Click here to animate map

May 12

Inquirer casino resource package (some in PDF form)

Mayor Nutter on Foxwoods site

By Kellie Patrick Gates
For PlanPhilly

SugarHouse and Foxwoods casino interests say they are going forward with plans to build at their riverfront sites. They will not discuss alternative locations, nor terms that could persuade them to move.

"Moving is not an option," said SugarHouse spokeswoman Leigh Whitaker.

"There have been many attempts to push relocation, and we're not moving. We're there," said Foxwoods' Maureen Garrity.

But in this long-running game of slots chicken, a group of elected officials and community activists are not blinking, either.

Be it through legislation or lawsuits, protests or the discovery of protected species or ancient artifacts, they pledge to convince the casino operators that opening day will come sooner and easier if they move to locations in Philadelphia away from Delaware Avenue/Columbus Boulevard.

And while the casinos won't talk of any sites beyond those that they've chosen and the state Gaming Control Board endorsed, lots of other locations have been floated during the past two years by community activists, local and state politicians, and the Philadelphia Gaming Advisory Task Force, which identified 11 locations in 2006 (see PDFs below).

Support for airport site

Among the most popular: The airport, a site that is too close to Harrah's in Chester under existing rules, but would be viable if legislation crafted by Sen. Vince Fumo and representatives Bill Keller and Michael O'Brien is adopted in Harrisburg.

"I think the airport could certainly accommodate the casino - one or both," said Hillary Regan, a neighborhood activist from Northern Liberties. Regan likes the idea for the same reasons the legislators do: It is surrounded by parking lots and industry, not neighborhoods. It is reachable by I-95, I-76 and SEPTA. And people at airports generally have a lot of time to kill.

An airport location would "minimize the cost to local people and maximize revenue coming in from other places," Regan said.

Regan also thinks the former PECO power station in Port Richmond would make a good site. It is at least 1,500 feet from neighborhoods, the building boasts beautiful architecture, and the grounds need to be environmentally cleaned up. "Let's put it in a place that can use economic development," she said.

But the casinos say they have already chosen the best sites, and they intend to stick with them.

"We chose our site based on its size, location, access from I-76 and I-95, visibility from the Ben Franklin Bridge, and the attractiveness of being along the river," Whitaker said. "Locating along the river has enhanced the design of our project by allowing for a public waterfront promenade, public green space, and the ability for Philadelphia residents and visitors to enjoy outdoor activities while taking in a great view of Camden and the Ben Franklin Bridge."

The better the location, the more money the casino brings in, and the greater benefit to the community, Whitaker said. She also pointed out that there are no neighbors on two sides of the project, and said Delaware Avenue would serve as a buffer between the casino and the residential neighborhoods.

Foxwoods' Garrity said that when the casino looked into getting into gaming in Pennsylvania, it looked at sites across the Commonwealth. The proposed South Columbus Boulevard location isn't just the best in the city, she said, it's the best in the state. "It's highly visible, it's on the water between two bridges, it's in a commercial area," she said. "I-95 buffers the community, and it's location is close enough to Center City that there is synergy with other tourist attractions and the sports complexes," she said.

Critics say that if people will travel to Las Vegas to visit casinos that are in the middle of a desert, they would go anywhere to gamble, so the waterfront isn't necessary.

Both Garrity and Whitaker strongly disagree.

Both casinos plan non-gambling destinations - restaurants and cafes, for example.

"In Phase III, we're looking at a spa, a meetings and conference space, and maybe condos," Garrity said. "The waterfront makes these things attractive even to people who don't gamble."

The waterfront also allows any developments on the Philadelphia side to benefit from the ball park, concert space and other attractions on the New Jersey side, said Garrity, who imagines water taxis motoring back and forth.

Many of the people who live in the neighborhoods near SugarHouse and Foxwoods don't see it that way. They fear increased traffic and crime, noise, and depressed property values. And many feel completely left out of the state process that resulted in legalizing casinos and deciding on their locations.

One pro-casino group of Fishtown residents, Fishtown FACT, vocally supports SugarHouse and its chosen location. FACT leaders say the casino will bring jobs and otherwise boost the economy and improve the neighborhood. The neighborhood will profit from the casino's profits through a community benefits agreement, they say.

Garrity, of Foxwoods, said she believes the anti-casino and move-the-casinos crowds are vocal minorities of Philadelphia residents. "We obviously want to have a good relationship with our neighbors, and we believe that is entirely possible," she said. But Foxwoods is more than a South Philadelphia issue, she said. "The number in opposition is far outweighed by the number who would receive tax relief from it," she said. "This is a Commonwealth issue."

The Philadelphia factor

The proposed casino locations have deeply affected how politics plays out in Philadelphia.

