| | |||||
| Get info on ... | Local Government | Local History | WC Jim | West Chester Railroad | Links |
| Index to articles | Research service | Boro meetings | Contact WCJIM | ||
|
[Posted August 16, 2006] | ||||||||||||||
|
Borough Council has released its report on the results of
questionnaires distributed at the July 13 public meeting held at the
Chester County Historical Society. The questionnaires asked
members of the audience to give their opinions on the four plans presented that evening.
Two hundred and thirty people attended at least part of the
meeting, and seventy-five questionnaires were collected at the
end of the meeting. The 44-page report tabulates their content
and includes everyone's verbatim comments on each of the
proposals.
Of the four plans presented that evening, the plan by Teres Associates was the "clear favorite," with Stan Zukin's plan a distant second and the last two plans -- by Astra and RedGo -- got very little support. Specifically, 52% of the responders liked Teres' proposal best, 17% liked Zukin's the best, 7% liked RedGo's and 5% liked Astra's. More people liked Zukin's proposal least (37%) than RedGo (32%) or Astra (8%), while no one liked Teres' proposal least. The surveys also asked people to rate several characteristics of the proposals. In most cases, Teres was a clear winner. Over 65% of the responders thought that the height of the Teres' project was appropriate (nearly 55% "agreed strongly"), compared to only 24% for Zukin's. Teres' also got higher marks than Zukin's for "appropriateness of footprint size," 59% to 35%, "preserves town's sense of community (63% to 40%), "positive impact on the community" (63% to 47%), "best way for West Chester to grow (60% to 35%), and "fits with my vision of the town's future" (56% to 31%). Teres was the only proposal that got a majority of people to agree that it was "needed in the Town Center" (60%, compared to 41% for Zukin).
 Source: Borough of West Chester, "Mosteller Garage Opinion Survey (prepared by Sigma-2 Associaties, July 2006), page 16. Adapted for the web by WCJIM. Zukin beat Teres' on "use of green technology" 58% to 40% and on "handling parking requirements" (60% to 53%), contribution to tax base (63% to 55%). Neither RedGo nor Astra won in any individual category, but Astra's offended far fewer people that either Zukin or RedGo. The report also provides details about the people who turned in surveys. Sixty-eight percent were homeowners, 9% were renters, 16% were landlords, and about a quarter owned some type of business in West Chester. More than a third (35%) lived in Ward 1 (northeast part of town), while about ten pecent lived in Wards 2, 3, 4 and 5 (east and south sides), and lesser numbers lived in Wards 6 and 7 (west and northwest). Forty percent lived in the Borough less than ten yeas, the rest lived more than ten years and the average (mean) was 17.7 years. The verbatim comments on each project are among the most interesting information in the report. Use these links to see comments on each proposal:
5. Too grandiose. Too much traffic. 6. Interesting concept. Proposed size is overwhelming. While as tall as Justice Center, it sits on crest of watershed division; so profile is significantly higher than Justice Center. Major concern: how profile will appear from the east, west and north. 7. Very large and overpowering no consideration for other buildings on south side of Gay or the Post Office property. 8. What you liked most or least: First two
floors design.
9. Liked references to historic architecture, but exterior reminded me of Disney Village. 10. Liked comprehensive design. Favorable tax impact. Local, trusted developer. 11. Too large and grandiose. Totally out of West Chester scale. Not people friendly. 12. Height of the building and architectural elements are a problem. 13. Building is too high. If we could lower it to [illegible] maybe 50 condos would be better ind. developer. 14. Much too high twelve stories would disrupt the visual attractiveness of the area. 15. How much is West Chester getting for the parking garage? What happens to the income from parking? Ugly bulky. Like the concierge. 16. Liked focus on environmental components. Real food market we need one downtown! Public transit options too much dependence on cars now. Scale might be slightly too much concerned about traffic. 17. What you liked most or least: Environmental
stewardship and food market.
