Northern Liberties

Next up in casino siting process

mgolas — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:54:06 -0400

Bio

Body

Holy Redeemer protest

Foxwoods process timeline

Oct. 10
By Kellie Patrick Gates
For PlanPhilly

The public will have at least three more opportunities to comment on the proposed location of Foxwoods Casino at The Gallery this month - and if last Thursday night's Chinatown meeting is any indication, those sessions will all be packed with passionate citizens.

* On Tuesday, a meeting similar to the one held in Chinatown took place at Jefferson University Alumni Hall, 1020 Locust St.

* On Oct. 21, the Planning Commission will consider and hold a public hearing on the creation and placement of zoning that would allow a casino to operate at The Gallery. This is called a Commercial Entertainment District.

* In late October, on a date yet to be set, a public forum to discuss casino design - particularly urban casino design - will be conducted at the city's request, but by organizations that are outside the government.

* On Nov. 1, City Council will hold a public hearing on the CED legislation. The time and place have yet to be determined. The unusual weekend day is an intentional attempt to make it possible for more interested people to attend.

Councilman Frank DiCicco will submit legislation to rezone the Gallery to a Commercial Entertainment District at Thursday's City Council meeting.

There is never a public comment period when legislation is introduced, spokesman Brian Abernathy said - that will come Nov. 1. (Read memo from Abernathy here)

The residents of Chinatown pleaded with DiCicco Thursday night not to introduce the legislation, but he said it was necessary to keep the State Supreme Court from getting involved - SugarHouse received its CED designation on Delaware Avenue from the High Court, which ruled that the city had been dragging its feet. This took power away from the city, DiCicco said, but by going forward with a process, elected leaders and officials will get a say.

The submission of legislation starts the review process of the proposal by City Council and the Planning Commission, and either body could say no, Abernathy said.

This CED will be different from the one created for the riverfront casino sites. Some tinkering is still happening, Abernathy said, but two differences are parking and set-back requirements.

The waterfront site is not well-served by public transportation and required many parking spaces. Market East is a public transit hub. And The Gallery has adjacent parking lots. There will still technically be a parking requirement, Abernathy said, but Foxwoods would likely not have to create additional parking spaces to meet it.

There will also be no setback requirement. For one thing, The Gallery is an existing building, Abernathy said. But even if it weren't, "in Center City, a setback doesn't make sense. We want to maintain an active street" with buildings nestled right up to the sidewalk.

Officials from Foxwoods and the Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust, which leases the Gallery, are still working on their development plans for the casino, Deputy Mayor and Planning Commission Chairman Andy Altman said. It may not be ready by the Oct. 21 Planning Commission meeting, Altman said. "The plan doesn't have to be ready" because the discussion will be limited to the CED legislation and placement.

The late October public forum is being put together by incoming Planning Commission executive director Alan Greenberger - even though he doesn't officially start the job until November. He could not be reached for comment Friday afternoon, but Altman said the forum also will take place with or without the designs.

"It will be more of an open forum looking at design issues and other examples from other locations," he said. "We want to educate ourselves and the public" and examine what kinds of design and planning issues should be taken into consideration, what can be learned from other places that have urban casinos - such as New Orleans - and what changes are happening in casino design.

The input and ideas that come out of that meeting - and the other public forums - will be used to help guide the Planning Commission and City Council in what it looks for from Foxwoods and PREIT, Altman said. "It would also be good for Foxwoods and PREIT, who could apply what comes out of these meetings to their designs."

Another round of Council and Planning Commission consideration and associated public hearings will begin when those designs are in hand, and when those hearings begin is dependent on when Foxwoods and PREIT have plans to submit, Altman said.

"Both the Planning Commission and City Council have to approve the plan of development. We still have ample opportunity to determine it isn't appropriate," Abernathy said. Foxwoods could also decide the Gallery won't work for them.

Foxwoods officials have said they would consider another alternative if this one doesn't work out, but they would have the legal right to go back to the site they still own on the river - something the city does not want.

Terry Gillen, special advisor to Mayor Nutter, said that at the Gallery site, Foxwoods and the city are at "the very beginning" of the process, so there will be many discussions before any decisions are made and any permits given.

At the Columbus Boulevard site, Foxwoods would need only one additional permit, highway occupancy, before it received a building permit - the last permit needed prior to the start of construction.

The city's other proposed waterfront casino, SugarHouse, also needs a highway occupancy permit - plus a federal permit from the Army Corps of Engineers - to get a building permit, she said.

Contact the reporter at kelliespatrick@gmail.com

Home Page Summary

Oct. 16 / By Kellie Patrick Gates Public will have more opportunities to comment on the proposed location of the Foxwoods Casino at The Gallery.

Source

Written By

KellieP

Publish Date

October 10, 2008

Abstract

Big discovery at SugarHouse site?

mgolas — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:35:18 -0500

Bio

Body

Archaeological investigations on Monday Nov. 10 only revealed parts of these two foundations. Work continued on Tuesday Nov. 11. The three I-beams (two with graffiti) support the northern billboard. Excavation within the basement of what some say is Batchelors' Hall will have to consider the stability of that billboard.

Nov. 11

Previous coverage

By Kellie Patrick Gates
For PlanPhilly

SugarHouse archaeologists, led by an amateur local historian, on Tuesday continued to unearth part of a foundation on the proposed casino site.

The historian, preservationist Torben Jenk, says the find is a portion of Batchelor's Hall - a society whose members included many prominent 18th Century Philadelphians, and where the nation's first botanical garden of medicinal plants was established in 1729.

"It's a 279-year-old structure, and we found it using a 204-year old survey," said an excited Jenk on Monday evening. "It's the second oldest building that we can document to date in Fishtown."

But casino spokeswoman Leigh Whitaker said the casino's archaeologists, A.D. Marble, say what was found is much less historically significant, and from a different century, than the place where Pennsylvania Hospital founder and trustee Lloyd Zachary socialized and renowned botanist John Bartram may have tended the plants.

"We did not find Batchelor's Hall," Whitaker said. "We found a foundation of a residence or other building from the 19th Century."

Jenk, who restores old homes and other buildings professionally, said the 22-inch high foundation wall that was found was not the Wissahickon schist - the gray stone with sparkly mica flecks - that he sees in 19th Century buildings.

"It's definitely an 18th Century foundation," he said. "Those tend to have cobbles - stones that looked like big ostrich eggs. And the mortar that joins them is different - it tends to be courser, with lime and crushed oyster shells." Jenk says that's what he saw on the northwest corner of the site, near the northern most of the two large SugarHouse Casino billboards.

It's not just that SugarHouse thinks the foundation found Monday is younger than Batchelor's Hall, Whitaker said. A.D. Marble and SugarHouse believe the social club was not located anywhere on the site.

Jenk takes issue with this, because, he said, the foundation is in the right place, on the right property, according to old maps and surveys. "That northeasterly wall sits exactly where I told them to look," he said.

It is not unusual for Jenk and SugarHouse to disagree.

The archaeology that has been done at the SugarHouse site is part of a historical review mandated by federal law because the casino needs a federal permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to build its Delaware Avenue project as planned.

According to Torben Jenk, the 200-250 year old sandy alluvium "banded soils" at right do NOT have the same stratigraphy (layering) as atop the truncated (cut) foundation wall. Within the foundation (at left) is the brick and plaster from the demolition of this structure. That 200-250 year alluvium soil age comes from Marble's soil scientist, Dan Wagner, in his various geomorphological reports and at the Oct. 29 Consulting Party meeting. In laymen's terms, this foundation is deeper, and therefore older, than the surrounding soil. The foundation sits atop the ancient Pleistocene soils (darker red with the river cobbles).