Prior to Mayor Michael Nutter taking office, city council and the mayor's office were often at odds on the casino issue. While Councilman Frank DiCicco took developers on tours of alternative sites, former mayor John Street wanted construction to begin as soon as possible. Street agreed with Gov. Ed Rendell that casinos would provide vital tax relief and, in the waning days of his administration, the casinos received permits and reached agreements with the city that in theory would allow them to move forward.

Street had no problem with the locations, but his Planning Commission chair, Janice Woodcock, did not like them. At a heated city council rules committee meeting last June, DiCicco asked Woodcock whether as a planner, she would recommend a waterfront site for the casinos, and specifically whether she would recommend the Foxwoods and SugarHouse sites.

Woodcock said perhaps one waterfront casino would be workable, but not two of them. She could not recommend either Foxwoods or SugarHouse, she said, because both are too close to neighborhoods and Foxwoods has traffic-related issues. The Pinnacle site might have been a good one, she said.

(Pinnacle Entertainment wanted to build on Delaware Avenue between at Susquehanna Avenue and Beach Street. That was one of five sites and five applications that the state's gaming control board considered when it chose the two Philadelphia sites. The other rejected sites: Riverwalk at a former incinerator site on Delaware Avenue at Spring Garden and TrumpStreet at the former Budd site, Fox Street and Roberts Avenue. It should also be noted that the Planning Commission ultimately reviewed and approved the plan of development for both current waterfront sites.)

Soon after taking office, Mayor Nutter ordered a review of all casino-related decisions made by the city that preceded him. His administration revoked a key permit that SugarHouse needs to build on riparian lands along the river (that's now the subject of a state Supreme Court case). His legal team is looking for a way to renegotiate a tax agreement with Foxwoods.

In a recent interview, Nutter said Foxwoods' location problems are much worse than SugarHouse's.

"Sugarhouse has its challenges, but I think that there may be more opportunity to mitigate some of the traffic concerns at that location than at the Foxwoods location," he said.

Nutter would not discuss the airport or any other specific alternative sites for Foxwoods, but he said that his staff has looked at other sites, including some that are owned by the city, or quasi-city agencies. He said it is too premature to say whether the city would put up any money to cover what Foxwoods has already spent on its current site, as a means to persuade them to move.

His team "has not had any conversations or contact with SugarHouse people with regard to siting," he said. He noted that various parts of the administration are dealing with issues related to the site, however, including the riparian rights question.

In part, Nutter said, he's spent more time focusing on the Foxwoods site than SugarHouse's because "they had not been granted anything at the time I came into office. SugarHouse had already received their Supreme Court ruling."

That would be the ruling that awarded SugarHouse the Commercial Entertainment District zoning it needs to build on the site. The state Supreme Court ruled that the city and city council had been stalling on the issue. Since Nutter took office, the Supreme Court also ruled that Foxwoods should have CED zoning for the same reason. City Council asked the court to reconsider, since Council was reviewing a proposal to grant Foxwoods its CED. Last week, the court said it was standing by its decision. Council is reviewing its options.

Can Foxwoods be re-sited? "Anything is certainly possible if people want to work together to accomplish a particular goal," Nutter said. "It has a lot of components and it's immensely complicated. But if an agreement could be reached with the city, the General Assembly, the Gaming Control Board, it certainly seems it would be possible."

Battle of wills

The mayor is talking about persuading Foxwoods to move voluntarily.

Governor Rendell says persuasion is the only way - casinos cannot be forced to move. "Resiting would be close to impossible under the law," said Rendell spokesman Chuck Ardo. "The governor had early in the process offered the license holders an opportunity to re-site of their own volition, and they turned him down cold."

Rendell's letter included alternate site suggestions and money to abandon the existing sites, Ardo said, and the casinos' refusal convinced him there was nothing more to be done, Ardo said. These days, Rendell is just tired of the delays, and wants construction to get underway. "The continued lack of progress is frustrating," Ardo said.

A spokesman for the Gaming Control Board also said casinos could not be forced to move. When asked if they could move, with their current licenses, if they chose to, he said it was an untested premise, and the answer would not be clear unless and until one of them tried.

Persuading them to try - with carrots or sticks - has been the method those who want the casinos elsewhere have focused on so far. About a year ago, Fumo offered money. Mostly, though, activists and legislators alike have seized on opportunities to fend off construction.

An entire Supreme Court battle hinges on whether the city had the right to grant SugarHouse riparian rights, or had the right to revoke the permit. Foxwoods says it doesn't need riparian rights, but the waterfront legislators disagree, and promise a battle there, too.

SugarHouse is also waiting on an Army Corps of Engineers decision on a waterway encroachment permit they need. The process requires a historical review, and local historians discovered the site was once home to a Revolutionary War fort. Native American artifacts have been unearthed at the site, and local historians have joined former East Coast tribes in lobbying for more exploration. The historians are not anti-casino. Most do not mind the proposed site, in fact, so long as the artifacts are removed before construction. But others who want the casinos stopped or moved are also advocating for more archaeology.