18. A pharmacy on the corner is not a good idea. We already have Eckerd with its ugly windows. Prefer other independent retail at that location [the corner]. I am most interested in the addition of a market to our Borough. We desperately need a local supermarket. I am most concerned with ugly design (a la Justice Center), and the social inequity this use may bring with condo residents. 19. Food market hope some is organic! Environmental friendliness love integration of local Spence Caf‚ lots of parking! Having Rite-Aid to contend with and get rid of is to this project s benefit. What will be at base of parking garages some retail/restaurants hopefully?! 20. Looms too large over the Gay Street center of the Borough. 21. Too big too much traffic. Not enough parking. 22. Daring, real mixed use though he ll have to watch the hotel nameplate strong local team lots at stake. Probably best bang for taxes and economic benefit. 23. Seems too large. 24. Concerned that there should be [an] all organic market to give the community a healthy choice with no pesticides. 25 Height and mass are out of all proportion to the surrounding area as a nearby resident (Walnut and Washington), this project would have a very negative impact on me. 26. Kinda Big. 27. We can have condo and market usage without hotel. The statement that we have to provide a concierge if we have condos is illogical. 28. Like scope of planning Chestnut to Gay. Worried about scale and traffic; liked condos in mix. 29. Said all the right things (green, organic, no fossil fuels). I m not convinced we need a Hilton (branded) hotel. Hugely ambitious with 100 condo, 100 hotel. 30. I like that the Rite Aid would be knocked down and the front of Spence s kept. It is too tall, and what happens if he can t sell all the condos? How is he getting the Y property for parking? 31. I like this one least most intrusive. "West Chesterland" (phony). Most intrusive scale is way out of proportion overkill on proposed services phony. "West Chesterland" look. Not sure parking is adequately addressed. 32. Pluses: does not use Y property. Leaving the Y building intact for use as a health/recreational facility. Minus: does not fit town. 33. Good Luck Stan and Borough Council. 34. Use and concern for ecology. Reduction and/or stability of residential taxes. Will provide ample parking spaces. 35. Very interesting but may be too big a project. Like the idea of condos. 36. Concerned that it tried to do a little bit of everything. Focus? 37. Project seems too large for the site. 38. Liked condos, dislike size in context of Borough. Sounds like traffic nightmare. 39. I don t like this project. It s a big-city project trying to justify its small town location by insisting the small town will die without it. What do they mean by front portion of Spence s? Do they mean the core of the building or just the front room and facade? 40. I liked Zukin s project best because he does not have additional unnecessary retail space on the ground level of his building. The space, while the largest of all the options, is space best utilized. Several of the other options propose loads of new retail space that will undoubtedly remain vacant. What we need in town is NOT more retail space, but more PEOPLE to shop in the retail stores/space that we already have available. His proposal allows more parking spaces for the Borough than any other proposal. His proposal addressed Green building issues more than any other. Zukin himself is passionate about this project and no other developer knows more about West Chester than he. While I understand some individuals in the area may be opposed, whether for personal or professional reasons, to Zukin being involved in a project with the Borough, the fact is, the Borough should always try to do business with local residents and business owners first, rather than turning to out-of-state firms. Having said this, Zukin is not the most experienced developer on the ticket. But, that piece can and should be managed by the Borough easily. While the project is large, the design by the architect has presented a creative and historically sensitive solution as well as scale appropriate. 41. The project s greeness BIG PLUS. I like the setbacks. Parking accommodations during construction BIG MINUS. [From an attached letter] I really believe the Zukin proposal
meets West Chester s needs by
I have not always supported Stan Zukin s ideas, but I left the meeting with the feeling that he has a passion for West Chester that is lacking in the other proposals which are just business deals by outsiders. Stan has done his homework, he understands West Chester and its residents better than the other companies. The scope of his proposal is enormous, but it is very well thought out he has answered most all of the issues. 43.