The photo above shows the northeastern foundation wall, looking west towards Delaware Avenue. The foundation wall obviously continues into this high soil towards Delaware Avenue.

The Corps has been advised on this portion of its permit process by the Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission, the national Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and a group of local archaeologists, historians and community activists called consulting parties. Jenk is one of them, but he is not the only one who has been critical of the process.

He, Philadelphia Archaeological Forum president Douglas Mooney, Northern Liberties Neighbors Association Vice President Debbie King and others have taken issue with the both the archaeology done by A.D. Marble and the way the Corps has handled the historical review process.

In what is probably the most publicized example, Marble did not mention that a British Revolutionary War fort once sat on the site. Jenk provided a mountain of historical documents. Marble's position is now that the Fort stood there, but any evidence was destroyed when pilings were drilled to support the former sugar factory that once stood on the site.

Marble also anticipated not finding any Native American artifacts on the site, and it has turned out to be one of the richest troves of such artifacts in the city.

SugarHouse has stood by its archaeologists and said they would do all necessary work in the Army Corps process.

In August, The Corps wrote a letter to the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission saying that they were satisfied that SugarHouse and Marble had done all the digging necessary before the permit could be issued.

The consulting parties were frustrated that this step and others had been taken without face-to-face meetings. Aside from their first discussion nearly a year ago, most of the debate has taken place via email.

In late October, the Corp called another face-to-face meeting, and it was at that meeting that Terry McKenna, project executive for SugarHouse's general contractor, volunteered to look for the remains of Batchelor's Hall, a tide mill and a shipyard at locations suggested by Jenk, and that Jenk could be present. McKenna also said Marble would do more looking for the British fort, beneath Penn Street, but that work cannot begin until the utilities under the street are capped.

A few days after the meeting, Whitaker said that Marble had looked for these things before, but found no evidence of them. The additional digging - which is not required by the Army Corps - was to be done to assuage Jenk's fears that Marble was digging in the wrong place.

Whitaker said Monday that SugarHouse will keep its promise to look for the shipyard, tide mill and Fort. Tuesday, more work will be done related to the foundation found Monday, she said, and archaeologists will include their findings in a future report.

"A.D. Marble has determined that the foundation is that of a 19th century structure based on the method of construction, the surrounding soil deposits, and the interior contents of the foundation walls (19th and 20th century rubble and debris)," Whitaker wrote Tuesday in an email. "No evidence of Bachelor's Hall was found on our site and there is no definitive evidence that the Bachelor's Hall structure was ever on our property."

Jenk pointed to surveys and maps as evidence, and also to the soils. "A little addition and subtraction and the historic documents stated 110 feet south of Shackamaxon Street. This foundation stands 110 feet south of Shackamaxon Street," he wrote. "In a 22.6 acre site, Reading Howells' 1804 survey is correct to the foot.

A layer of striped earth is visible at the site, and Jenk said that that earth is 200-250 years old, according to information provided by A.D. Marble's soil scientist in the geomorphological reports and at the Oct. 29 consulting party meeting.

"In laymen's terms, this foundation is deeper, and therefore older, than the surrounding soil."

Whitaker said that she stood by the reports SugarHouse received from its team in the field, and Jenk's interpretation did not sway her. "I am going to rely on the licensed professionals who do this work for a living," she said.

Mooney, the president of the Philadelphia Archaeological Forum and a consulting party, said he had not been to the SugarHouse site, and therefore had no opinion yet as to whether or not the foundation is that of Bachelor's Hall.

But whatever it is, he said, A.D. Marble should have discovered it before now.

"Our argument has always been there's not been enough testing out there, and sure enough, this is something they haven't found before," he said.

Mooney said Marble and SugarHouse needs to put together a report to back up their position with facts and a clear, concise argument. "They found so mething, and if they're claiming that it's 19th Century, they have to provide the evidence that backs that up."

Whitaker said a summary report of the findings will be prepared and submitted to the Army Corps, PHMC and ACHP in about a week.

"We have every interest in preserving an historical evidence we find on the site," she said. "It just so happens we have found no evidence of the Fort or of Bachelor's Hall"

Jenk said he will wait to see what is within that report, and if it follows Whitaker's description of a 19th Century foundation, the consulting parties will take their case to the contrary to the Army Corps, the Historical and Museum Commission and the Advisory Council.

CHECK PLANPHILLY FOR CONTINUING COVERAGE

Home Page Summary

Do excavations reveal 18th century foundation exactly where historic surveys show that Batchelors' Hall stood? SugarHouse archaeologists say no.

Source

Written By

KellieP

Publish Date

November 11, 2008

Abstract

SugarHouse archaeological meeting on tap

mgolas — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:28:48 -0400

Bio

Body

Oct. 8

By Kellie Patrick Gates
For PlanPhilly

      The Army Corps of Engineers has called a second meeting with a group of community activists, historians, environmentalists and archaeologists who are advisors to the Corps on historical preservation at the SugarHouse Casino site.
      The on-going historical review is required under federal law because SugarHouse needs a federal permit from the Corps. The interaction between the advisory group - called consulting parties, and the Corps and SugarHouse have mostly taken place through email. And things have been contentious at times.
      Some consulting parties have been unhappy with the review of the site, which was once home to much Native American activity and a British Revolutionary War fort. They have criticized both the work of SugarHouse archaeologist, A.D. Marble, and the Corps' oversight of the process. They have been calling for meetings for months.
      Consulting party and Philadelphia Archaeological Forum President Doug Mooney said his organization was "very pleased" to have the meeting, scheduled for Oct. 29, but it was too little, too late.
      "We feel that meetings of this sort should have been occurring regularly throughout the Section 106 review process. Had such regular meetings taken place, we believe that a great deal of the confusion now evident in the process could have been avoided, and consensus could have been reached that would have allowed the archaeological investigations to move forward more smoothly," he wrote in an email.
      But the Corps and SugarHouse have also found the process trying.
      Some of the consulting parties, including Mooney and local preservationist and historian Torben Jenk, have sent email after email for months, outlining what they see as breaches of judgment, lack of professional qualifications, or bad practices during the process.
      According to the email sent to the consulting parties last week by Jim Boyer, the biologist with the Corps' regulatory branch who is leading the review, some of the consulting party emails have contained "personal attacks". From now on, any consulting party who makes such an attack might be "dis-invited" from the list of consulting parties, he said.
      Jenk wrote an email to Boyer, in which he referred to a comment made by Terry McKenna, project executive for SugarHouse's general contractor: "As to personal attacks, I presume you mean Terrence McKenna's 'Enough of the history lesson!' which he blurted to cut me off at the first Consulting Party meeting."
      According to Boyer's email, The Corps has decided to reconvene the consulting parties because some of them "have continued to raise questions about our findings, including whether any remains or artifacts from the British redoubt may be present on the site" and continue to disagree with the investigation and conclusions reached by SugarHouse's archaeology consultant, A.D. Marble.
      Boyer's email said the focus on the Fort shifts attention from the Corps' mission under the law. "Only historic properties (that means physical items, Corps spokesman Ed Voight explained) are eligible for consideration under Section 106 of this law," Boyer wrote. "For example, no remains, or even artifacts, from the redoubt have been recovered anywhere on the site. We have not seen any evidence that any historic properties exist where the redoubt was located."
      Boyer outlines three goals for the meeting: Summing up the responsibilities of the Corps outlined in the National Historic and Preservation Act. Reviewing the archaeological and geomorphological evidence from the areas near the former British Fort. Allowing the consulting parties to ask questions and give comments.
      He also set some ground rules:
      "Please note that we expect this meeting to be an open exchange of information. However, we will not re-visit past actions, and we will not get into anything about the proposed development. Further, we expect that this exchange will be conducted in a professional and courteous manner, without personal attacks. If anyone becomes disruptive and interferes with the conduct of the meeting by making such attacks, they may be asked to leave, or we may end the meeting early."
      Mooney said that the PAF - which he represents as a consulting party - hopes the discussion "will not be not be limited in any way. The consulting parties have brought up a great many questions and concerns over the course of this project, and we believe that very few of them have been adequately addressed in the past. Therefore we hope that any and all discussions will be up for consideration, and that any discussions held will allow for full consideration of the various viewpoints expressed. "
      SugarHouse representatives will be at the meeting and "open to answering questions and addressing people's concerns," said spokeswoman Leigh Whitaker. Whitaker said SugarHouse will continue to comply with any instructions from the Corps.

