A Compromise for 110 Park?

On a Tuesday morning about three weeks ago, Doug Harnsberger, a member of the Swarthmore Planning Commission and a licensed practicing architect with expertise in projects involving the restoration, rehabilitation, and expansion of historic buildings, sat down at the Inn at Swarthmore with the developers of 110 Park Avenue to discuss their proposed mixed-use condominium project. Just weeks earlier, he had voted in favor of denying the developers’ conditional-use application for permission to pave the way for the project by demolishing buildings that have been deemed historic.

Mr. Harnsberger took out a sheet of tracing paper and started sketching.

“I wanted to see if we could find an ‘and’ solution,” he told The Swarthmorean. His motive, he said, was to find some common ground, after many months of debate, that might lead to a path forward for the project—one that would uphold the cherished qualities of Swarthmore’s town center that people take pride in. After some sketching and discussion, they walked over to the proposed building site to have another look in person.

Mr. Harnsberger noted that, in his view, opponents of the proposed mixed-use project have two major concerns: the protection of historic buildings, and the appropriate “fit” of the proposed building with its surroundings. He contended that, if the building were scaled back, offered some preservation of green space, and largely spared the Celia Building from demolition, such a compromise might be positively received by opponents. And, to his surprise and delight, developers Bill Cumby Jr. and Don Delson were also receptive to his idea. “I have to give them real credit for recognizing that this is important,” Mr. Harnsberger said. “This would go a long way in finding that ‘sweet spot’.”

The modifications now being discussed include changing the proposed building’s footprint to a “L” shape, with approximately 80 feet of frontage on Park Avenue. (This would allow for the preservation of the green space next to 104 Park Avenue—former home of Gallery on Park—a lot that many residents will recognize as the home of the holiday light display Swarthmore resident Dave Augustine used to curate.) Plans still call for a five story building with setbacks to minimize its imposition on the streetscape. Important elements of the Celia Building would be preserved, including its facade and its existing retail spaces, which might be combined into a single space. The apartment units that are currently above the retail space(s) would remain as well.

Although the developers had previously said it would not be feasible to include parts of the Celia Building in the plan, developer Bill Cumby III told The Swarthmorean, “Preserving pieces or elements of it wasn’t entirely feasible [under the previous plan], but with this L-shaped plan, it’s more possible.”

According to Mr. Cumby III, the new design would decrease the buildable area by 25 percent, and could mean that, compared to the previous design, the condo would have approximately six fewer units, and only one new retail space instead of two, and the parking garage entrance would be located at the eastern edge of the building, instead of in the middle.

In a recent email to the 110 Park marketing list, the developers wrote,

“This plan contains significant sacrifices, reducing the size of the building and number of units substantially; it also limits the new retail space to one ~1,200SF suite, but preserves the existing retail space in 102. That said, we believe it is an attractive, economically viable project which balances the concerns opponents of the project have voiced while still achieving the revitalization goals and creating wonderful new residential and retail space in the Town Center… as a result we are immediately beginning to more fully develop this new concept plan and will be sharing it with you in the very near future.”

The development team said they’ve also been in consultation with attorneys representing SOS (“Save our Swarthmore,” a group of citizens opposed to the project) and its leadership. “The tone of the meeting was very positive and we left feeling encouraged about the ability to move forward in an uncontentious way. We received confirmation that this [was] the case [on July 13] and our attorney and theirs will be working on the path forward.”

Despite renewed optimism for the project, Mr. Harnsberger notes that there’s still work to do.

“The planning code does not recognize this ‘and’ equation—one that factors the integration of higher density building and historic preservation,” he said. “Care should be taken to specifically identify our buildings we deem worthy of saving and clearly identifying sites that would support this type of development moving forward.”

New drawings depicting the revised plan for the project are expected in “the next couple of weeks” according to Mr. Cumby III, and the conditional-use hearing process is still “open”: the developers have agreed to an extension of the proceedings until the next scheduled Borough Council meeting on August 8.