UPDATE (8/22/2015): Demolition of the mid-19th century mansion at 40th and Pine has begun.
(8/18/2015): Demolition of the old mansion at 40th and Pine is expected to begin this week, according to the signs posted at the site:
Historical Commission cleared the way for demolition of the building in December 2014, after years of the dispute between the University of Pennsylvania, which owns the building, and the Woodland Terrace Homeowners Association over the mansion’s future. Architect Samuel Sloan-designed Italianate mansion was built in 1850’s. Penn purchased the property in 2008 and claimed financial hardship, which allowed them to demolish the building to make room for student housing. However, in 2013, they presented a compromise plan to incorporate the original part of the building into the proposed apartment complex, “Azalea Gardens.” The Woodland Terrace Homeowners Association rejected the proposal.
August 18th, 2015 at 2:48 pm
Penn’s idea of financial hardship: a $9.6b endowment.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-18/university-of-pennsylvania-posts-17-5-investment-return-1-
WTHA should have taken the proposal though.
August 18th, 2015 at 6:55 pm
Personally I’m surprised that the Overlords at Penn have enough cash for this deal. Maybe they had a bake sale that I missed. I hope everyone enjoys the new dorm. Thanks Spruce Hill for all your help, a true community organ.
August 18th, 2015 at 10:01 pm
I have no right to complain, since I’m not active, but it does seem SHCA might have compromised a bit. Don’t know the details or the negotiations. I’m just saying’…
August 19th, 2015 at 11:18 am
WTHA certainly overplayed their hand. They wanted the whole thing and were not willing to compromise. They wanted to kill the project and to be able to do it, pretend their goal was to save the mansion which attracted a lot of people who bought into this hook, liner and sinker. Developers won, but they only got to demo the mansion and have to wait the outcome of an appeal filed in Commonwealth Court. Most likely scenario, once the mansion is demoed, Commonwealth court will be more amenable to deep sixing the meritless appeal.
August 19th, 2015 at 12:45 pm
Hannah, SHCA DID support a compromise, and so did the UC Historical Society. The folks who stopped the compromise were the WoodlAnd Terrace Homeowners Assn. They fought the developers in court and refused to compromise. Let’s be clear!
August 19th, 2015 at 5:28 pm
WT deserved this.
August 19th, 2015 at 5:51 pm
But did the historic building?
August 19th, 2015 at 6:38 pm
There has always been multiple issues going on here. A few of them: the idea that Penn can ask for a hardship, what to do about the mansion and the sorry state it has been in, and what might be built along side of it or as its replacement. Yes, in some ways these are inter-related issues, but in other ways each stands on its own.
I could see how some people might not give a damn about hardships and historic preservation, but might really object to a new Penn dorm/apartment being built at the site. Personally my biggest complain was with Penn claiming a hardship. To each their own.
To those who claim that the established community groups did a good job with everything involved with all these issues, and others, over the years since the City closed the nursing home that used to be there, all I can say is I feel sorry for your very short sightedness.
Whatever ends up happening at this corner should be a reminder of how not to do things. There is blame to go around to all parties. In my view it should start with the groups, such as Spruce Hill, and the Historic Society who, as much as I can tell, did nothing for almost ten years while Penn also did nothing. I cannot find too much fault with a group of neighbors who tried to step up and speak to the goodness of trying to save a special property.
August 19th, 2015 at 10:08 pm
Shame on the Woodlands Terrace Homeowners Association! I hear they just a clique of 5 or 6 NIMBY type people. An honorable compromise to save the 150 year Samuel Sloan designed mansion was rejected by them … so now we’re gonna lose the mansion. Shame on them!
August 19th, 2015 at 11:14 pm
This is disgraceful! There was a plan in place to save and restore the mansion, but it included an apartment building and apparently that’s what made the WTHA lose their shit. And why, you ask? Because of the prospect of losing parking spaces. You live in a “streetcar suburb” with actual working streetcars still in place. Most of the renters would have been grad students who would have biked or walked to their classes. I don’t know how the Woodland Terrace NIMBYs (and Paul Boni) can live with themselves. They did this!
August 20th, 2015 at 12:54 am
There wasn’t a plan in place, there was a concept that was kicked around. I realize that might be splitting hairs, but with Penn you really can take nothing they say as a sure thing. That’s not just based on this situation, but on various Penn/community issues down thru the years. Penn does what it thinks is best for Penn, and if the communities west of 40th ST. agree, that’s fine with them, but that’s not a primary concern for them.
To those who want to call down fire and rain on WTHA just remember that it was Penn who over paid for this property (standard practice to keep other parties from being able to consider buying something that Penn has its eyes on; you can do that when your sitting on a nest egg worth billions), it was Penn who did nothing for almost 10 years, and I know that several small time developers reached out to Penn to see if the place was available, it was Penn who many years ago promised to not cross 40th St. it was Penn who with no input from anyone in the community purposed a 12? story hotel on the site, its Penn who is tearing the mansion down before they have final approval to build anything to replace it, what percentage of the community does anyone think believes that a dorm/apartments is the best use of this lot, but that’s what Penn hopes to build there, what level of real estate tax has Penn paid since it purchased this property and what can we expect them to pay once this project is built and earning them profit,and so on.