Contact the reporter at kelliespatrick@gmail.com

Home Page Summary

Army Corps of Engineers and community based consulting parties will meet about historic preservation concerns.

Source

Written By

KellieP

Publish Date

October 8, 2008

Abstract

Nutter won't waver on SugarHouse

mgolas — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:06:28 -0400

Bio

Body

Oct. 3

By Kellie Patrick Gates
For PlanPhilly

Mayor Michael Nutter still wants SugarHouse to move off of the Delaware River - despite the willingness of casino officials to redesign their project to fit into the city's long-range plan for the waterfront.

SugarHouse officials Wednesday told city officials they are going to revamp their design to better fit with the city's vision for the waterfront. That vision, developed by PennPraxis after more than a year of community input, calls for extending the street grid to the waterfront, a stronger reliance on public transportation, walk-ability and human-scale buildings, among other things.

At Mayor Michael Nutter's request, PennPraxis did a second, shorter study to look at whether casinos could fit into that vision. The verdict was no, but experts who participated suggested there were ways to design a casino that would fit better into the plan than the designs SugarHouse and the other proposed casino, Foxwoods, had developed.

Foxwoods last month announced it would investigate moving from its waterfront site to The Gallery at Market East. SugarHouse officials say they are sticking with their Delaware Avenue location.

But at Wednesday's meeting, requested by SugarHouse's main investor, Neil Bluhm, "They came in and said 'we want to stay at our site, but we're taking PennPraxis' plan seriously," said Andy Altman, Deputy Mayor for Commerce and Planning, in a phone interview Friday.

That meeting was talk only - no plans were presented, Altman said. "It was a brief meeting to let us know what they were looking at. They said they would get back to us" with revised plans, he said.

Altman said the city will certainly meet with SugarHouse and look at any new designs, but the city's position has not changed: "There are better sites than waterfront sites to be used for a casino," he said. "Waterfront sites are scarce sites. There are other sites that could better suit a casino."

SugarHouse spokeswoman Leigh Whitaker said the casino remains committed to its Delaware Avenue site.

There was no discussion of moving SugarHouse at Wednesday's meeting. Wednesday's meeting was not the first time the mayor and Bluhm spoke of a redesign, however.

They and Rep. Dwight Evans gathered in a hotel room in Denver during the Democratic National Convention in August. Bluhm is a big donor to the Democrats. Whitaker described it as an informal, unplanned discussion that happened because all the right people were in the same place at the same time.

Foxwoods' potential move came about after officials from that casino met with Nutter, Governor Ed Rendell, and other elected officials. At the Sept. 10 press conference at which the potential switch to The Gallery site was announced, Rendell said he still wanted to have a similar meeting with SugarHouse, and that the meeting had not yet taken place because of scheduling difficulty.

Altman said Friday that the relocation meeting was "separate" from the discussions about a redesign, and that the city still anticipated the relocation meeting would take place.

Rep. Michael O'Brien, one of the waterfront legislators who has been involved with the effort to move the casinos off the river, said he still wants that meeting. O'Brien called the governor's office Friday, but had not heard back by late afternoon.

"In my mind, I fully expect the governor to fulfill the commitment he made to me that I would be part of the resiting meeting," he said.

O'Brien was also in Denver for the convention, but said he was not invited to the design discussion and knew nothing about it until he was questioned by a reporter. O'Brien does not think the Denver meeting should have happened. He said it feels like decisions are being made behind the scenes instead of through a legitimate process.

Rendell Spokesman Chuck Ardo said late in the work day Friday he was trying to get the answers to PlanPhilly's question: Did the governor still want to meet with SugarHouse to discuss a different location, despite the new conversation about a redesign?

As recently as late September - long after the discussion at the convention - Ardo said the governor still wanted to talk about a new location for SugarHouse. Ardo said then the governor was waiting to reschedule it until after the State Supreme Court dealt with the city's Sept. 5 petition asking the court to reconsider its decision in HSP Gaming v. The City of Philadelphia. (The court had earlier ruled that a submerged lands license issued to SugarHouse during the Street administration, then revoked during the Nutter administration, still stands. SugarHouse needs the permit to build as planned on its current site.)

The pending decision "helps explain why there is a lack of urgency - a piece of information is missing," Ardo said on Sept. 23. But the meeting is mostly dependent on scheduling. "People are busy. There's an election coming up so the Governor is less available - there are all sorts of things to prevent people from getting together," he said.

Contact the reporter at kelliespatrick@gmail.com

Home Page Summary

Deputy Mayor Andrew Altman says city remains firm in its position that even a redesigned casino is inappropriate for the waterfront.

Source

Written By

KellieP

Publish Date

October 3, 2008

Abstract

Penn Treaty Park master plan

mgolas — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 12:01:28 -0400

Bio

Body

Sept. 6

By Kellie Patrick Gates
For PlanPhilly

     West Philadelphia resident Wanda Steward sat on the parched lawn of Penn Treaty Park early Friday evening, smiling contentedly into the breeze coming off the Delaware River.
     "I just love the water, the pretty air," said Steward, 38. "You get peace of mind out here."
     A hundred feet away, members of the Friends of Penn Treaty Park - a three-year-old community organization whose mission is to care for and improve the park - were setting up tables and a sound system for their annual Champagne in the Park fundraiser/celebration. This year's party came with a big announcement from President Win Akeley: The park's future was about to be mapped out with a master site plan, paid for largely with grant money.

    Requests for proposal have already gone out to firms specializing in landscape design, transportation and recreation, Akeley said. Proposals should come back by the end of the month, and soon after, a series of three or four public meetings will be held to refine what residents want from the park, which is part of the Fairmount Park system. "We see the plan evolving over the next several months," he said.
     Some of the broad goals of the plan have been established. A lot of attention will be paid to improving the park's two "gateways," the river's edge and the street entrance, Akeley said.
     Street-side goals include making the park more accessible by public transportation and walking. And then there's the parking question. Penn Treaty has a small parking lot and parking spaces along the roadway. But there's concern that the roadway parking will be eaten up when the new I-95 exit is built or by road-widening that could happen in the future if the planned SugarHouse Casino is built nearby.
     The river's edge offers wonderful views of the city - including the Benjamin Franklin Bridge - passing boats and wildlife. But right now, the bank is piled with large boulders. Sometimes, people climb out on them and take a seat. But Akeley said the future might include a softer edge "where people are more apt to touch the water." This could be a small beach of sorts, he said.
     Boaters might be able to come to Penn Treaty via the river, Akeley said. "Personally, I can imagine a public dock," he said.
     Friends Vice President Barbara Morehead dreams of a pier, especially a re-creation of the one she often visited on her trips to the park as a child. It had a roof, she said. "It was like a covered bridge."