After a recent hearing at City Hall, Rep. Michael O'Brien noted with obvious delight that the threatened red bellied turtle was entering breeding season. There is turtle habitat on SugarHouse's site and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission has told SugarHouse that no work can be done in the water there, with the exception of pile driving, between May and October.

Anti-casino activists with Casino-Free Philadelphia have held protests and other events - even going to the homes of casino investors.

The theory behind all of this, said Daniel Hunter, co-founder of Casino-Free Philadelphia, is that the delays will cost the casinos so much money that they would rather move elsewhere. "There's a unified effort, from government officials to the deep grassroots," Hunter said. "No developer should want to be in a hostile environment. It's bad business."

Whitaker said she understands that some people are unhappy with the way in which casinos were brought to Pennsylvania and the way the sites were selected, but SugarHouse did not make up the rules - it has only followed them.

The tactics aimed at convincing SugarHouse to move may have convinced them to dig in deeper. If they move somewhere else, someone else will be displeased and "it starts all over again," Whitaker said.

Regan agreed that any site near a neighborhood would encounter NIMBY issues and protests.

That's why the airport is a good site, say the local legislators who wrote the bills that would re-open the location issue.

Legislative approach
Under the current draft of that legislation, set to be introduced in both the House and Senate this week, the casino developers, city and state officials and neighborhood residents would work together to choose two alternative sites. The Gaming Board would hold hearings, and within 120 days would issue a report containing a list of alternative sites. Foxwoods and SugarHouse would then have 30 days to respond. The bills also would remove the rule that no casino can be located within 10 miles of an ongoing slots operation - that's what would open up the Philadelphia International Airport as a possible site.

The proposal gives the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board a lot of options, including revoking the licenses of SugarHouse and Foxwoods, and re-opening the application process so that any other entity could apply for one of the two licenses, said Christopher Craig, Fumo's senate counsel.

That is not the legislators' intent, Craig said, but was inserted into the bill as a means of forcing SugarHouse and Foxwoods from their current sites.

"This is to give the board a hammer to compel the casinos to be a lot more open minded about moving to a venue with more support from the community," Craig said.

The bill would create a huge legal mess, said Whitaker. When the gaming control board chose the successful applicants, it considered their proposed locations, she said. "There were three unsuccessful applicants. If (the gaming control board) is now coming back and saying those sites are bad sites, but you can keep those licenses and move to another location, that's unfair," she said. "You've now changed the rules." Whitaker predicted lawsuits.

The courts route is always possible, Craig conceded, pointing out that the current sites are also mired in the courts. But Craig said such a lawsuit would not hold up in court, because while site was a factor in the board's decision to pass up the Pinnacle, Trump and Riverwalk proposals, it was not the only factor. The board noted that Pinnacle has a casino in nearby Atlantic City that would compete with a Philadelphia site; that Trump was having financial stability issues; and that the Riverwalk site was small and, as a city-owned site, had other complications, Craig said.

The original gaming legislation said there would be no casino located within 10 miles of any other casino. Moving a casino to the airport would put it closer than that to Harrah's in Chester.

A Harrah's spokesman did not return calls for comment. Craig said that legally, Harrah's would be out of luck. Current legislation promises that the tax structure will not change for 10 years, and that there will be no additional casinos. But it says nothing about changing the mileage preclusion zone, he said. One could argue that such a change is not a good idea as a matter of practice, he said, "but we're not worried about a lawsuit."

"It is a fundamentally bad idea in any circumstance to change the rules in the middle of the game," SugarHouse’s Whitaker said. "It sends a terrible message to any business person looking to do anything in Pennsylvania: If we decide three years down the line we don't like you, we'll just change the law. Why would anybody come here and do business?"

Garrity said that Foxwoods invested "hundreds of millions of dollars, all on the good faith and reliance that the city and state said they would do what the current legislation says they will do."

Casino-Free's Hunter said his group supports the proposed legislation, although it falls short of Casino-Free's goals because it does not require a cost/benefits analysis of casinos.

The governor has promised a quick veto of the proposed bill. Craig and O’Brien aide Mary Isaacson said their bosses are optimistic that they can garner enough votes to override a veto. While the location of the casinos is an especially hot topic in Philadelphia, legislators from across the state are interested in getting them built as soon as possible, for the revenue they will bring, Craig said.

Besides, he said, the legislation will likely be bundled with other proposals that will have enough support to override the governor.

Contact the reporter at kelliespatrick@gmail.com

• Bill draft.doc
• GamingTaskForce_Intro.pdf
• GamingTaskForce_SiteEval1.pdf
• GamingTaskForce_SiteEval2.pdf
• GamingTaskForce_TranspEcon.pdf

March 31

 
By Alan Jaffe
For PlanPhilly
 
Over the last 18 months, the city has had a case of “civic engagement” fever. The symptoms are a rash of Sharpie-wielding facilitators, an outbreak of breakout groups, a yen for cold cuts and cookies, and contagious debates on the future of Philadelphia.
 