45. Important green ideas. Much too tall and concerned about footprint as well as good ideas that appease our objections but never materialize; e.g., concierge, shuttle, green. Good to be rid of Rite Aid which Zukin says is one of our ugliest buildings; then why hasn t he done something to fix that in all the decades he s owned it? 47. Positive: environmental technology. Negative: regardless of any advantages, the height and size of this building are wholly inappropriate to central West Chester. 49. Project is too large; it is not appropriate to downtown West Chester; it will negatively impact the Borough s character. 50. Like comprehensive plan with food market, a drug store, plus over 55 housing for tax base, plus setback of building. Dislike overlay of heights. 51. Huge, will all he said be followed through on? 52. Too large, too high, inexperienced developer. 53. Concept seems too big and ambitious. Seems more centered on the egos of the developers than on community preferences. 54. Stan Zukin knows nothing about quality. He s only good at badgering for rents. His proposal is enormous! He confuses historic with old and worn out. A great description of what he does in business. 55. Zukin is famous for promises he doesn t keep. He s raped and sucked out of our Borough members all he can. Don t permit him to do it again. He s trying to dominate the skyline with too much on too small a space. He s driven by $$$ only. 56. Zukin s proposal is too big. He s never taken care of what he already owns. Why doesn t he fix those properties instead of making empty promises? 58. Fluff / B.S. / Too Big! Zukin is a slum lord with no quality track record. It will be the Borough of Zukin. 59. This was certainly the most elaborate presentation. However, I don t consider it to be visionary. The size/scale are way out of line and I seriously dispute the need for anything approaching 100 condos in West Chester. The only good thing about this plan is that the unkempt Rite-Aid would be torn down. 60. Environmental, hotel condo dual component, historic, parking with environmental cars, food market. 61. Mixed use is most appropriate; Borough will benefit most by this project. 62. Most parking, accessible for old people, great place to live, great services with hotel and condos, will bring the most to West Chester. 63. Zukin huge project! Am concerned with long-term construction fronting on Gay Street and detrimental effects on retail in the immediate area. The retailers complain that a one- day bike race has a negative effect on business long-term construction on Gay Street would be devastating for some. Also, project does not allow for a new parking garage before old one comes down. Has anyone considered the banks, law firms and retailers whose staff and customers will be without parking for one to two years? Parking will be displaced into the northeast neighborhoods which are already full. End result would be beautiful! Great use of entire property. 65. Scale is way out of proportion to the surrounding buildings and streetscape. My reaction is this project tries to incorporate too many uses into one building. I would like this ambitious concept better if the uses were separated into distinct and smaller structures. Spence Caf‚ and food store on Gay, hotel and condos on Walnut and Chestnut. With a proposed project of this enormous size, Zukin may be able to offer the most $ to Borough, but there are important design and community considerations to consider in addition to price. Also, need to keep alleys open, not closed off. 66. Too expansive not sure it would ever be done. 67. I like the grading with lower building at street level with higher structure set back and green roof. 68. Developer not qualified, has done hundreds of thousands of dollars of work without permits, cost taxpayers millions of dollars, brought five liquor licenses to town, dishonest. Scale of project way excessive, closing Gay Street, third-party property flip. Who will run hotel, student housing? Too tall. 69. No hotel of any but the small, bed and breakfast. Three- storied space is desirable in the town center. The impact on commercial rentals in the center would be negative to community values. Of most concern, height. 70. Too big! Wrong person! No experience at any of what we need. 71. A developer s cash dream; the only thing missing is King Kong growling from the top traffic will be a nightmare. 72. Too massive both in physical plant and in what the developer is trying to accomplish; lack of focus, project looks like it may be doomed from the beginning; better to scale back to either condos or hotel or supermarket to ensure success. 73. Zukin is insultingly overreaching by trying to cram more than twice what he should into his project. I know of no project in West Chester wherein he has partnered with others. He does his own thing with his property. We should not let him use ours. Let him sell if he wants to help West Chester. 74. What you liked most or least: Too
massive McMonster/too tall.
75. Too big. Looks like it belongs in Vegas.
2. Lose YMCA facility. 3. Please do not pursue this project. 5. Destroys then rebuilds two existing and [illegible] facilities. 6. Elevation of new garage is inappropriate for residences abutting Evans Alley. Use emphasizes luxury units in a very diverse community counter to community as it exists. Loss of easily accessible YMCA/YWCA is counter to landscapes. Should locate more commercial in the town center zone 80 percent residential. A skywalk for rich folk does not work for me. 7. Nice scale and appears to satisfy problem area (current) buildings garage and YMCA. 8. What you liked most or least: Liked whole
thing least.