   One portion of Penn Treaty has picnic tables, benches, the obelisk and playground equipment. The newer two-thirds of the park is largely open space. Northern Liberties resident Mike Haile, 28, and his dogs, Rosco and Burt, really hope it stays that way.
     "We come every day, to get in 20 minutes of exercise for them," he said as he tossed a football to his furry friends.
     The informal, flexible space is part of the park's essential character, Akeley said. The plan will not alter that.
     Bernadette Breslin, who came to the event with her three kids - 8, 6, and 4 - and husband, hopes the park's young users will be remembered in the plan. "New equipment for the playground would be nice," said Breslin, who comes to the park two or three times a week from her home, a few blocks away.
      While much of the master plan will cover landscape and hardscape, the Friends also aim to boost the park's public profile with education programs for students and events for everyone.

     Steward began coming to the park about 19 years ago, when her youngest was born. When the kids were young, they played in the playground. As they grew, the family fished together.
     She said she has appreciated the improvements made by the Friends over the past three years - the park is cleaner, there are more trees, and recently, new benches were added. She hopes the plan calls for more of the same. She'd also like to see more events in the park, she said, nodding to the one that was taking shape next to her - she would have attended if she had known it was happening, she said.
     Katie Recker, who chaired the Champagne in the Park committee, said the fundraiser was as much about public awareness as money.
     Many Philadelphians don't know this rare piece of open riverfront land exists at Columbia and Delaware avenues, lamented Friends Vice President Morehead, one of the founders of the Friends.
     When Mayor Michael Nutter spoke to the crowd, he called Penn Treaty a "beautiful place that must be preserved." He said there was "so much to enjoy, so much to protect, so much to make an investment in."
     Nutter also admitted this was his first visit.
     "I've driven past any number of times, but have not had the opportunity to stop in the park," he said. "I look forward to coming back out and enhancing the relationship between the city, this park, and your organization," he told the Friends.

     Even those who regularly use the park tend to be a bit sketchy on its history. The legend - one often depicted or described in art and old journal entries - is that William Penn and the Lenni Lenape Indians signed a treaty of friendship beneath an old elm tree on the site. The fabled elm fell in a storm in 1810. In 1827, the Penn Society placed an obelisk on the site to memorialize it.
     Recker hopes for a future partnership between the park and the school district, in which children are brought to the park on educational field trips. She also hopes the Philadelphia Orchestra will hold concerts there.
     Friends Vice President Morehead, one of the founders of the Friends, has a clothesline arts festival planned for October. Around Thanksgiving, people will feed the birds by hanging food from the trees, she said. A Christmas Carol sing-a-long is also planned.
     Akeley said the Friends have received a $22,500 matching grant from the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. The Friends must themselves raise that same amount, which means a whole new level of fundraising, he said.
     It soon became clear that even $45,000 was not enough to pay for a top-notch, comprehensive master plan, he said. The William Penn Foundation invited the Friends to apply for additional grant money that would bring the total to as much as $100,000, he said. While the William Penn grant is not yet official, "We feel good about it already," he said.

Contact the reporter at kelliespatrick@gmail.com

Home Page Summary

Sept. 6 / By Kellie Patrick Gates Requests for proposal have already gone out to firms specializing in landscape design, transportation and recreation.

Source

Written By

KellieP

Publish Date

September 6, 2008

Abstract

SugarHouse gets all clear from Army Corps

mgolas — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:57:24 -0400

Bio

Body

Aug. 29
By Kellie Patrick Gates
For PlanPhilly

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers says SugarHouse has done all the archaeological work necessary prior to receiving the federal permit it needs to build its casino project as planned.

"We now conclude that the applicant has made a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic properties at the SugarHouse site," the Corps wrote in a letter it sent this week to the state agency which oversees historic preservation, the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission.

That doesn't mean the archaeology is finished, said Corps Spokesman Khaalid Walls. In the PHMC letter, the Corps recommends that the methods for recovering any remaining artifacts be outlined in a memorandum of agreement - an agreement that would be attached to the permit, Walls said.

SugarHouse agrees with the Corps that the remaining archaeology can be done post-permit via a memorandum of agreement. "There are still significant recovery efforts that are required," said SugarHouse spokeswoman Leigh Whitaker in an email. This would include digging up artifacts that remain in wells and privies and looking beneath Penn Street for evidence of a British Revolutionary War Fort.

"We are happy we are moving forward," said Whitaker. "We have followed all rules, we continue to work with the Army Corps and PHMC, and we have always anticipated that we would move through the process and in the end receive a permit."

The latest development is a blow for those who don't want the casino built on its chosen site. If the PHMC and its federal counterpart, the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation, give the OK, work will begin on the memorandum, Walls said. That's the last step remaining before the Corps would decide on the permit, which is one of the few hurdles remaining before SugarHouse could start construction. Last week, the state Supreme Court ruled that a license the city issued allowing the casino to build on state-owned riparian land is still valid, despite the Nutter administration's attempt to revoke it. (State lawmakers have promised a federal court challenge to that decision, however.)

The move toward a memorandum of agreement is also a huge disappointment to some of the local historians, neighborhood activists and archaeologists who have been advising the Corps as consulting parties.

"The process at this point is little more than a farce," said Douglas Mooney, a consulting party and president of the Philadelphia Archaeological Forum. "The consulting parties have not in any way been taken into account, really."

In short, some of the consulting parties, including Mooney and historian/preservationist Torben Jenk, say all artifacts should be recovered prior to the issuance of a permit. A memorandum of agreement is rightly used to outline what should be done with any artifacts that are unexpectedly found during construction, Mooney said. It should not be used to cover the excavation of sites that are believed to contain artifacts. Jenk has said repeatedly that SugarHouse has been using inaccurate maps to decide where to dig. The casino stands behind its maps.

Mooney, Jenk and other consulting parties have been calling for a meeting with the Corps, SugarHouse and others involved in this process in order to discuss their concerns. The Corps has said that all of the information the consulting parties provided has been reviewed, and that there was no need for a physical meeting.

Mooney points to a section of the Corps letter to the PHMC that really burns him. The letter refers to a July 21 meeting in which SugarHouse, its archaeological consultant, the PHMC and the Army Corps reviewed the consulting party comments "point by point."

The consulting parties should have been at that meeting, Mooney said.

The archaeology was part of a historic review required by federal law before the Corps can issue a permit. The dig has turned up a significant amount of Native American artifacts, as well as remnants of early Philadelphia neighborhood life.

But there has been much controversy about what hasn't yet been found: Physical evidence of the British Fort, remnants of Batchelor's Hall - a social club where John Bartram was gardener, or items left behind from the earliest days of Philadelphia's industrial past, including old ship-building facilities.

Jenk and others have criticized SugarHouse archaeologist A.D. Marble's work from the beginning. Marble's early reports made no mention of the fort or Batchelor's Hall, and said that Native American artifacts were unlikely to be found. That's when Jenk, working with a group of historians at The Kensington History Project, began to barrage SugarHouse, Marble and the Corps with maps and other documentation.

That, too, has been controversial, because while all of the consulting parties involved in this push have an interest in history and/or archaeology, some also want the casino to be built elsewhere.

SugarHouse now agrees that the fort was located on the property. Whitaker has said any artifacts were most likely destroyed by the construction and destruction of the former sugar refinery. However, she said, SugarHouse will look for remains of the Fort beneath Penn Street - a step it cannot take until the city turns off the utilities that run beneath the street. Then, the complete excavation of the site where Native American artifacts have been found, will be done through the MOA, she said.

