Demolition at 5901-09 Ridge Avenue?

[Garrett]

I spoke to the ED of the Historical Commission (via email), Jonathan E. Farnham, and unfortunately because the permit was already issued, there is nothing they can do. Sorry.

Looks like the Councilman's office is the best bet.

[Debbie1125]

Excuse my French, but what a POS. The owners probably live in a giant victorian mansion in Main Line and are trying get money for the next Hawaiian vacation and a third Porsche. While we will have to suffer through poor urban planning and hideous commercial development that will sit empty for years. Disgusting. I'm writing a letter to the councilman right now! GRRR! The zoning and planning in Philadelphia is horrid!

Exactly!

We DO NOT need any more banks, nail salons, dollar stores, pizza restaurants, chain drug stores, hair salons, coffee shops, etc. on The Ridge. There's already a strip of retail where the Turner Funeral Home used to be.

I would hate to see Roxborough eventually look like the boring, bland suburbs. If I wanted that I would have moved there years ago.

[Juntonian]

"Right now, all four of the properties are empty of tenants, and the owners had claimed the corner property, until recently home to the Erb Law Firm, was structurally unsound. According to those who were at the Monday meeting, the owners may be backing off that assertion now, indicating that at least 5901 Ridge could be renovated enough to be attractive to tenants." (excerpted from the article at NewsWorks.org)

If demolition permits can be sought due to claims on the part of property owners that a building is structurally unsound and that its restoration would represent an excessive financial burden, I should think that the Department of Licenses and Inspections ought to at least solicit a registered professional engineer's assessment verifying the owners' assertion. Why does it appear to be the standing policy of L&I to take the word of property owners (who may or may not have any technical expertise of their own or may not have ever had the building's integrity evaluated) at face value and issue permits for demolition pro forma?

[billy ross]

"Right now, all four of the properties are empty of tenants, and the owners had claimed the corner property, until recently home to the Erb Law Firm, was structurally unsound. According to those who were at the Monday meeting, the owners may be backing off that assertion now, indicating that at least 5901 Ridge could be renovated enough to be attractive to tenants." (excerpted from the article at NewsWorks.org)

If demolition permits can be sought due to claims on the part of property owners that a building is structurally unsound and that its restoration would represent an excessive financial burden, I should think that the Department of Licenses and Inspections ought to at least solicit a registered professional engineer's assessment verifying the owners' assertion. Why does it appear to be the standing policy of L&I to take the word of property owners (who may or may not have any technical expertise of their own or may not have ever had the building's integrity evaluated) at face value and issue permits for demolition pro forma?

Due to property rights, most people, including you, have the right to demolish properties they own no questions asked. However, when demolishing that property negatively impacts society, society's needs generally trump. This is generally done through historic districts or having properties historically certified. I don't think that these properties had that protection. Clearly they need it, though. My line in the sand is that I want the mansion on the corner to stay. I'd like the other ones to stay too, since they provide context, but they aren't as important as the corner property.

[Juntonian]

Due to property rights, most people, including you, have the right to demolish properties they own no questions asked. However, when demolishing that property negatively impacts society, society's needs generally trump. This is generally done through historic districts or having properties historically certified. I don't think that these properties had that protection. Clearly they need it, though. My line in the sand is that I want the mansion on the corner to stay. I'd like the other ones to stay too, since they provide context, but they aren't as important as the corner property.

All of this is well taken and understood. Property owners ought to have considerable discretion as to how they manage their land and improvements. The seeming fact, however, that the Giovannones claimed something which does not appear to be true as justification for demolition is unacceptable. I have little experience applying for construction permits at L&I. A cursory review of the Demolition Permit Requirements at the City's Business Services page indicates that a property owner can demolish a structure so long as the utilities are confirmed to be shut-off, an Asbestos Inspection Report has been provided, and the contractor performing the work is licensed. I wonder if additional review would be given to a request for a permit to demolish one or more houses in a row development, whose individual properties are joined and structurally interdependent? I can't believe that the only condition beyond those listed above that would impel L&I to perform secondary review based on context is historical certification or placement on the National Register. You're correct, these properties do not have that distinction. Could you or someone else provide more information concerning the permitting process for those of us who have not transacted with L&I previously?

[D-man]

Due to property rights, most people, including you, have the right to demolish properties they own no questions asked. However, when demolishing that property negatively impacts society, society's needs generally trump. This is generally done through historic districts or having properties historically certified. I don't think that these properties had that protection. Clearly they need it, though.

This is a huge problem, IMO. There is not a whole lot of difference between the Bunting House and many of the homes in Powelton Village. However, the homes in Powelton Village are protected. The flaw in the L&I process is that anybody (not in a historic district) can legally obtain a demolition permit without notifying the neighbors. (and putting an orange sticker on the door 1 week before the demolition is not fair notification.)

[Debbie1125]

This is a huge problem, IMO. There is not a whole lot of difference between the Bunting House and many of the homes in Powelton Village. However, the homes in Powelton Village are protected. The flaw in the L&I process is that anybody (not in a historic district) can legally obtain a demolition permit without notifying the neighbors. (and putting an orange sticker on the door 1 week before the demolition is not fair notification.)

And just think if it hadn't been for this thread we would have all been in the dark about what was going on. The RDC wouldn't have known either as they were lied to by the developer.

Even if a stay of demolition is given, I am still angry at the lying and deceit. It's disgusting.