• PennPraxis asked communities to rethink what can be done on the Central Delaware Riverfront.
• Great Expectations sessions were organized by The Inquirer to figure out how to make us the next great city.
• Multiple city agencies and organizations led Green Plan discussions on how to improve the environment.
• The City Planning Commission set up a circuit of Imagine Philadelphia roundtables as the first phase in drawing up a new comprehensive plan.
 
And there are more requests for your presence coming down the pike. Anyone with a mind to share an opinion has had a choice of soapboxes and a variety of willing ears.
 
But what is behind the recent spate of invitations and concern for public input? Just how much longer will people show up before they sink into civic engagement fatigue? And why does the city seem so damned democratic lately?
 
Athens, Rome, Philadelphia

Coordinating the civic engagement programs for both Great Expectations and PennPraxis has been Harris Sokoloff, director of the Center for School Study Councils at the University of Pennsylvania. Sokoloff traces the framework of that work to the senates of Athens and Rome.
 
“In every decision-making process we have where people come together in some sort of equal terms, we use some form of deliberative model,” going back to those early republics. “The tools we’re using are different; the ideas are still the same. It’s still a matter of: people get together, find a way to identify the issues, what the pros and cons are, the different ways of understanding the issues and the different forms of action, and use that in the decision-making.”
 
As in ancient Rome, “power politics” always play a part, Sokoloff adds, but there are ways to keep the process transparent and the public an important partner.
 
Beverly A. Harper traces her involvement in modern civic engagement to the early 1970s. Harper is founder, president and CEO of Portfolio Associates Inc., the agency that managed the series of Imagine Philadelphia meetings held in neighborhoods around the city over the winter.
 
Back in the ‘70s, Portfolio Associates conducted a study for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation that examined how and where citizens could become involved in the transportation planning process. The agency surveyed the 50 state transportation departments around the country, then took an in-depth look at four departments’ experiences with civic engagement.
 
“We found that in the Boston area there was almost a billion dollars in projects that had been stopped because of public involvement,” which occurred at “a very late stage in the projects,” Harper said.
 
“Involving the public early in a realistic way – and realistic means letting them know all of the different factors that will go into the decision-making – does help a project have a smoother development,” she said. “If you involve them early enough and know the kinds of issues and concerns that they have, you can do things to mitigate some of those concerns.”
 
Civic involvement programs continued into the 1980s, according to Harper, then trailed off for the next 10 years or so. The resurgence in Philadelphia is the result of several factors, she said.
 
“I think that part of it has to do with federal guidelines related to the National Environmental Policy Act,” the 1970 measure that required federal agencies to prepare Environmental Impact Statements before taking action and then sharing the information with the public. “Many government-funded projects and public agencies use those guidelines to identify the projects where they need engagement,” Harper explained.
 
Another reason for greater public involvement is governments’ limited funds and resources, she continued. “So one of the ways to help identify what should be done, and how it should be done, is by engaging citizens.”
 
The third factor is increased sophistication on the part of the citizenry, Harper believes. “Thanks in part to the Internet, they can find out what’s going on. When there are things they don’t like, they know how to get involved and who they should be contacting.”
 

Sokoloff’s plunge into the deep end of civic engagement came in 1995, in partnership with Inquirer editorial page editor Chris Satullo. Each year Sokoloff and Satullo took on a new topic that included civic engagement initiatives, from national to local issues, on everything from health care to the needs of a particular school building.
 
Over the past year, their collaboration on Great Expectations was part of a larger effort, the Penn Project for Civic Engagement, which also included the Delaware waterfront project led by PennPraxis executive director Harris Steinberg. Sokoloff, Satullo and Steinberg had worked together four years before on the attempt to find a developer and the right development for Penn’s Landing.
 
Sokoloff said the civic trend is due to the realization on the part of government leaders and agencies that “those who must be involved in supporting or solving a problem or challenge ought to be involved in naming and framing the problem, and in helping to find a solution.”
 
Newark Mayor Cory Booker, for example, recently acknowledged that he can’t do anything without the support and involvement of other people, Sokoloff said.
 
“The leaders can no longer say ‘do this’ and it happens,” he said. “Issues are too complex; the solutions are too complex. Everything requires adaptation. …It requires a different kind of citizen involvement and engagement, and that’s why you’re seeing all these community forums.”
 
The Right Model
 
There are many models for conducting civic engagement, Sokoloff said, and he doesn’t claim to have the best one, “though we try to make it better and are constantly revising it.”
 
In too many cases, the process takes the form of an expert- or advocate-driven discussion. “An expert gets up in the front of the room, makes a presentation, and has a question-and-answer period. Or there may be a group of people who have developed an agenda and all they want to happen is for all the people to bless the agenda,” he said.
 
Liz Gabor, a real estate manager at the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation, was a participant in two civic engagement efforts in recent months. The Imagine Philadelphia session, she said, was an “organic” interchange in which neighbors were asked to brainstorm solutions to city problems. “People were imaginative and came up with very good ideas.”
 