The consulting parties called for an independent party to review Marble's work. On the advice of the Historic Council for Historic Preservation, a Corps archaeologist from Texas was asked to review the case. He finished the review, Corps spokesman Walls said, and drafted most of the letter that went to the PHMC.

For Jenk, his involvement has not been enough. He wants an independent expert to read all of the evidence.

Jenk has sent a letter to the Corps, the ACHP and PHMC, and all other involved parties outlining his concerns. He is also hoping to convince local federal representatives to get involved.

Mooney said the Archaeological Forum is also contemplating a response, but it might also decide to focus its efforts on the memorandum of agreement.

Contact the reporter at kelliespatrick@gmail.com

Home Page Summary

Agency believes all pre-construction archaeology has been done; calls for memorandum of agreement. Consulting parties angered.

Source

Written By

KellieP

Publish Date

August 29, 2008

Abstract

Supreme Court rules for SugarHouse

mgolas — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:20:08 -0400

Bio

Body

Breaking News

Aug. 22

By Kellie Patrick Gates
For PlanPhilly

SugarHouse Casino has the right to build on state-owned land beneath the Delaware River, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled late Friday. The decision knocks down one of the largest remaining hurdles to construction.

After months of reviewing testimony from both sides, a majority of the justices decided that the submerged lands license the city's commerce department awarded to SugarHouse during the Street Administration still stands.

"We're absolutely ecstatic," SugarHouse Spokeswoman Leigh Whitaker said. "This gives us full control over our site, and allows us to build our project as approved by the city Planning Commission. This is significant for us in terms of moving the project forward."

City Council and a group of waterfront legislators filed the Supreme Court case against the city in late December, after SugarHouse was first given the right to build on the riparian land via a submerged lands license awarded by the city's commerce department. Their argument: The city never had the right to issue the license in the first place.

Shortly after taking office in January, Mayor Michael Nutter rescinded the license. First his administration said the Commerce Department had the right to grant riparian licenses, but the process by which SugarHouse officials got theirs was flawed. After more review, the city also decided that the Commerce Department never had the power to issue the license. They asked the court to dismiss the case, but the motion was denied. SugarHouse filed as an intervener, arguing that the new administration couldn't change a decision made by the previous administration simply because it didn't like it.

"It's a disappointment," said Terry Gillen, Nutter's senior adviser for economic development and his casino point person. But Gillen said she could not comment on the specifics of the decision, nor on what the city's next steps might be, until early next week. The law department will spend the weekend reviewing the ruling, she said.

"The decision effectively removes the General Assembly's exclusive authority to control public land along the waterfront," said Gary Tuma, spokesman for Sen. Vince Fumo, one of the riverfront legislators involved in the lawsuit. State leases on the land could potentially generate "tens of millions" in revenue, he said.

"The court authorized the transfer of state-owned land to a casino without payment to the state," he said.

The decision does not strip the General Assembly of the power to grant riparian rights, Tuma said, but because it upholds the 1907 law, it says the city still has the right to grant leases along its waterways.

The General Assembly could vote now to repeal the 1907 law, Tuma said.

Legislators have already included language meant to reaffirm their rights in two laws passed to give riparian licenses to condo projects along the Delaware. Those laws were passed after the Commerce Department decision.

"We are reviewing the court's decision and exploring future options," said State Rep. Michael O'Brien, another legislator involved in the case. In the past, O'Brien has said that if the state Supreme Court ruled in favor of SugarHouse, it might be possible to convince the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case. He and others who say the city never had the right to issue the license say that right rests only with the state legislature, so O'Brien thinks it’s a state sovereignty issue.

Brian Abernathy, aide to City Councilman Frank DiCicco, whose district includes both proposed casino sites, said Council would need to have a discussion with the mayor's office about next steps.

The decision comes on the heels of Thursday's announcement that Foxwoods Casino - SugarHouse's counterpart in South Philadelphia - is considering alternative, non-waterfront sites. Foxwoods told the mayor, governor and other elected officials they were exploring other options at a meeting called to try to persuade Foxwoods to move. A similar meeting is planned with SugarHouse officials for early September.

Whitaker said the Supreme Court decision doesn't impact that meeting. "We've always said we don't believe relocation is an option," she said. But SugarHouse officials will go to the meeting and discuss the issue, she said.

"With yet another Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision granting the SugarHouse casino the authority to move forward with construction, it is my hope that Mayor Nutter will shift his focus on this issue and work with the local community organizations who are in negotiations with SugarHouse and close to finalizing a Community Benefits Agreement," Richard Levins, Fishtown Resident and Volunteer President of the New Kensington Community Development Corporation, said in a written statement.

The Community Development Corporation and pro-casino group Fishtown Action, or FACT, have been talking about community benefits with SugarHouse. But the majority of neighborhood organizations have agreed not to talk to the casinos, because they want them to be built elsewhere.

Maggie O'Brien, a founding member of FACT, didn't know about the decision until a reporter told her about it - but she was delighted with the news.

FACT supports the casino in part for the jobs it would bring to Fishtown. "I don't think it could have come at a better time with the way things are going in the country," O'Brien said of the decision.

Paul Boni, an attorney and member of Casino-Free Philadelphia, said he was outraged that the decision came out late Friday afternoon. He said the court has a habit of doing that with casino-related decisions. "It suggests that they are concerned about the news coverage," he said.

SugarHouse first sought a submerged lands, or riparian, license through the state General Assembly - the usual route for a project of its size - but no lawmaker was willing to introduce legislation to grant the casino a lease. Casino attorneys found a 1907 law in which the General Assembly gave the power to grant such licenses to the predecessor of the city Commerce Department.

Former city solicitor Romulo Diaz agreed with SugarHouse's assessment. Former commerce department director Stephanie Naidoff awarded the license in November 2007. http://www.planphilly.com/node/2293. This story also has a link to the 1907 law.

During oral arguments in April, SugarHouse attorneys made the same arguments that successfully convinced the city to award the license in the first place.

Attorneys representing the legislators, city council and the city argued that the 1907 law was repealed by the 1978 Dam Safety and Encroachments Act. But even if it still stood, they said, it only ever applied to structures related to river-borne commerce, such as wharves and piers, and not casinos.

One of SugarHouse's remaining hurdles is that it still needs a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. Before the Corps can rule, an on-going historic review of the site must be completed. The site was once home to much Native American activity, a British Revolutionary War Fort, and a society of learned Philadelphians called Batchelor's Hall, in addition to early industry and neighborhoods.

SugarHouse's archaeologist, A.D. Marble, has recommended that no further investigation be done regarding what might be at the site and where they should look for it. But Marble agrees that further archeology work is necessary in some already identified locations. That includes looking under Penn Street for evidence of the British Revolutionary War Fort that once was on the site - something which Whitaker said cannot be done until utility work is done.

The consulting parties - a group of local historians, activists, archeologists and others who are advising the Corps, disagree that SugarHouse is looking in all the right places, however. The Philadelphia office of the Corps does not have a staff archeologist. On the advice of the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation, the federal agency that oversees the country's historic preservation law, the local Corps is working with an archaeologist from a Texas division. He is reviewing all materials now.

The SugarHouse site now has large piles of dirt and concrete across much of it. Too the great dismay of the consulting parties - but with the blessing of the Corps and the federal and state agencies which oversee historic preservation - workers are removing items that would be obstacles to construction.