So, if you are jumping up and down about the loss of this mansion please don’t forget the driving force behind everything that has happened. As I said in a earlier reply, I think there is much blame to go around, but if it was in my power to dish it out Penn would certainly get the largest share, way largest.
August 20th, 2015 at 8:32 am
ok…so what are the primary uses on the 3900-4000 block of Pine, 400 block of 40th, and 4000 block of Baltimore??? Student apts and fraternities! How is this out of place? Stacking more students here helps take pressure off homeowner blocks such as Woodland Terr. Plus its proximity to transit and shopping supports such amenities and warrants a little density. There’s no way to know if the compromise proposal was real because opponents wouldn’t let it see the light of day. Also, I think it’s naive to think that a small time developer would have saved the mansion.
August 20th, 2015 at 9:10 am
For those who find it confusing that Penn could claim “financial hardship,” it’s worth clarifying that the hardship component of Philadelphia’s preservation ordinance has nothing to do with the wealth of the property owner. The hardship exemption is designed for a property that “cannot be used for any purpose for which it is or may be reasonably adapted” and the required supporting documentation is all related to the price, costs, rents, etc. for that individual property. I’m not venturing into whether Penn should or shouldn’t have gotten the exemption, but I can see how the “hardship” language could be a point of confusion.
August 20th, 2015 at 9:19 am
Penn has final approval to demolish and has already secured city permits. They do not have permits to build the new building as it is still on appeal to Commonwealth Court. Judge Ceisler advised the court to simply ditch the appeal. And once the mansion is town down, it will be much easier for Commonwealth Court to ditch the appeal, thus triggering the release of construction permits for the new apartment.
August 21st, 2015 at 1:27 am
When I mentioned small time developers I didn’t mean to imply some guy with a pick up truck and a bag of tools. These were people who build custom homes and small apartment buildings. The point I wanted to make is Penn, like is does fairly often, buys a building and ‘banks’ it. They don’t know what they are going to do with it, but they want to be in control. I can understand that policy if they were doing it for academic type buildings, classrooms, labs, offices. But they are doing as any other developer does, to make a buck. The number of privately owned buildings near campus has rapidly decreased and continues to do so.
What Penn gives Penn can take away. All it takes is a change in leadership.
August 21st, 2015 at 6:40 pm
As someone who has followed this case closely and written extensively about it, I think two more clarifications are in order:
1) The 2013 proposal that would have kept the mansion was “real” in every sense; hard to imagine Penn and their developer presenting it at public meetings if it were otherwise (you can view the publicly presented rendering here: http://hiddencityphila.org/2015/05/at-the-eleventh-hour-seeking-a-new-accord-at-40th-pine/ );
2) While several of the above posts rightly target the Woodland Terrace Homeowners’ Association for its intransigence, posters might more accurately focus their wrath on the “Near Neighbors of 400 S. 40th Street,” the litigants who opposed Penn’s plan. This group included WTHA but it also included people who do not live on Woodland Terrace [names removed by admin] who steadfastly refused Penn’s final offer and behaved in ways that deserve a far more thorough public shaming than I am prepared to deliver here. Why WTHA continued to lend its name to this idiotic crusade, especially after it became clear that breaking ranks could have saved the house, is anyone’s guess.
August 22nd, 2015 at 1:56 am
Aaron, perhaps it would’ve been appropriate to take a breath in the middle of flinging insults at your neighbors and identify yourself as an employee of Penn, the property owner.
August 22nd, 2015 at 6:12 am
Fascinating how the comments are a microcosm of the entire process. Some are factual, while others erroneous. Some attack Penn, while others defend. Some question the policies of the city, while others knowledgeably explain the nuances. It has been complicated. But One thing is certain: after years of being under the microscope, 400 s 40th street represents one of the most transparent processes in recent history of city planning and historic preservation. And that is thanks to the legal actions by the woodland terrace homeowners association. They made sure It has been in the courts for years. They made sure all the information about the various preservation options penn offered were public. They ensured that the plans for new construction were public. By the way, one writer identifying themselves as “streetcar” claims there are no plans. This is false. The historic commission and the city planning commission have both approved plans and designs for new construction of mid rise apartment building. This too has been public information. This too It has been covered by media.
and blogs for years. Woodland terrace should be congratulated for raising the level of public awareness about the project and the process. Unfortunately, as professor Wunsh points out, they missed the opportunity fulfill their mission of preserving the structure because they elected not to compromise. The compromise was keep the structure and add a small apartment building and everyone wins. Who, in this day and age, has the luxury of not compromising? Life is a series of compromises. Answer: Martyrs don’t compromise so to draw attention to there point of view. So the delicious irony is that a few individuals can be thanked for elevating the public awareness but at the end of the day, those same individuals chose martyrdom over progress.