But Gabor said her experience in the Great Expectations did not seem as productive. “We were told, ‘read this report and comment on it.’ It was too guided.”
 
Another participant in both the Imagine Philadelphia and Great Expectations sessions found them equally constructive. “I heard similar comments at each meeting and a consistency in what people were saying,” said Jo Ann Desper, a senior consultant for a healthcare services company. “They were both good, open forums.”
 
Public involvement means more than meetings at which participants offer opinions and possible solutions, Harper said. “That is one tool that you can use to get reaction and input. There are lots of others that can be used,” including surveys, focus groups, and online interaction.
 
The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission is in the midst of a public outreach effort for its long-range strategy, entitled “Connections – The Regional Plan for a Sustainable Future.” An online survey is underway through the end of March that will help refine planning in the areas of transportation, land use, economic development and the environment. The survey will be followed by planning exercises, focus groups and public workshops.
 
The public meetings have dimensions beyond surveys, Harper said. They serve as an educational tool that shows participants how the next person thinks, and they provide “directly and subtly an empathy and understanding of the position that the agency or organization has in trying to come up with a plan, knowing that everyone is not going to be of one mind.”
 
Those differing views are a vital component of civic engagement. A diverse group of participants is a primary goal in calling the meetings. “I was very pleased with the diversity of the Imagine Philadelphia sessions,” Harper said. “It was diverse in lots of different ways. The meeting in West Philadelphia had lots of young people, and I thought that was terrific. In the Northeast, there were lots of Eastern Europeans, but they were from different ethnic groups. I’m very happy with the cross-section we achieved” over the course of the nine citywide meetings.
 
Sokoloff also seeks a diverse group of participants. “The idea is always to make the group as inclusive as possible – by gender, ethnicity, race, and different levels of expertise,” he said. “The more diversity, the richer the conversation.”
 
While different viewpoints are sought, the civic engagement sessions organized for Penn’s design department or the meetings for the City Planning Commission did not specifically invite developers to the table.
 
But they would not have been turned away, either. “For Imagine Philadelphia, we wanted to hear from ordinary citizens,” Harper said. Developers may have attended, but they would have probably been there in their roles as residents. “The only people we explicitly invited by letter were elected officials.”

In the Central Delaware engagement process, separate meetings were held with developers to gather their input and expertise. “That’s where you say, ‘We’re going to have a closed session with developers.’ And when you do that, you let people know you’re doing it,” Sokoloff said. “It is a matter of transparency, but I like to think beyond transparency to co-production – the idea of experts working with citizens.”
 
Too Much of a Good Thing?
 
Even an engaged citizen may need to rest his voice occasionally. To prevent civic exhaustion, Harper suggests more collaboration among agencies. Portfolio Associates is currently undertaking public research into two projects – one looking at ways to ease traffic congestion on the west side of the Ben Franklin Bridge and the other exploring an extension of the PATCO line along the waterfront – with a combined questionnaire and meetings that will ask stakeholders about both issues.
 
“This is to recognize that people’s time is valuable. I think we need to do a little bit more of that,” she said. “So that you’re not asking the public to come out too many times.”
 
A more serious problem arises when organizers of civic engagement create “unrealistic expectations about how much say people will have in a project. I think it’s something you have to repeat early and often – that this is just one of the factors you use in the decision-making process,” Harper emphasized. “I think it is incumbent upon organizations who are managing this process to be truthful with people about what their involvement is going to mean.”
 
There must be an implementation mechanism in place, she said, to show participants their input had a result. If there is no implementation, “I think that hurts other efforts,” she said.
 
The new Philadelphia Police Commissioner, Charles Ramsey, conducted his own form of civic engagement, a round of six town hall meetings in the six police districts, when he took office earlier this year.
 
“The commissioner had said he wanted to get the public’s input for developing a plan for Philadelphia,” explained Lt. Frank Vanore, of the police public affairs department. “He knows about policing, but he didn’t know Philadelphia. He was following a format he did in Washington, D.C., where he held town hall meetings to create his strategy.”
 
According to Vanore, Commissioner Ramsey took notes at every meeting in Philadelphia and shaped a plan to fit each neighborhood. The result? “Some of those things the people said went verbatim right into his plans.” The commissioner’s Crime Fighting Strategy was then posted on the police department’s website for town hall participants to read.
 
Every municipal or regional issue does not require public involvement sessions, Sokoloff said. “You don’t want to do it with every decision. … You’d get stuck. You don’t have time to do it all. There’s so much that has to be done quickly.”
 
The problems that require the most “citizen adaptation” are those that call for citizen participation, he said.
 
But keeping the public engaged through rounds of meetings is “a real challenge,” Sokoloff said. “It’s a possibility that they will get fatigued. I think it’s less likely to happen if what comes out of the engagement – the action steps, policies, proposals, whatever – is responsive to the citizen voice.
 
