Quote:
Originally Posted by Londonee
I live in Fitler Square, so I guess as a card carrying CCRA member I have some say in this too?
The problem with local community opposition is that their requests are inherently selfish - and almost by definition not in the best interest of the city at large. Generally speaking, community opposition groups push back b/c of Parking, Height, or Density - and probably in that order. Those aren't noble, urban-design fights. Those are selfish, very local concerns - will my parking rates go up; will my southern view get dinged a bit; will my starbucks line get even LONGER in the AM!!??
And their "urban" concerns are often a wolf in sheep skin - "that building is just out of CHARACTER for our colonial neighborhood" - which is code for: it's too tall, too dense, and where will they park...
Aside from the driveway on Walnut Street and the preservation concerns - what are the truly objectionable, urban-based concerns with the project? If there are 100 moving parts in this project, sounds like you are objecting to, like, 10 of them.
|
First, I generally agree with your view of community groups, but I am not sure how it's relevant. I strongly support height and density.
I think I've made my reasons for opposition to this project clear, but I will restate that
a) First and foremost I don't think historically designated buildings should be demolished. This is obviously not a hardship case and treating it as one would be a mistake. The city would be poorer if it let SLC destroy these buildings.
b) Under an circumstances, but for a driveway? That is an urban disaster better suited for, yup, Dallas. Massive curb cuts are not good urban design.
c) Lowrise development on Sansom. This is a separate lot also well suited for a high density building. That's not what we're getting.
d) Spanning Moravian St. There may be circumstances where allowing to a private company to essentially take control and build over a city street, but this isn't one of them.
e) SLC's track record. Again, compare the 3601 Market renderings to the actual building. Then look at the rest of their projects that are built in open fields somewhere.
Your last sentence is an obvious straw man setup. Actually, your entire post is nothing but. A project could have a thousand moving parts, 999 great and 1 terrible and still be an awful development.
Despite all of my objections, there are two private lots here that SLC controls (not including the protected buildings) and they have ever right to build on them. I certainly would not make an argument to the contrary. What they do not have a right to do is tear down protected buildings and take over a city street.
So again: Give up trying to demolish protected buildings, give up trying to connect to two lots spanning a city street. Build the tower on Walnut as the plan calls for an trash the rest. This would be a win for Philadelphia. SLC would still make a ton of money. Everyone wins.