New Condo Building – We Can Do Better

Erum Hartung speaking at the October 20 Planning Commission Meeting

I am one of the 26 community members who offered my opinion at the October 20 Planning Commission meeting about the proposed 5-story condominium project on Park Avenue. I appreciate the developers taking the time to respond to the community’s concerns in last week’s issue of The Swarthmorean. However, I believe they still misunderstand the deeper issue: their current vision for this building is fundamentally at odds with the character of Swarthmore.

As I said at the meeting, we moved to Swarthmore 10 years ago after falling in love with its unique charm as a quaint and historic place with a small-town feel. Over the years, we have seen the town become revitalized with projects such as Central Park, the Inn at Swarthmore, and many new restaurants and small businesses, including Gallery on Park and H.O.M. I fully support ongoing efforts to keep our community vibrant. I applaud my friends and neighbors whose leadership of Swarthmore Town Center and the 2030 Task Force has helped create a vision for sustaining Swarthmore’s vitality. However, in this process, I think it is important that we don’t lose sight of what makes Swarthmore unique.

Celia Building

I believe that the proposed demolition of the historic early-1900s-era Celia building at 102 Park Avenue is a huge step in the wrong direction. This building, which is listed in the Borough’s Historic Resources Survey, is a perfect example of the architectural charm and historic significance that we should be trying to preserve. In contrast, the proposed new building is of a scale and style that is not sympathetic with the feel of Swarthmore, and risks transforming the appearance of Swarthmore into that of just another generic suburban town. 

The developers have claimed that preserving the Celia building is “not feasible, due to structural, accessibility, and stormwater management complications.” However, they have failed to address the fact that their proposal violates Section 1256.06 of Swarthmore’s zoning code, which states that buildings of historic value can only be demolished if “the building is structurally unsound” or if the demolition “will not have a substantial negative effect on the character of the Town Center.” What is the purpose of our zoning code if not to prevent this type of development? Would we accept a similar proposal if it would demolish the historic Tudor architecture along Park Avenue that defines Swarthmore’s streetscape?

The developers claim that their proposal complies with zoning regulations, but this is based on a very narrow reading of numerical limits on building heights and setbacks. They fail to address the deeper intent of the zoning code as outlined in Section 1256.01, which is to “maintain Swarthmore’s unique identity … encourage the retention of the Town Center streetscape by preserving the existing buildings of historic significance to the greatest extent possible … [and] promote the reuse of existing structures, and the construction of new structures in a manner that maintains the visual character and architectural scale of the Town Center.” Specifically, Section 1256.04 states that “all new building facades shall be built to the scale of other buildings on the street” and “the architectural design of buildings should complement the scale and proportion of surrounding buildings.” The proposed 5-story building clearly does not meet these standards and would dwarf surrounding buildings and change the character of our Town Center streetscape.

So, while I am fully supportive of progress and revitalization, the current proposal is not in keeping with Swarthmore’s character. I know the developers are strongly committed to our community, which is why I challenge them to think bigger by building smaller: 1) Leave the Celia building intact. Perform any interior renovations needed to modernize the building but drop the idea that this building could house the luxury condos you envision. Allow the current residents and the beloved retailers Gallery on Park and H.O.M. to stay put; 2) Re-imagine the condo project into something that is more human-sized and Swarthmore-sized—a 3-story building that uses only the footprint of the vacant lot, and perhaps 110-112 Park Avenue, and contains several moderately-priced one- and two-bedroom condo units. These units could supply the “premium living opportunities” that down-sizing seniors need, but unlike those in the current proposal would not be priced higher than the median value of single-family homes in Swarthmore. 

We can do better. Let’s work together as a community to re-envision this project into something that will truly maintain Swarthmore’s unique identity.