9. Like subterranean parking. 10. Disliked destruction of YMCA loss of vital community service. Facilitates YMCA s abandonment of West Chester. 11. Probably workable to West chester context but iffy. RedGo appears to be company which would listen to Borough. 12. Architectural elements need to be refined and improved. 13. All condos nice design and flow. Local developer. 14. Nice idea incorporate the YMCA. Problem is I like the Y where it is now. Just another rental property in town. 15. Moves parking away from downtown. No hotel or Y-style facilities. 16. Building set too close to street. Don t like: no food market, no hotel, no mention of green strategies. Liked smaller scale for traffic concerns. 17. I think simply adding more condos will not serve the community to the fullest extent. The skywalk stood out but is a horrible idea. West Chester does not need more restaurants! 18. I do not want an exact replica of the building that currently exists behind the Post Office (121 [Walnut Street]). I like the mixed use approach to both buildings. I m not too impressed by the design. 19. Like skywalk like rounded glass corner window. Like shops at street level of parking garage. Like retail spaces throughout various corners. 21. Right idea leaves good public parking. 22. Not sure how their numbers work. Prefer mixed use. 23. We need a hotel. 25. No imagination no hotel this is the YMCA s they paved paradise and put up a parking lot solution this project should be dismissed out of hand. 26. Still too big. 28. Needs more imagination. Presentation weak. 29. Were they absent when the assignment was given? No hotel? 30. We need a downtown hotel. 31. I like the idea of just condos and handling the YMCA property (because I m not totally sure a hotel would be viable). This one seems okay in scale, but still a little too high. 32. Unimaginative. Wipes out Y facility. 34. Hotel design is so modern looking, not architecturally historic looking. Does not blend in with community look. 35. Reject because should have a hotel. Also design uninteresting. 38. Fit well; better use; solves parking problem by use of phasing out garage first, then building. 39. We don t need any more high-end residential units. We need low-to-moderate income units. Just because you use brick doesn t mean your building is compatible or appropriate to West Chester s historic character. 40. This proposal adds nothing to the Borough. I disagree with all the new retail space proposed while only adding fifty condos. As stated above [ID 40, Project A], we need more people in town, not more retail space. No creativity or passion shown for the project by the team members. 41. Big plus parking accommodated during construction. Not enough tax advantage for Borough. [From an attached letter] If the garage is located on the YMCA site, the Zukin building would not have to be as tall and thus would not impact the skyline to such a large degree. Connecting the garage to the hotel/condo via a bridge over Chestnut Street would work well as proposed by RedGo. 43. Did not like how it would destroy the YMCA building which is in good shape. It would be a waste! 45. No hotel; destroys YMCA; skywalk not in keeping with historic aesthetics of town. 47. Positive: the size and height are appropriate to the town
center; it makes use of the YMCA.
48. Misstatement of height of building at 90-95 feet as half of Zukin properties proposal. 49. Project assumes Y is available; does not include hotel. 50. No hotel in plans one is needed best [illegible]. Don t like separate building with skywalk. Lacks imagination. 51. I am against anything that helps the Y make them sell to YWCA suspicious deal. 52. Too high. Bland. 53. Concept wasn t developed enough for me to comment upon. 54. Does not help the Borough. 55. Not right for us. 56. Not needed; we need a boutique hotel. 58. No good/not appropriate or needed. 59. It is difficult to assess this project not a lot of information was given. I m not in favor of the height nor just condos. I think a small hotel is first priority. 60. Don t destroy Y without some good use. 62. Why destroy Y? No gain. 63. RedGo liked using both garage and Y property. Gives the opportunity to build a garage prior to demolishing the old garage. Would like to see a hotel and condo combination and conference/meeting facilities. 65. I was not able to sit through Projects B and C and so will not comment. 66. Poor plan for Y and skyway not needed. 67. This has no hotel which is important for the Borough to have. Although I really like the skywalk concept. 68. Helps YMCA move from town, no hotel included. 69. The most appropriate the only appropriate design. Other appropriate designs in scale and use ought to be submitted perhaps by Milner. Positive, liked most: height. Use of YMCA property is positive. But consider the privately-owned community center on Market Street for use by the YWCA. Both community center and YW would improve. 70. Wrong place! 71. Another project that makes residents pay for traffic, crime, and more and dwarfs our eighteenth and nineteenth century buildings full of human scale and charm. 72. Too LARGE. Why does it say YMCA all over it? (Misleading) Did not seem to blend well with the downtown. Will the bridge be high enough off the ground? 73. We shouldn t help the YMCA maximize its profit on its land so that it can turn its back on the town. [Borough] Council has voted to support services on the YM site similar to those which are there now. This plan is totally inconsistant with Council s resolution. 74. What you liked most or least: Also [like
Project A] too massive plus spread across two blocks.