“The minute you engage the public in this kind of conversation, you have a responsibility to tell them what you heard, what you did with what you heard, and how what you heard impacted your decisions,” he said.
 
“People need to know their time is being well spent. They need to know they’re making a difference.”
 
Desper, the healthcare services consultant, hasn’t tired of civic engagement after participating in two projects. “The more of these the better, as far as I’m concerned. They are a wonderful example of our government working the way it should. They are opening up opportunities for what citizens want at a very basic level.”
 
Contact the reporter at alanjaffe@mac.com

Inga Saffron's take on high-rise hopes 

Feb. 21

By Matt Blanchard
For PlanPhilly

Call it a deluxe ruckus: Bitterly divided residents of tony Society Hill look poised to reject a luxury hotel development slated for Head House Square.

Named “Stamper Square,” the plan envisions a 150-room boutique hotel operated by Starwood Resorts, and another 77 condominium units, housed in two towers on the vacant NewMarket site. Unable to agree this week, the Society Hill Civic Association said it will decide on Wednesday night whether to oppose the project.

While most neighborhoods might find it hard to reject a $300- to $400-per-night hotel with condos selling for more than $1 million apiece, opponents have their reasons. After 10 months of negotiations with developer Marc Stein, it is the building’s 15-story height that has brought the matter to a crisis.

Because it exceeds the area’s 35-foot height limit, the 166-foot Stamper Square needs Civic Association support if it hopes to secure a zoning variance. Stamper's chances were hurt when the board's zoning subcommittee voted 10 to 3 against.

Should Stamper go down, it will be the latest in a long line of failures at NewMarket, a 1.5 acre site that appears to need an exorcist as much as it does a developer.

Named for a shopping mall that struggled almost from its opening day in 1975 until its demolition in 2002, the NewMarket site is today a large hole. Neighbors rejected a supermarket for the site in 1996 but signed onto a plan by actor Will Smith to build a hip “W” hotel there in 2000, a plan that fell apart when the hotel backed out the following year (Another W plan is now slated for 12th and Arch).

Stein, developer of the proposed Bridgeman’s View skyscraper in Northern Liberties, made what he said was a final effort to win over Society Hill at a hot-tempered meeting in the Old Pine Church on Wednesday night. Over 100 people were in attendance.

“It’s been a long ten months,” Stein told the crowd. “Either I walk after [this meeting], or I come back and build something else.”

That something else, he suggested, was a by-right development that would not require the neighborhood approval (Read: it will fill every available inch of the zoning envelope and might be ugly).

The ensuing debate revealed a neighborhood profoundly alienated from its bustling neighbor, South Street (called a “garbage pit” by one speaker), and fiercely suspicious of developer promises.

It also revealed a minor identity crisis:

Is Society Hill a full part of Center City that should welcome wealthy hotel visitors and high-density urban living? Or is it a strictly low-rise urban village that must guard against tall buildings even on a vacant lot?

“We are almost like a village within a city,” argued board member Benita Langsdorf, who opposed the project for violating height limits. “We moved here because we are a different kind of community.”

Paul Levy, head of the Center City District, adduced the example of Ed Bacon’s Society Hill Towers to defend the project:

“This neighborhood began with high rises.  It was always designed to be both modern and historic … And it’s the high density buildings that bring the people,” Levy said. “Some would like to see townhouses, but it’s been 20 years, and where are those townhouses?”

A “potential treasure”

Design-wise, Stamper Square is a collaboration of two architecture firms, locally-based H2L2 and the global giant Gensler. Advocates say its genius lies in the site plan, which places the 15 story towers on Front Street where renderings suggest they will not be visible from most locations in Society Hill.

That site plan also includes a mid-block passage – inspired by Ed Bacon’s greenways – between 2nd and Front. Stein has offered to make a sculpture garden of the passage, which appears to be the hotel’s main entrance.

All 412 parking spaces will be in an underground garage, and stalls will be set aside for the project’s adjacent neighbors. The actual units are contained in two conjoined towers, glass with irregularly spaced vertical panels, rising from a brick base.

Thirty nearby neighbors signed onto a statement of support for the project, calling the proposed passageway “a potential treasure in our community”. Others hailed the project as a high-class balance to the déclassé clientele of South Street.

Doubts

Doubts about the project came from the board’s own zoning committee.

Paul Boni, noted anti-casino lawyer, argued there was only reason why Society Hill was being asked to consider so large a project: The owners paid too much for the site and want to recoup.

According to The Inquirer, the Chawla brothers of Sant Development bought the site from Will Smith in 2005 for $10.5 million – three times what Smith had paid just five years before.

Boni extolled the neighborhood’s 35-foot height limit as a “blanket of protection,” and accused Stein of simply bluffing when he said 15 stories was his final offer.