Whitaker said that process should take a few more weeks. She was not certain Friday evening what the next steps would be.

Contact the reporter at kelliespatrick@gmail.com

OPINIONS ATTACHED BELOW

Aug. 22

Home Page Summary

BREAKING NEWS: Justices decide that city had the right to permit casino to build on state-owned land beneath the Delaware River.

Source

Written By

KellieP

Publish Date

August 22, 2008

Abstract

Casino designs do not work

mgolas — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 09:48:47 -0400

Bio

Body

Aug. 11

By Kellie Patrick Gates
For PlanPhilly

     Philadelphia's future waterfront would be better off if the two planned casinos were built elsewhere, a PennPraxis report ordered up by the mayor and released this morning states.
     But if SugarHouse and Foxwoods are built along the Delaware River, the report outlines changes to their designs that would make them a better fit.
     These include:
     • Dividing the currently proposed wide, rectangular buildings into narrower, taller structures - for Foxwoods, this would translate into two smaller, stacked gaming floors.
     • Reducing the amount of parking spaces by half and placing more emphasis on mass transit and pedestrian traffic.
     • Extending streets and green space through the casino parcels to provide more physical and visual access to the river.
     • And moving up the casinos' timeline for the building of non-gaming uses so that condominiums, restaurants, shops, and other street-level businesses open early on.
     PennPraxis Executive Director Harris Steinberg emphasized in an interview this morning that while these steps would yield improvement, they are not offered as a compromise.
    "It pushes the envelope, it significantly alters their current site plans, but in the end, we conclude it does not go far enough to make them fully compatible," he said.
     Despite alterations to the current plans, the buildings would still be too big, with far too much space dedicated to parking cars, he said - even cutting the number of parking spaces by half would still leave each casino with a garage 1.5 times the size of the largest one in Center City.
    If the casinos were to be built with the modified designs and most or all of the parking were moved to remote sites away from the waterfront, that would be a good start toward making the casinos compatible with the vision, he said.
     The report was based on a three-day workshop with a team of experts from around the country. Mayor Michael Nutter asked Praxis - the practical arm of Penn's School of Design - to explore whether the proposed casinos could be built in a way that would mesh well with the Central Delaware Vision, a plan for extending the city's urban grid and creating public access to the waterfront that Praxis gleaned from a long series of public meetings and workshops.
     (Although a letter sent from the mayor's office to several state political leaders seemed to indicate that Praxis was also charged with exploring alternative sites for the casinos, that was not part of the assignment. The city's planning department is looking into that.)
     Terry Gillen, senior advisor to Mayor Nutter on economic development and his casino point person, said that the report provides specific reasons why the casinos don't work at their proposed waterfront locations, and that's exactly what the mayor needed.
    "He needed explanations for why the site isn't good, so that the public, and the folks across the state understand there are some legitimate problems with the sites," Gillen said.
    Gillen said the "public" means "citizens and elected officials in Pennsylvania who may be concerned that we're not moving as quickly as they thought we would. We want them to understand why." It's not that the city is anti-casino, but that the sites are problematic, she said. "My sense is when they understand we have legitimate issues, that we didn't have the same zoning rights that many of them (other cities chosen for casinos) had, they are sympathetic."
   Both casinos have legal matters pending before the Supreme Court in which they argue, essentially, that the administration is intentionally slowing down the process to prevent the casinos from being built in their current locations.
   Representatives from SugarHouse and Foxwoods have repeatedly said they are not interested in changing locations.
    From the moment the mayor asked Praxis to do the analysis, the casinos and their supporters have looked on with skepticism. When both the mayor and Steinberg publicly said that it would be better if the casinos were built elsewhere, the casino interests asked, how could the study possibly be unbiased?
    Similar sentiments were expressed by some Friday.
    Steinberg said that when he previously said the casinos wouldn't fit on the waterfront, he was referring to their current proposed designs. And it wasn't just him, but a team of experts from across the country - including an expert in casino design - who determined that there was no way to redesign them so they would fit in completely with the civic vision.
     Foxwoods officials took the weekend to review the document. Eary this afternoon, Spokeswoman Maureen Garrity issued a short, written statement, calling the document unsurprisingly biased.
     "The conclusions reached by Penn Praxis only confirm that Foxwoods Casino Philadelphia was correct in our suspicion that the outcome was predetermined," the statement said.
     "This point was driven home when comments from Penn Praxis' experts support our assertions that traffic is a manageable issue reported in the media were nowhere to be found in the report."
     Garrity said the traffic issues comment relates to a July 30th entry in a Daily News blog called www.phillyclout.com in which one of the experts Praxis gathered for the pre-report brainstorming session said that the traffic the casino would bring was "manageable" and no different from a shopping mall.
     The Monday statement continued, "While Penn Praxis spent three days reviewing and revising our plans, Foxwoods Casino Philadelphia has spent nearly three years and more than $100 million developing and designing a world-class entertainment facility that will positively transform South Columbus Boulevard, making it more pedestrian-friendly, improving traffic flow and providing riverfront access to the community."
     SugarHouse spokeswoman Leigh Whitaker also said Friday she could not provide comments on the details of the report until SugarHouse's team analyzed it. Monday, she said the casino officials decided not to comment on the report.

     But on Friday, Whitaker had some overall comments.
     On resiting: "We feel we have the best location and we feel resiting is not possible," she said.
     On a redesign: "I want to disavow people of the notion that our design is bad. That's not the right assumption. We have been working on our design for two years, and it takes a lot more consideration than what it looks like. That's very important to us, but there were a lot of other factors we needed to consider. The intention of the Gaming Act is that is has to be large enough to generate revenue. It has to be functional, there has to be appropriate access."
    The only specific recommendation of the plan that Whitaker was willing to discuss was the parking issue. It would be great if people took public transportation, she said, but it is likely that once the lot was full, they would park in the neighborhood.
    That is the greatest fear of Maggie O'Brien, a long-time resident of Fishtown and co-founder of the pro-casino group Fishtown Action, aka, FACT.
    O'Brien couldn't believe it when told that the study suggested that even cutting the parking in half would not be enough to make SugarHouse casino fit in with the neighborhood.
    A reduction in parking or a switch to remote parking wouldn't get casino customers to walk, take public transportation, ride their bikes or use a shuttle service, she said. "People are going to drive their cars down there, and if the lot is full, they are going to park on the damn street, which is exactly what we don't want them to do," she said. "The study doesn't look at reality."
     On the other side of the public opinion equation, CasinoFree Philadelphia co-founder Daniel Hunter said the conclusions of the report were inevitable. "What PennPraxis announced today was obvious to the rest of us for quite awhile - casinos don't fit into the civic vision for the waterfront," he said.
    O'Brien didn't see the point of redesigning SugarHouse because she likes the current design - she thinks it would make for a beautiful building, and she imagines herself sitting with a mixed drink on the riverside deck one day.
    Hunter doesn't see the point, either. No change in form would make a casino tolerable, he said, because he takes issue with the casino's function.
    While the study provides details and renderings of what both casinos would look like if the ideas generated by the study group were put in place, it is far from enough to build on. The changes would require "a complete redesign" he said.
    That doesn't come cheap.
    "Architects, engineers, all those people come back to the table," Whitaker said.
    When asked if the city might offer money to cover the cost of a redesign, Gillen said she couldn't go there yet. "I don't want to get into the detail of next steps or negotiations about what needs to happen," she said. "Right now, the city wants a little bit of time - not much - to look at the report and to consider our options." Gillen said this would happen within weeks. "I hope this will lead to a conversation with the casinos about design and the site issue," she said.
    A meeting during which Gov. Ed Rendell, Sen. Vince Fumo, Rep. Dwight Evans, Mayor Nutter and the casino operators are to discuss the relocation option is expected to soon take place.
    Officials from both casinos have pledged to attend. But the casino operators have been frustrated by the effort to get them to move. Spokeswomen for both SugarHouse and Foxwoods have said that the casinos did not make the rules, they have only followed the procedure set up by the state, which established the number of slot machines and approved the locations.
    Steinberg said his concern is not about the function of the casinos, but their current form, and that the lessons learned from the workshop could be applied to any large building.
    He agreed that some of the design elements were out of the casinos' control, for example, the state-mandated number of slots and American casino industry standards hamper Foxwoods and SugarHouse, he said. And that's part of why they can't be made to fit properly with the waterfront vision.
   A casino that offered smaller numbers of stations for more varied types of gambling - more of the European model - could actually work within the framework of the Central Delaware vision, he said.