75. Takes care of two birds with one stone revamping Y site and building a new garage for public use.
5. Okay. 6. Almost as tall as Zukin, but not as many uses available retail is limited compared to Bicentennial Garage. Would prefer more retail. I am not sure about a narrow tower, but better than what we have now. 8. What you liked most or least: Use of
subterranean parking.
9. Nice clean design. Like the hotel location with plaza on top of garage. 10. Concern about quality of this project sets the bar too low. 11. Too much emphasis on premiere branding, which suggests to me that ultimately they would not compromise on Borough requirements. 12. Like it. 13. Best developer. Wonderful presentation. A developer whom I believe should be doing a project [like] this. Maybe a different design. 14. Brand name hotel. 15. There doesn t seem to be enough parking for the conference center. 16. I like that developer would build and run facility. I like proposed green features (although presentation was vague). Don t like sheer walls rising up from street can t they step back? 17. Experienced in hotel management and construction. Overly corporate with no real connection to community. 18. I m not sure how I feel about having a name brand large corporate hotel in our Borough. Elevated terrace along Chestnut Street is nice touch, but I d prefer retail use on first floor. I like the roof plaza too bad it s just for hotel residents! 19. Like open street space. Like swimming pool. Like open possibilities of conference center. Very thorough and impressive presentation. Like how both [C and D] revitalize or make more lively Chestnut Street. 20. Eighty to ninety feet should be the maximum height of these buildings to avoid overwhelming the existing town center. Having the buildings centered on Chestnut Street is much better than looming over Gay Street. 21. Okay. Not sold on need for hotel within Borough but better plan than Project A [Zukin]. 22. Ho hum. 23. Do not like the idea of no building setback on Chestnut Street side a tall flat-surface building even with the greenery may feel [like a] skyscraper. 25. Mediocre concept and would miss a great opportunity to do something special in the center of town at 107 feet, this structure would be too high! 26. Builder has credible history of work. I like the scale and parking. This would be my choice. A nice hotel. 28. Design is not creative. Did not like it at all. Building arch is scary. 29. No hotel coffee shop or restaurant? I liked the dark sky emphasis. And the hotel pool and greenery. Sorry, I think all their buildings are nice, but they all look the same. 30. Nice ideas but looks like all the other buildings they did in town. 31. Seems like these guys would do a cookie-cutter building. Also seems too tall. Not entirely sensitive to West Chester character. 32. Good design. Thoughtful. 35. Uninspired architecture just like the Justice Center parking garage. 36. Reputation and past accomplishments of developers. You can tell they did their research. 37. Good design project fits site but should use YMCA site for new parking. 38. Ridiculous building. Hotel on top of garage looks weird and out of context. 39. I like this project better, BUT the architect needs to be told that block-long buildings are NOT appropriate to West Chester s historic character or fabric, the Justice Center notwithstanding. 40. All building designs by Bernardon, Haber, Holloway look alike. Please do not allow another building, this hotel, to end up looking exactly like the parking structure, and the Justice Center, Darlington Commons, and the other office buildings in town by this architect. The architect took the easy way out by proposing another design just like the others. There is NO charm to this solution. I do appreciate that this developer is the only one who stated they had done a feasibility study specifically on a hotel for West Chester. Their strength is the developer, but the weakness of the architectural design far outweighs the strengths of the developer. I do not see the benefit of having all the restaurants available to do catering in the hotel. It seems it would make sense to have one in-house restaurant and catering firm. I think this was another easy way out to try to appease various restaurant owners. But, while trying to please the restaurant owners, they did nothing to address retailers specifically. 41. Was not impressed by the presentation. [From an attached letter] I was not impressed with the Astra proposal. 45. Unimaginative, cookie-cutter buildings; of their conversions, like the before better than the after. 47. Positive: meets basic needs for residential and parking space. Negative: though less inappropriate than A [Zukin], it is still too high; the design is indifferent (and too massive). 49. Massing and scale is of concern; project-team experience is lacking. 50. Project was 50/50 in design nothing to grab your attention. No restaurant in hotel they should have one. 51. Ugliest proposal. 52. Too high, inexperienced hotel operator. Bland. 