“He’s already come down,” Boni said. “What confidence do you have that this developer can’t come down further? ... We don’t want to kill the project. We want to give the civic association the ammunition to bargain harder.”

A flawed process?

In the end, board president Richard de Wyngaert declared that his conscience would not allow him to vote on the changing project after four hours of wandering argument. By a close vote, the vote on Stamper Square was postponed to Wednesday.

For board member Steve Weixler, who favored the project, the Stamper Square affair is one more reason why the city should take planning decisions out of the hands of community groups and return that power to trained professionals in the City Planning Department.

Calling the evening’s debate “subjective, personal, unfounded and unfriendly,” Weixler said proponents who had cheered for the project at 6:30 p.m. had by 10 p.m. grown tired and left.

“Eventually people got so tired they desert the process.” He said.
“This underscores the need for government and serious planning to step up in this city… Government needs to stop this process.”

Contact the reporter at blanchard.matt@gmail.com

Nov. 14

By Alan Jaffe
For PlanPhilly

A new vision for the Central Delaware waterfront, forged over 13 months in more than 200 collaborative, occasionally contentious civic meetings, was formally introduced last night with dramatic flare and some compromise on the most disputed elements.

Inquirer coverage
Metro coverage
Daily Pennsylvanian
 
The proposal to bury a section of I-95 was softened by less drastic options. The dense riverfront street grid was proposed with a nod toward developers’ concerns. And the casinos, the hottest issue, were plotted on the plan – and then dissolved on an alternative map.
 
The audience of about 1,200 at the Pennsylvania Convention Center cheered the proposals and offered a standing ovation to the concluding video fly-over, a time-warp that transformed the current waterfront into an active, thriving scene of green spaces and well-balanced development and communities.
 
Public reaction

Approval for the plan, which was coordinated by PennPraxis, the clinical arm of the design department at the University of Pennsylvania, came from nearly every front. Mayor Street lauded the process for engaging the river ward communities and taking on a challenge that has eluded the city for decades. Michael DiBerardinis, secretary of the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, called the Civic Vision “meaningful and important.” Riverfront developer Bart Blatstein said the plan is “a great start.”
 
Dissenting voices in the audience condemned any allowance for casinos, intermittently disrupting the presentation by PennPraxis executive director Harris Steinberg, who has guided the Civic Vision through several combative meetings. Outside the Convention  Center, a six-foot skunk urged people to wear clothespins to show their displeasure with the Foxwoods and SugarHouse sites.
 
A panel of government, business and community leaders were invited to respond to the presentation, and they lent their support to most aspects of the plan. But there was a clash over the issue of funding a major I-95 reconfiguration. Rina Cutler, deputy secretary at PennDot, warned that an estimated $10 billion needed to depress the interstate at Penn’s Landing would be hard, if not impossible, to raise. Mayor Street disagreed. Initial response to large projects is always negative, Street said, but “there is plenty of money” if the public says “this is the priority.”
 
Overall, the evening was upbeat, congratulatory, and very hopeful.


Councilman Frank DiCicco, whose constituents’ fears of waterfront gaming sparked his suggestion that the city create a master plan for the Central Delaware, said the unveiling last night was “the highlight of my political career.” He thanked the William Penn Foundation for providing more than $1.6 million for this first phase of the waterfront process. He also credited Street for signing the executive order in October 2006 that charged PennPraxis with leading the effort. 
 

The mayor noted that “plan after plan failed” to make the best use of the 13-acre parcel on the Center City riverfront. “The thing that should distinguish this report from other studies is you,” he told the audience last night. “We never had this kind of community engagement” in the process before, and “what will deter it from sitting on a shelf is you not letting it happen.”
 
With just over 50 days left in his term, he urged that the plan more forward with the formation of an organization that will take up the banner and “ensure that this work has not been done in vain.”
 
Steinberg then took the podium to present the culmination of his team’s year-long labor in an eloquent, 30-minute sales pitch. With archival, contemporary and conceptual images of the waterfront beamed on two screens flanking him, and on screens in an adjoining hall for the overflow crowd, Steinberg emphasized the historical and regional context of the Central Delaware -- from William Penn’s arrival, through the riverfront’s industrial dominance, through the traffic-jammed state of things today. The initial question was, “how do we create a framework for growth?” he said.
 

PennPraxis conferred with elected officials and every civic group with a stake in the waterfront so that the “pinheads from Penn,” as he heard one resident describe his team, “would not impose their image on the waterfront.”
 

The planners relied on the values expressed by residents in that series of meetings, and on the best practices for riverfront redevelopment accomplished in Chicago, New York, San Francisco, Milwaukee and Hoboken. “Man, if we can’t beat Hoboken,” Steinberg laughed.
 
What the Philadelphia team came up with was three frameworks based on movement, open space, and development.
 

Movement refers to connections across and beneath I-95 to the river, a street grid that replicates the feeling of Center City life on the waterfront, and a north-south urban boulevard.
 