    Contact the reporter at kelliespatrick@gmail.com

Home Page Summary

UPDATE: Foxwoods comments on report. Praxis concludes mega-size plans fail to fit civic vision for waterfront. <a href="/files/Report_Full_080708_rev.indd_.pdf" target="_blank">full report</a>

Source

Written By

KellieP

Publish Date

August 11, 2008

Abstract

SugarHouse: test pilings, obstruction removal

mgolas — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:14:01 -0400

Bio

Body

Excavations are shown in yellow. The "line of Laurel Street" is in pink. The roads are in orange.
Urban Engineers' proposed Test Piling Sites are puffy clouds "A-1", "A-2" & "A-3". Courtesy Torben Jenk

Aug. 07

By Kellie Patrick Gates
For PlanPhilly

SugarHouse Casino has begun removing bricks, concrete, and other rubble from beneath the ground where a sugar refinery once stood with the blessing of the Army Corps of Engineers. The action comes much to the dismay of local historians and archaeologists who say the work puts historic preservation at risk.

The debris is what was left after the factory was imploded. "All of that has to come out. It's an obstruction to the construction of the casino," said SugarHouse spokeswoman Leigh Whitaker. In fact, she said, until the removal is complete, SugarHouse cannot drive any test pilings, an activity for which the Corps has also given approval. The city requires the test pilings to back up previous engineering studies about how much weight the land can hold.

Corps spokesman Khaalid Walls said it is okay for SugarHouse to start the work while a historic review - required by federal law because SugarHouse needs a Corps permit - is ongoing because neither the pilings nor the obstruction removal are happening in any areas where further archaeology is needed.

"We've determined that the activities they proposed don't have an impact on our work," said Walls.

An Aug. 1 letter sent from the Corps to SugarHouse's general contractor says the work can be done, with certain conditions - one of which is that SugarHouse's archaeologist, A.D. Marble, must monitor some phases of the work, document the digging, and preserve any artifacts that turn up while it's going on.

But a group of local historians and the president of the Philadelphia Archaeological Forum - some of whom are also advisors to the Corps on the historical review of the site - strongly disagrees with the assessment that the work poses no threat to historic preservation, despite the Corps' conditions.

For one, the consulting parties - the group of local historians, environmentalists, activists and others who are advising the Corps, have been highly skeptical of A.D. Marble's work so far.

Torben Jenk, a preservationist, amateur historian and consulting party to the Corps, believes the obstruction removal site is just at the spot where a British Revolutionary War fort stood. And one of the places where SugarHouse plans to dig a test pile could destroy artifacts from Batchelor's Hall - a gentleman's social club where many prominent 18th Century Philadelphians discussed science and relaxed, and where John Bartram tended the large garden. Some of the work could also destroy evidence of Philadelphia's historic shipping industry, he said.

SugarHouse archaeologists have reported that they looked for both the Fort and Batchelor's Hall and found no remains of either on the site. Jenk retorts that the maps of their work do not show where they looked for the Hall. And he says the old map SugarHouse uses does not show the proper location of the Fort because it is an inaccurate copy made by someone who never came to Philadelphia.

SugarHouse stands by its maps and its archaeologists.

"It is HSP’s position that the work being done currently will not in any way jeopardize the archaeological investigation," said Terry McKenna, project executive for SugarHouse general contractor Keating Consulting, via email. "Both PHMC (the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission) and the Corps agree."

Kenneth Milano, a local historian who works with Jenk as part of the Kensington History Project, said he was frustrated that SugarHouse has in past archaeological reports said there was no need to do further archaeology where the sugar refinery used to stand because any artifacts there have already been destroyed, but now they say they need to remove items before they can proceed.

"They are digging deeper now than they did when looking for archaeological evidence," he said. "It's just bizarre to me."

Douglas Mooney, president of the Philadelphia Archaeological Forum and a consulting party, also thinks that SugarHouse has tried to have it both ways by first saying anything worth digging for was destroyed, and now saying items underground must be removed prior to construction.

McKenna said, "The Consulting Parties are misquoting HSP's position and deliberately misrepresenting HSP's findings to date

"It is HSP's position that the CONSTRUCTION and SUBSEQUENT DEMOLITION of the sugar refinery (i.e., the use of the property) destroyed any potential archaeological resources which may have been present prior to the development of the sugar refinery."

Mooney said that prior to its demolition, the sugar factory was deemed worthy of inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places by the Philadelphia Historical Commission, but it was torn down without detailed documentation. "The only way to get anything about that site may be archaaeological remains," he said. Mooney said the Archaeological Forum is not saying the refinery was significant, but if the city did, it should be documented.

"Mr. Mooney/PAF has stated numerous times previously that he views the subsurface remains of the sugar refinery as archaeological features. In turn, HSP and its consultants have responded that we do not agree, and have provided the evidence to support our position," McKenna said. Mooney and PAF ignore "that the same City later issued a demolition permit for the building, and that no governmental agencies objected to the demolition of the structure," he said.

By law, the PHMC advises the Corps on historical reviews in Pennsylvania. And due to the controversy surrounding the SugarHouse review, the Philadelphia office of the Corps asked the ACHP to become involved. The ACHP is charged with the ultimate responsibility of protecting the nation's historic resources under the same law that requires the historic review - commonly called Section 106.

The Corps consulted with both entities prior to giving its approval for the site work, spokesman Walls said, and both said the work proposed was fine.

Jenk said he is contacting city and state officials, trying to get someone to talk to the PHMC and the Army Corps. He and other consulting parties are very frustrated because they feel that their concerns have gone largely unheeded by the Corps. They believe they should have also been consulted when the Corps was deciding whether SugarHouse could proceed with obstruction removal and test pilings.

Walls said their emailed comments were taken into consideration, but the Corps determined that a meeting was not necessary. There has been one physical meeting of the consulting parties since the process started - much has been handled via email. Walls said no further meetings are scheduled, and may not be.

Milano called the consulting party portion of the 106 process "a joke". He called the SugarHouse permit a "done deal" and said that he has no hope left that SugarHouse will be asked by the Corps to do more archaeological digging in search of the Fort or Batchelor's Hall.

Mooney said that the sign off of the PHMC and the ACHP mean there's likely no chance of stopping the obstruction removal or the test pilings that will follow it. But he said there is still a chance that the Corps archaeologist from Texas who is assisting the Philadelphia office will recommend more digging after he completes his review. And Mooney said if the Corps grants a permit to SugarHouse, a Memorandum of Agreement could outline more archaeological work be done during construction.