August 22nd, 2015 at 11:28 am
Playfair, let’s play by your rules: 1) First identify yourself by name; 2) Take a look at the things I’ve written about this case (happy to provide links): do they strike you as cozying up to my employer? Let the record show: I teach in Penn’s Preservation Program and have been the only unwavering pro-preservation voice in this discussion since 2011. At one point, that stance pitted me against Penn — not a comfortable position for an untenured employee. But once Penn made a significant compromise, one that would have kept the mansion and built a 5-story building next to it, it behooved WTHA and Near Neighbors to reciprocate. They did not. Discovering that their most central demands — keeping the mansion and lowering the height of new construction — had been met, they decided that it was time to focus on new demands, e.g. “density,” parking, etc., etc. They forgot all about saving the mansion. They trotted forth the baseless suggestion that Penn’s compromise was disingenuous. They followed the lead of their two most zealous and clueless members and their equally feckless lawyer. They squandered hundreds if not thousands of hours that people who were serious about preservation contributed to the cause. And when a final opportunity arose this spring to save the house by dropping the last piece of their ever-failing and increasingly frivolous lawsuit, they simply ignored it. Laren and Grubel should be embarrassed at having taken cover behind WTHA for so long. And WTHA should be embarrassed at having given it to them. How ironic that you should accuse me of flinging insults at my neighbors. I’m simply placing responsibility where it belongs. This fools errand, however, has divided our neighborhood in lasting ways. The anonymity you employ here has been no small part of that strategy.
August 22nd, 2015 at 11:43 am
Once again prof. Wunsch is demonstrating rational thinking.
As a preservationist he stood his ground, but as a realist he sought compromise.
As a scholar, he is unafraid to honestly diagnose the situation and the names of the players involved. How else will learn so not to repeat the past? He can teach this as a case study for years to come. The good, the bad and the ugly. And let it be a cautionary tale.
August 22nd, 2015 at 6:24 pm
Peter, I’m a little surprised that you would characterize an insulting diatribe against persons with whom one has a disagreement as a fearless and honest “diagnosis” of a situation. Hurling invective (“shame”, “feckless”. “idiotic”, “clueless”, “fool”, not to mention the unique “handyman/provocateur”) is not an example of “rational thinking” (or,indeed, of any kind of thinking!). Aaron seems to have let emotion rather than reason rule when he composed his posts. That’s OK. Happens to the best of us. I’d call it human, but I wouldn’t call it scholarly.
Look, there are two issues here. The main one: should the Sloan mansion be preserved or not? People have always disagreed about this, but Penn has prevailed legally. If they want to, they can tear it down or they can leave it standing – their call. The secondary issue: did the Woodland Terrace neighbors use poor judgment in rejecting the Penn compromise and seeking a court ruling to preserve the building? Reasonable people may differ in how they answer that question. You can cast aspersions on their characters and motivations, but I prefer to give the Woodland Terrace folks the benefit of the doubt. Not because I know any of the individuals involved, (I don’t), but because I think that’s the best way to avoid the divided neighborhood that Aaron predicts.
August 23rd, 2015 at 12:18 am
What, “playfair,” unwilling to identify yourself? No surprise there, though your claim not to know any of the individuals involved seems pretty dubious. In any case, do the readers of these pages a favor and stop trying to cast yourself as the voice of reason. If being angered at the totally unnecessary demolition of a local landmark or at the prospect of wasting countless hours and political capital on a cause whose litigants misrepresented their objectives, lost their way, couldn’t compromise, and came out looking foolish falls under “emotion” rather than “reason” in your book, so be it. Many, I think, would reach the opposite conclusion, as Peter and others posting here have done. Anyway, I’ll stand by the labels I’ve used and would gladly dig deep in the archives to demonstrate their accuracy. If the shoe fits…
Now, take another crack at it: identify yourself. Playing fair means having the courage to stand behind your public utterances and put your name under them. Doing otherwise, well, it follows the pattern through which this whole sorry affair has unfolded: using other people’s good names to advance one’s cause and then slinking under a rock when that cause goes off the deep end. And a parting thought, if you believe my comments rather than this bitter, costly, 12-year-long case have divided the neighborhood, I have one more epithet to offer: delusional.
August 24th, 2015 at 3:25 pm
On a final note, as the last parts of the house come down, it may be worth noting that, for all the (mostly deserved) animosity aimed at Woodland Terrace, a “Near Neighbor” who does not live on that street, much less near the mansion, did more than anyone else to bring this unhappy conclusion about. I refer to a developer (“playfair,” that you?) who owns rental property on an adjacent parcel and who seems to have been motivated primarily by a desire to reduce competition for student housing in the immediate vicinity. Congratulations (playfair?), you’ve played us all.
August 25th, 2015 at 2:45 pm
Looking at those demolition photos, I just…can’t believe Bin Laden was hiding under our noses this whole time. Woodland Terrace has some serious questions to answer.