30 you’re aging out. Over 60? Forget it, we’re disposable
July 18th, 2019 at 11:18 am
I live right around the corner from there; Everyone at the meeting had their own reason for why the voted the developer down. In my case I paid a lot for my house because I like the character of the neighborhood. Apparently the developer thinks that character is a selling point too. However if he/they want all these variances to maximize their profits on top of the huge tax holiday they will be getting then they need to respect the character of the neighborhood that attracted many of us to buy homes here. It was clear from their presentation that they put very little thought about how appealing their building would be to people in the neighborhood or how it would exacerbate problems that already existed. Some of their answers to questions around those concerns were ludicrous. It response to concerns about exacerbating the already limited parking situation the developer claimed they had “polled” all the tenants of one of their other huge 50 unit buildings and only one of them had a car ipso facto parking for their proposed development shouldn’t be an issue. This was ridiculous answer that seriously insulted everyone’s intelligence and was emblematic of how much thought they put towards thinking about the neighborhood.
July 25th, 2019 at 11:30 pm
I’m curious to know to which side of this dispute our new allegedly “anti-gentrification” councilwoman is lending her support.
July 26th, 2019 at 12:17 pm
Harley brings up an excellent point. Redevelopment of existing old housing stock, particularly in this neighborhood, almost always involves replacing old, inaccessible and inefficient housing with new, energy-efficient, and accessible housing. People who fight progress often are fighting to exclude the disabled from their neighborhoods. Of course, high rents also exclude many disabled people, so that’s a whole other issue.
I live nearby – PARKING IS NOT AN ISSUE. Study after study after study has been done on this, and new housing does not put additional strain on parking. The developer is correct. If you build housing with reasonable access to transit and no off-street parking, the housing attracts tenants without cars. New urban apartment housing should never include parking, and especially not an ugly and extremely wasteful street-level lot.