[Lyceum]

I rather think that the Bunting house could be a beautiful anchor to whatever eventually goes up (town homes, shops, etc...) in the lots next to and behind it.
This house could be used as a leasing office, shop, restaurant, etc.. It would allow residents to continue to enjoy the history, while accepting something new to the adjacent area. I think Kevin Smith says it well in the Newswork article:

"My thought is that whatever is built is going to look better with that house there," Smith said. "If you have to give something to get something, I'll take the corner [property]." (NewsWorks Exclusive: Delay possible in plan to demolish historic Roxborough house).

[Common Sense]

I have been reading all these posts regarding the demolition of the Bunting House. I don’t know the condition of the inside of the house but I imagine that with the age of the building, it probably is not in very good condition. Yes it would be great to keep all these old nicely designed, attractive buildings in our neighborhoods. But I don’t hear anyone who has posted say they are willing to purchase these buildings and pay for the renovations, the upkeep, mortgage and all the other expenses that go with owning the building. It seems to me that everyone wants someone else to pay for keeping our neighborhoods stocked with pretty older buildings. Maybe you all can ask the Councilman Jones to have the city purchase the property and then pay for all the maintenance so you all can drive by it and say that is tax dollars being put to good use.

I ask Taxgirl, I am assuming you are either a Tax Accountant or Lawyer, would you tell your client to buy this foreclosed building and then try to bring it to code and incur all those expenses and probably not get the rent to cover the costs?

And to RoxyGirl2012, you say you wanted to buy the house that also is owned by the Giavannones, why didn’t you? You then could be in control of the property.

I guess everyone would have been happy if no one bought the building from the bank and then watched it fall apart and not look so pretty. It’s easy to come on here, to demonstrate in front of the building, but no one wants to step up and pay to do what they want someone else do.

Typical……

[carloss]

It's easy for long-time residents and PS members to come on here and protest the demolition, but to sign on to PS and make wild speculations while more or less condoning the developers in your very first post? Takes a lot of guts.

I have been reading all these posts regarding the demolition of the Bunting House. I don’t know the condition of the inside of the house but I imagine that with the age of the building, it probably is not in very good condition. Yes it would be great to keep all these old nicely designed, attractive buildings in our neighborhoods. But I don’t hear anyone who has posted say they are willing to purchase these buildings and pay for the renovations, the upkeep, mortgage and all the other expenses that go with owning the building. It seems to me that everyone wants someone else to pay for keeping our neighborhoods stocked with pretty older buildings. Maybe you all can ask the Councilman Jones to have the city purchase the property and then pay for all the maintenance so you all can drive by it and say that is tax dollars being put to good use.

I ask Taxgirl, I am assuming you are either a Tax Accountant or Lawyer, would you tell your client to buy this foreclosed building and then try to bring it to code and incur all those expenses and probably not get the rent to cover the costs?

And to RoxyGirl2012, you say you wanted to buy the house that also is owned by the Giavannones, why didn’t you? You then could be in control of the property.

I guess everyone would have been happy if no one bought the building from the bank and then watched it fall apart and not look so pretty. It’s easy to come on here, to demonstrate in front of the building, but no one wants to step up and pay to do what they want someone else do.

Typical……

[friendlynerd]

It's easy for long-time residents and PS members to come on here and protest the demolition, but to sign on to PS and make wild speculations while more or less condoning the developers in your very first post? Takes a lot of guts.

Nothing says impartial community member like a shill post first time out, eh?

[Philygirl509]

I heard that the developer wants to develop the entire site for a new Apple store. While I think the old building is beautiful I would assume that being built in the 1800's it is not ADA accessible, for sure nothing about the building is green as far as insulation or building products. I would guess there are no provision for stormwater management. Presently with all the buildings being empty no one is being employed. A new development could bring much needed jobs to our neighborhood. I am assuming that people like me who don't have a job would be in support of a new Apple store or a restaurant being developed on the site as opposed to a bunch of functionally obsolete and vacant buildings.

[Racerx]

I agree with common sense all of you want to spend the current owners money. Have any of you invested your money in this neighborhood or any neighborhood for that issue. Perhaps before you spend the Giovannone's money you should investigate the other projects they have developed from condos in a depressed area, renovation of some pretty bad apartments on Ridge,store front and internal improvements to other businesses on Ridge, to purchasing and renovating buildings used by SEPT so they can improve the rail system. They do quality projects that add value to the area. They have clearly put their money into the communty and made it better. I believe that if they say this building is beyond renovation they have done their homework as they have a history of making renovations when humanly and financially possible. Instead of hanging on to the past in the form of an derrilict building embrace the future!!

[annie]

[friendlynerd]

LOL any mods have access to the IPs on the shill posts? Do they match?

[mixiboi]

Mmm...Ok. What is derelict about this building again?



The rest of the buildings can go, but this building deserves more then just a toss away. Especially how it fits with the church on the other side..


Apple store..lol. Right.....

[Politburo]

Anyone who thinks an Apple store is going to setup in Roxborough needs their head examined. Go away, shills.

[burnembrndn]

This is possibly the best string of 3 fake posts I've ever seen. Apple stores! Helping the unemployed! THE GIAVONNES WILL SAVE ROXBOROUGH, JUST LET THEM TEAR IT DOWN FIRST!

Gosh, if you're gonna make fake posts at least trying spamming the other boards first to get your post counts up. Seriously though, if you come on for your first post and talk about the history of the developer there is no way you can say you're impartial...

[Debbie1125]

LOL any mods have access to the IPs on the shill posts? Do they match?

Probably friends or relatives of the developer.

[friendlynerd]

Mmm...Ok. What is derelict about this building again?

Seriously. I wish the Mansard roof on MY house was in that kind of "derelict" condition, it would save me a lot of money.