Effort to develop former monastery in Philadelphia is met with opposition

**raider.adam** · 07-05-2011, 09:28 AM

Effort to develop former monastery in Philadelphia is met with opposition | Philadelphia Inquirer | 07/05/2011

**CityMaps** · 07-05-2011, 09:42 AM

More sub-par architecture proposed for Girard Ave....

**fiveomar** · 07-05-2011, 11:22 AM

This is technically in Francisville and we shot down the project at the community meeting. I hope the developer either finds a way to preserve the exterior or sells it to someone who can (see Chapel Lofts in Spring Garden).

The developer (from Jenkintown) at the meeting showed his lack of concern for the city/neighborhood and has intentionally let the property rot over the past 6 years. Unpaid property taxes. Cheap design/materials. He's just trying to make a fast buck by f'ing everyone else and ruining the look of an entire historic block/district.

There's another article about it here:
Francisville in battle to preserve West Girard buildings | PlanPhilly: Planning Philadelphia's Future

**CityMaps** · 07-05-2011, 12:02 PM

If that is truly his attitude, than I don't think it will be an easy fight for you. Hope I'm wrong!

**FMT** · 07-05-2011, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by CityMaps

If that is truly his attitude, than I don't think it will be an easy fight for you. Hope I'm wrong!

The old monastery is indeed cool looking but at this point, is it worth saving at all? Looks like it may be pretty cost prohibative bringing it up to any sort of code...it would probably just continue to sit there and rot. I agree that his design is AWFUL and would fit poorly in the block and neighborhood. Might be better to knock the thing down and replace with something...though hopefully not that cheap looking terrible design.

**CityMaps** · 07-05-2011, 01:42 PM

You make a good point in that it is often easier to knock down and start fresh...but that is not what the community seems to want. Now, we all debate property rights...

**eldondre** · 07-05-2011, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by FMT

The old monastery is indeed cool looking but at this point, is it worth saving at all? Looks like it may be pretty cost prohibative bringing it up to any sort of code...it would probably just continue to sit there and rot. I agree that his design is AWFUL and would fit poorly in the block and neighborhood. Might be better to knock the thing down and replace with something...though hopefully not that cheap looking terrible design.

of course, the reason it's in that shape is this developer left it open to the elements for years. he should not be rewarded for his actions. to be fair, only the corner building looks in bad shape. one might question whether building student housing there is a good idea at all, it's close to fairmount and there's plenty of room by temple. for me, as a non-student, the side garden would be a big selling point for condos there (of course, I'm not interesting in 800 sq foot two bedrooms)

**Sharkfood** · 07-06-2011, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by FMT

The old monastery is indeed cool looking but at this point, is it worth saving at all? Looks like it may be pretty cost prohibative bringing it up to any sort of code...it would probably just continue to sit there and rot. I agree that his design is AWFUL and would fit poorly in the block and neighborhood. Might be better to knock the thing down and replace with something...though hopefully not that cheap looking terrible design.

Speaking as a (small time) developer, I have never encountered a situation where new construction was cheaper than a rehab, even an extreme rehab, where structural supports have to be replaced. Digging a new foundation alone is $25,000.

**thoth** · 07-06-2011, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by eldondre

of course, the reason it's in that shape is this developer left it open to the elements for years. he should not be rewarded for his actions. to be fair, only the corner building looks in bad shape. one might question whether building student housing there is a good idea at all, it's close to fairmount and there's plenty of room by temple. for me, as a non-student, the side garden would be a big selling point for condos there (of course, I'm not interesting in 800 sq foot two bedrooms)

Not being a structural engineer, the central chapel sure looks like it needs to be gutted. The corner building is probably the most intact of all, in spite of having tons of open windows etc.

**eldondre** · 07-06-2011, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by thoth

Not being a structural engineer, the central chapel sure looks like it needs to be gutted. The corner building is probably the most intact of all, in spite of having tons of open windows etc.

The corner building is where the wall is buckling

**raider.adam** · 07-06-2011, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Sharkfood

Speaking as a (small time) developer, I have never encountered a situation where new construction was cheaper than a rehab, even an extreme rehab, where structural supports have to be replaced. Digging a new foundation alone is $25,000.

I guess there are some additional factors as well. They would have to do more than a rehab, I would assume. They aren't just fixing up the chapel, they would have to repurpose it. Also, I have no several developers that said it was cheaper to tear down and rebuild if it involved a significant amount of asbestos abatement.

**Debbie1125** · 07-06-2011, 01:08 PM

It would be such a shame to tear this building down.

I've seen several churches converted into condos in my neighborhood. I don't see why that can't be done with this monastary

**eldondre** · 07-06-2011, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by raider.adam

I guess there are some additional factors as well. They would have to do more than a rehab, I would assume. They aren't just fixing up the chapel, they would have to repurpose it. Also, I have no several developers that said it was cheaper to tear down and rebuild if it involved a significant amount of asbestos abatement.

If the project eliminated the chapel but kept the rest it'd be a lot more palatable. As it is he ruined the.buildings and wants to replace them with student apartments.

**CityMaps** · 07-06-2011, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by raider.adam

I guess there are some additional factors as well.

Financing may be an issue, too.

**raider.adam** · 07-06-2011, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by eldondre

If the project eliminated the chapel but kept the rest it'd be a lot more palatable. As it is he ruined the.buildings and wants to replace them with student apartments.

The City is as much to blame as well. Effective L&I enforcement and property tax collection would prevent a lot of these properties getting to this stage as well.

**nostradamamamos** · 07-08-2011, 05:39 PM

In a decent economy that place would be a single family home. $1.5 million or less is what they paid for it, and that's cheap. Go duplex, quadraplex maybe. That design sucks, and it's a poor substitute for what's there now, even in its current condition.

**rojnish** · 07-10-2011, 06:20 AM

Speaking of The Chapel Lofts on Green, does anyone know if that building fully recovered from the fire? I was just looking to buy when that building was being rehabbed and missed the opportunity to even view a unit. It looks phenomenal. And a real treasure that I'd pay a fee to tour at this point. Anyone?

**phillyaggie** · 07-10-2011, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by rojnish

Speaking of The Chapel Lofts on Green, does anyone know if that building fully recovered from the fire? I was just looking to buy when that building was being rehabbed and missed the opportunity to even view a unit. It looks phenomenal. And a real treasure that I'd pay a fee to tour at this point. Anyone?

The web site linked above states that the property was up for unit sales back in 2005...they haven't sold all their units yet to where you can buy a new unit in that building? I don't know the history of the site. There was a fire during/after the place was turned into lofts? Just wondering.

**phillyaggie** · 07-10-2011, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by raider.adam

The City is as much to blame as well. Effective L&I enforcement and property tax collection would prevent a lot of these properties getting to this stage as well.

No kidding! A city supposedly as revenue poor as ours, you would think, would make extra efforts at enforcement and property tax collection.

I wonder also, how many individual condo owners pay taxes when they turn their property into rental units...doubt very many are on the tax rolls as being rental properties. That may be one reason why Center City supposedly has a less than 2% vacancy rate officially.

**rojnish** · 07-11-2011, 01:10 AM

Originally Posted by phillyaggie

The web site linked above states that the property was up for unit sales back in 2005...they haven't sold all their units yet to where you can buy a new unit in that building? I don't know the history of the site. There was a fire during/after the place was turned into lofts? Just wondering.

It is my understanding that all the units had sold (at least all the ones I could afford as there was nothing available by the time I started seriously looking). The fire was well after it was fully inhabited; just within the last year I believe. I am hoping that they were able to recover and that none of those beautiful windows got lost.