53. Didn t seem sensitive to the character of the community.54 Cute but wrong place for what they re proposing. They are obviously not familiar with the Borough of West Chester. 55. No branded hotel such as Hilton or Marriott or Hampton Inn is appropriate for our Borough. 56. We need a properly designed hotel which fits into the community, not historic cookie cutter. 58. Too countryside highway type. 59. This project appealed to me at first. It was certainly better than A and B. However, while I feel the architect did a fine job in Kennett Square, the building at 121 N. Walnut is horrible, like a fortress, UGLY! 60. Not covering green. Didn t like three lower-level parking. 62. No hotel combination. 63. Astra liked the combination of hotel and residential. Liked conference and meeting space very important!! No provision for building a garage before demolition of old one. Would prefer that any and all projects utilize Y building to develop as garage before existing garage is torn down. 65. I was not able to sit through Projects B and C and so will not comment. 66. Poorest design. 67. Subterranean parking great idea! Green roof too! No retail space!? No restaurant. 68. Branded hotel, all in-house construction through hotel management, lots of meeting space, proven developer, includes other town restaurants in business, too tall, public-oriented fitness. 69. What component concerns you the most: inappropriate scale and design to enhance community values. 70. Wrong people/don t understand what the Borough needs. Their hotel concept is wrong! 71. Same as above two. [Project A above: A developer s cash dream; the only thing missing is King Kong growling from the top traffic will be a nightmare. Project B above: Another project that makes residents pay for traffic, crime, and more and dwarfs our eighteenth and nineteenth century buildings full of human scale and charm.] 72. Too LARGE. Not as inspiring as D and tries to squeeze too much out of the space. 73. Too high. Rather have Inns of Distinction than Fairfield. 74. What you liked most or least: Too
tall bulky.
75. Looked like any ordinary office building.
8. What you liked most or least: Use of
subterranean parking.
9. Like the look of scheme A & B. Scheme C was gimmicky. 10. Liked sensitivity to town and site most forward-looking project. 11. A, B, or C would be acceptable to me. (C is great.) Clearly Teres/PIATT are thinking of the project in the right way. 12. Loved the concept. 13. Architectural concepts were well thought out; and if chosen, their design will be a great addition to West Chester. Best design. 14. Good, professional, creative, responsible. I like the 75 high. 15. Great design. Can t you get Project A [Zukin] to use this design team? 16. I like: innovative concepts, possibility for some residential and hotel. Lower height better scale and additional opportunity to step back from street even more. Screen parking with residential. Don t like: no specific mention of food market. 17. I like the diversity and contrast in their design. Embracing today s architecture. Not convinced that they have experience running and operating hotels. 18. I appreciate their visual, height, shade, etc., analysis; well done! I like the fuzziness of their concepts room for input from public. Option B is clever and forward thinking! I really like their inclusion of more retail along Chestnut and [Walnut] Streets and separating hotel use from parking structure. 19. Very interesting lesson re: architecture and the con of imitative architecture love research put into it like openness with plans to still create and develop ideas according to reactions from others like retail on Chestnut and other streets! Like green area. Like how both [C and D] revitalize or make more lively Chestnut Street. Also really like design concepts! Think they should go with some setbacks. 20. Eighty to ninety feet should be the maximum height of these buildings to avoid overwhelming the existing town center. Having the buildings centered on Chestnut Street is much better than looming over Gay Street. 21. Well thought out. Best hotel plan if determined that we need one. Good exterior concepts that create a mixture of buildings. 22. Too architectie not enough local community. 25. After listening to these people, I trust them to design and build a project that would be a home run for the Borough; at 75 feet, the hotel does not offend. The parking designs are interesting and the stacked parking which allows for twenty-four condos was especially appealing. 26. Too vague and design doesn t fit small town. 28. Really liked their approach. Buildings need to excite and delight, and they showed this as one of their focuses. Like special hotel for our special town. 29. Spent all time talking about their resum‚ and too little about the actual West Chester project still it was the most exciting proposal architecturally. 30. Looks good if they use the stacking parking. Question: are the rooms of the hotel large enough? It seems like a small footprint for the actual hotel larger for the parking. 