A reborn Delaware Boulevard, the “spine” of the riverfront, would mean keeping a six-lane avenue for now, but eventually “skinnying up” the current road to allow for a light-rail or other mass transit line down the center.
 
The street grid would recall the 17th-century template designed by William Penn “which has guided our identity,” Steinberg said. “We need to think about extending that to the river,” not only to disperse traffic, but also as “the connective tissue” that links land parcels.
 

The audience applauded the Civic Plan’s suggestion that Septa and Patco lines be linked on a reinvented waterfront. Water ferries and water taxis are also part of the plan, as opposed to a Camden-Philadelphia tram that links the two cities.
 
Turning to the high-profile proposal of burying I-95 to reclaim the Penn’s Landing area, Steinberg offered a conciliatory tone. “Is there a way to sink it? I don’t know. There is lots more study to be done. It is something that the plan doesn’t live or die on.
 
“But if we don’t start thinking about it,” he said, “Philadelphia will miss the boat to capitalize on that potential.”
 
The open space framework in the Civic Vision foresees “a great lawn” at Penn’s Landing, “a great democratizing element of the city.”
 
Frankford Avenue and Spring Garden Streets were presented in artist’s drawings transformed into pedestrian-friendly green streets of trees, blooming medians, and bike lanes. The string of parks and open spaces along the Delaware would “do work,” Steinberg said, filtering stormwater and pollutants, and creating wetlands, wildlife habitats, tidal gardens, and a healthier city and river.
 
Land development along the water, and specifically how casinos fit into the plan, has been “the most contentious part of this project,” Steinberg said,
 
“Not an option!” an audience member shouted.
 
“Yes it is!” responded another.
 
“Bull----!” answered the first.
 
Acknowledging the debate, PennPraxis provided two options for those sites on the waterfront plan, with and without the casinos. But Steinberg said the issue is “not about what is there. It’s about how the buildings relate to each other” and surrounding streets, and whether they allow access to the waterfront.
 
Other development issues should be addressed through zoning code reforms, according to the Civic Vision. The street grid plan must be codified and buildings must “meet the street line,” with retail, commercial and “life-affirming” uses, Steinberg said. Tall buildings should be staggered along the landscape to ensure “everyone has light and air and views of the river,” he also said.
 
There is a place on the river for big-box development, too, so long as it is “done more gracefully,” Steinberg said.

The presentation ended with the video, reminiscent of the 1964 World’s Fair ride that looked ahead to the city of the future. The audience was remarkably silent as it was given a glimpse of what Philadelphia could become 50 years from now. When it ended, they rose and applauded the vision.
 
In an official response to the plan, DCNR secretary DiBerardinis, a 30-year resident of Fishtown, said the unveiling of the plan was an “important event for Philadelphia.”
 

A century ago, he said, Pennsylvania stood at a similar crossroads, with its forests decimated and streams polluted by the Industrial Revolution. But some leaders had a vision for the commonwealth that helped save its ecosystems. “We are in a similar moment in this time,” he said. Conservation and sustainable communities will become policy imperatives, and “cities that imagine a waterfront like this are the ones that will succeed,” DiBerardinis said.
 
“The plan is right. The economy of the future will be built around efficiency and sustainability,” he said.

 
To make it happen, the city must build on the collaboration of the community, DiBerardinis continued. There must be consistent city leadership to shepherd the plan forward, and it must move from a vision to a detailed planning process. Strategic investment must be made and leveraged through the local, state and federal governments, he said. And “early victories” should be implemented “so people can see the reality.”
 

Inquirer columnist Chris Satullo moderated the panel discussion that ended the evening, posing his own questions and those from the audience.
 
Blatstein, of Tower Investments, said “planning is not the enemy. The enemy is lack of planning.” He said the Civic Vision has been a “marriage of planners, developers and communities.”
 
Blatstein also said there should be no gated communities along the waterfront and there should be open and free access to the river.
 

Cutler, of PennDot, who was among the supervisors on Boston’s Big Dig project, said Philadelphia should not become too focused on a large I-95 reconstruction. “If we spend years debating if it is possible to bury 95, we will miss the opportunity to rethink what else exists there.”
 

A better choice, she said, might be improved public transit on the waterfront. Because of funding limitations, “we may have to make those choices,” she said.
 
Mayor Street said an ambitious 95 redo can happen. “It will not happen unless we say this is the kind of investment we want from the local and federal government,” he said. That will require the support of surrounding counties, who must also see that a revived city waterfront will benefit their residents. “The biggest deterrent is perceived regional differences,” he said.
 
Steinberg said the next steps in the process will be “early action projects,” such as the blazing of a bike trail from the Pier 70 neighborhood to Penn’s Landing, the restoration of riverfront wetlands, and the release of an implementation guide in the spring.
 
“This is the very beginning,” he said.

Alan Jaffe is a former Philadelphia Inquirer editor. He can be contacted at alanjaffe@mac.com