Contact the reporter at kelliespatrick@gmail.com

Home Page Summary

Consulting parties are worried that Army Corps' blessing of these activities will result in damage to buried historic artifacts, including British Fort No. 1.

Source

Written By

KellieP

Publish Date

August 7, 2008

Abstract

Casino workshop concludes

mgolas — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:37:16 -0400

Bio

Body

Previous story and videos

July 31

By Matt Golas
For PlanPhilly

The three-day, lightning-round, PennPraxis workshop analyzing how two licensed Delaware Riverfront casinos, as well as any large development, can be designed to meet the guidelines of the City-endorsed Civic Vision and Action Plan for the Central Delaware concluded Thursday morning with preliminary recommendations from national experts in transportation, traffic, ecology, urban design and sustainability.

In order to gain on-the-ground knowledge, the panel interacted with local and state administrators as well as issue specific and citizen stakeholders during day 2 of the event.

The expert team included architectural designer Tim Magill, who brought a charrette-like feeling to the event through his quick sketches of Foxwoods and SugarHouse infrastructure improvements; landscape architect Jose Alminana, who preached a consistent approach to a 100-foot riparian border that would help us “honor the river”; traffic engineers Walter Kulash, Frank Jaskiewicz, and Daniel Plottner, who promoted the idea that the waterfront really needs an urban traffic volume experience to make it pedestrian friendly, and architect Peter Steinbrueck, a former Seattle, Wash. city councilman who is a leader in the field of sustainable growth.

On June 26, Praxis was asked by Mayor Michael Nutter to prepare an independent, third-party analysis of the current casino site plans relative to the Civic Vision of the Central Delaware and the Action Plan for the Central Delaware: 2008-2018. Praxis Director Harris Steinberg said the report will be sent to the mayor Friday Aug. 8.

The workshop opened with the group concluding that the two casinos are not currently compatible with the “civic values, principles and design guidelines” put forth in the Praxis vision of a redeveloped waterfront. (See previous story here: http://www.planphilly.com/node/3607.)

By the end of three days, the panel had begun to flesh out scenarios that would create a path to compliance for the casinos - or any large development on the river - around four crucial topics: traffic and transportation, urban design, ecology and sustainability. Some big bullet points were:
• Make development scale comply with walk-able street grid
• Slow down the traffic to create urban experience for pedestrians
• Hide the parking garages
• Honor the ecology of the river
• Sustainable development can save money

Here’s a more complete but very rough outline of anticipated corrective outcomes.
Traffic and Transportation:
1. What does a multi-modal formula for movement on the waterfront look like?
Phase multi-modal traffic in order to create “celebratory” bus portals; create bus rapid transit lanes; make pedestrian improvements on Reed and Shackamaxon Streets; upgrade bike lanes; use water taxis.
2. What policies might we recommend?
Permit parking. Auto users contribute traffic impact fees based on trip generation. Eliminate perceived requirement that any development must improve existing traffic situation. Stop the perpetual cycle of creating more congestion by creating more capacity.
3. How to address phasing public transportation?
Accelerate design work and planning of rail system. Extend present bus routes to the riverfront. Elevate riders’ experience by improving condition, feel of bus stops. Connect casinos with a shuttle.
4. How many cars do we allow on waterfront?
Limit Phase I of casino plans to four-fifths of total or 2,400 cars and then take wait-and-see-approach in the event more parking is not needed for Phases II and III. Remote parking for casino employees. Think about how to reduce auto footprint through automated parking.
5. How to improve the pedestrian experience?
Streets built at 500-foot block scale. Reduce curb cuts. Continuous ground floor retail and mixed use. Crosswalks at all intersections. Ability to cross in one light sequence. More generous sidewalk area. Shrink and civilize valet parking and casino arrival courtyards. Appropriately light and landscape streets.

Urban Design
1. How does massing of new developments work with vision plan?
Invoke 500-foot public access and street network. Separate parking from casinos. Leave 30-40 percent of property as open space. Consider mid-block corridor. Balance mix of uses through projects that create more urban environment as part of the public realm.
2. Can we develop vertical gaming floors and move away from the big-box concept?
Vertical footprints are a better use of the land. The trend is toward multi-flagged development featuring variety of places in one spot.
3. How do we connect development to its contextual neighbors?
Create activities and attractions all along the riverfront. Activate streets through a parallel street network. Accommodate vibrant multimodal riverfront not auto capacity.
4. How to integrate transportation, ecological and sustainable systems?
Streets are part of the public realm and should be designed so they are environmentally sustainable. Reduce impervious surfaces. Remediate storm water runoff. Push local government for green strategies and initiatives.

Ecology
1. How to measure the ecological impact of development?
Generate conditions around open space, going green, LEED certification, water issues, carbon footprint issues that, by the end of development, will ensure we have something better in those areas than what we have today. Naturalize the river’s edge.
2. What standards do we use to create ecologically responsible development on land and at the river’s edge?
Soften the transition between the public domain and the river, especially on the edge. Take full advantage of restoration activities. Insist on 100-foot riparian setback because it is last chance to manage storm water before it goes into the river. Create pervious paving, natural habitats. Make places perform ecologically. Take advantage of solar energy.
3. Are there other factors to consider?
Impact of flooding and global warming.

Sustainability
1. How to define and measure sustainability within the context of the site and the city?
It’s all encompassing. Consider transportation, material, building design, culture, heritage with examples such as percent of energy generated on site; how to handle waste reduction; the use of local and recycled materials on the site; how water is managed on site; make LEED silver as a minimum requirement for building on site; renewable energy to power slots machines; consider density and FAR incentives.

The casinos’ point of view
The presidents of both casinos declined invitations to the workshop from Steinberg in strongly worded replies that said their presence would be pointless, since Steinberg had stated publicly several times that he and Praxis were against the casinos ever breaking ground.

But Steinberg stressed that he’s not anti-casino, and that Tuesday evening’s conclusion that the casinos were incompatible meant “only as currently designed.” His goal, he said, is to tease out how these projects, on these sites, can contribute to the overall Praxis vision and action plan, endorsed last month by Mayor Nutter.

Foxwoods and SugarHouse have had an entirely different relationship with City Hall since the change in administrations, and contend that permits have been intentionally stalled by order of Nutter. They cite nothing but favorable decisions from the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board and the state Supreme Court.

“There have been at least five different traffic studies, including ones by the Mayor’s Gaming Advisory Task Force, the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, SugarHouse, Foxwoods, and the City Council,” according to information on the SugarHouse web site.

On the Foxwoods web site, the owners say the casino “supports the city’s long-term goal of economically reinvigorating the remainder of the riverfront, and will provide public access to the river.” For its first-phase development, it lists restaurant and lounge venues open to the public, fine dining, sports bars, a 2,000-seat showroom, retail shops, a 4,200-space parking garage and a riverside walkway, in addition to the 3,000 slot machines.

“This has been a neutral analysis that has been an exercise independent of use,” Steinberg said as the event wrapped up. “The report that’s issued will be used as a political tool by various constituencies, so it’s important to be sure about ‘What would it look like for a casino on that site to comply?’” with the civic vision and action plans. “I think this is a new day and we are covering new ground and creating a higher standard for developing the waterfront – and eventually the whole of Philadelphia.”

Contact the reporter at mgolas@design.upenn.edu

SugarHouse web site: http://www.sugarhousecasino.com/home/index.php

Foxwoods web site: http://www.foxwoods.com/AboutFoxwoods/FDC_foxwoodsphiladelphia.aspx

Home Page Summary

Breaking news: Experts in transportation, sustainability, infrastructure and ecology rough out plan for making development compliant with civic vision.