31. I like this one best. Most suitable in scale, rhythm, character. Especially the robotic parking version. Shows sensitivity to scale and character of West Chester. I like the robotic parking version that would allow wraparound and their commitment to doing something authentic looking, not cutesy. 32. Great design. The best. Simply the best. 35. Much faith in John Milner s design ability and dedication to preservation issues. 37. The proposed designs were very interesting and attractive. 38. I lost interest in the thirty minutes of set up. No idea what the real plan is. Assembly line parking? 39. Hands down this is the best of the lot, and I strongly urge Borough Council to FLY with it. I have some concerns about how the building(s) will look, but this group seems to be more than willing to work with all of us and Borough Council. 40. Teres Holdings and parties is a viable team to work on this project for the Borough. While there does not seem to be a strong connection with local parties, vendors, firms, or designers, they have the experience to pull off a respectable and viable solution. The architects are definitely sensitive to the historic nature of our town and made a clear case of their thought process and sensitivities during the presentation. The largest drawback is that there is no local connection or firms benefiting from the project. 41. Slick presentation interesting design concepts. Doesn t address parking during construction. [From an attached letter] The Teres Holdings and Robert Hoe Assoc. proposal is interesting in the design of the facility. Good contemporary design would fit in on Chestnut Street bringing a new character to the street. The robotic garage is interesting but I remember how hard it was to get West Chester residents to use the Mosteller Garage twenty years ago. 45. Just right. Trust team to preserve aesthetic, not overwhelm with height, incorporate existing community. Loved the example of a 135 building casting a 270 shadow on the shortest day. Robotic parking ingenious. Has everything and will make us proud. 47. Positive: properly adjusted to the scale of central West Chester; design is innovative and breaks up the mass into sections. Parking design B robotic makes best use of space. 49. Appropriate in scale and harmonious to the town center; creative solution; impressive project team and experience. 50. Like the idea of slightly different design with European feel and caf‚ has imagination to make the town visually interesting second best. 51. Best most sensitive to community. 52. Appropriate size, solves parking needs, experienced hotel operator with full service qualifications. Non-franchised. 53. Seemed most sensitive to fitting in with and preserving the character of the community, which is the most important factor to me. 54. We need a strong hotel operator in our town. We should not have a national company make decisions, which need to be done locally. The Teres group is clearly the right company with the right people. 55. Clearly the best of the choices. Their group appears to have the experience, skill to manage and is open minded to accept our comments. Their hotel management company is also local. 56. John Milner/Mary DeNadai and the Teres group with their hotel guy have exactly what s needed. 58. Proper size/proper team proven performers. 59. This was by far the best, most thought out plan. I trust this group to do a good job. I feel that their background and knowledge of our community would lead them to consider our community over another agenda. 60. Didn t like automatic parking. 62. Small hotel name won t do enough for West Chester. Don t like underground 2-3 story parking too much exhaust not healthy. 63. Teres nothing different. Did not like automatic parking lot(?!) Would be better to use Y building for new garage. 65. Great to have boutique hotel and associated restaurant in center of town. Magnet for business-related functions and some tourism-related lodging. 66. Showed they truly looked at the architecture of West Chester. The different fronts take away the immenseness of the building. 67. I like the various facades. It fits in with existing structures and two levels below ground! I like the (number of) facilities incorporated in the design. Green roof a plus. 68. The height and design concept are clear winners. I believe in architectural legacy concept. 69. Liked most: the design and the placement on the footprint. Component most disturbing: the size as it impacts community values. 70. They clearly know what they are talking about. They re local, and they are proven in the areas we need expertise. They seem flexible! 71. Seems like it would be a pleasant addition serving outsiders (e.g., tourists) with balance for residents (here paying taxes 365 days of year!). 72. Just right. I like the blending into our town. I like the robot parking idea (but what happens during power failure?). Project looks most successful of the four offered. 73. A perfect plan. Can t see what is wrong with it at this point. 74. What you liked most or least: Plan to blend
in with surrounding buildings and Borough.
75. Looked like a college dorm.
| ||||||||||||||
| Copyright 2006 by Jim Jones | ||||||||||||||
