[...] As Winter Begins, Autumn’s Final Days Seem to Be Upon Us | NakedPhilly Originally Posted by loveisnoise Unfortunately, I cannot agree with this. Technically, you may be correct. The truth, however, is that when any zoning process goes to the ZBA, the very first word out of their mouth is "did you get approval from the local neighborhood group?". If the answer is no, the case is delayed and the business or developer has to go and play a 6 month suck up game to whatever group is in that area-otherwise, they have next to no chance most of the time. Originally Posted by raider.adam I would say that "except" that some people were opposing the variances because of the mural and not necessarily because of the variances themselves. Even the ZBA postponed ruling on the variances to give the neighbors more time to try to work something out with the developer. This was a case opposed by the neighborhood group but supported by the ZBA. The neighborhood group opposed it because of overwhelming opposition from the neighbors. The ZBA granted the variance because the spaces already existed and they presumably felt it qualified as a hardship. The two week ZBA postponement wasn't requested by either side and the ZBA did it themselves. Sometimes I think your complaints are that you don't like zoning or you don't like our current code. Variances should only be granted when there's a real legal hardship. The fact that the ZBA approves so many variances is as much the reason the development process is by consensus as is pressure from neighborhood groups. The code should be more permissive and variances almost non-existent. I don't know to what extent the new code does that. But if you're going to have a system where you grant variances for reasons other than strict legal necessity so that zoning requirements don't constitute a taking then public input is going to be a huge part of the process. If variances are granted for other than strict legal reasons then you have to have some decision making process that decides which are granted because granting them all is getting rid of zoning. I think it's important to have an orderly and predictable system where there is some hope of the law being evenly applied rather than those who get to develop outside of the code are the ones who know how to throw in the right sweeteners to the right people. The "6 month suck up game" happens because developers would rather go through that than build within the code. It seems to me your options are 1) disallow variances 2) get rid of zoning or 3) have the ZBA not take neighborhood input which only means all sucking up happens at the ZBA level instead of the neighborhood level. Reply With Quote + Reply to Thread [...]

Exactly who are the people saying things like “the murals shouldn’t interfere with development”?  How many of them are even from the neighborhoods they’re talking about?

How is it that there’s some ridiculous sob story over a park that was never a park to begin with yet these murals, which are an actual fabric of the city and the neighborhoods they’re in, are treated as if they’re not important and are dispensable?

Look at how small that lot is.  This is such a ridiculous waste of a great mural.  The “park” at least had space for multiple homes.  This one has space for a mini home.

You all love “greening” so much so why not turn this tiny little lot into a park or a garden and save the mural?

Of course not.  Why would anyone ever do that…

The lot was a parking lot. Nobody seemed interested in putting up the money to buy it and green it for the years it was a parking lot. Did you make a serious offer to purchase the land in order to make it a park?

The murals are put in to help fight blight and urban decay. People fighting to keep them over development only harm the mission of the Mural Arts Project.

Because no one was interested in or had the money to buy the lot.  The only attempts to purchase it came from those who would have spent $50,000 * 9 to buy it and turn it into deeded parking spaces–not green it.

It was a great mural.  I’m at 9th and Washington and I liked living by it.  But it was put on private property and the owner sold it to a developer.  I’m not going to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars to make a park across from another park in one of the most park-filled areas of the city.  No one was.  And that’s why it’s being covered.  Because no one is going to throw away the chance to make a house that will sell for $500,000+.  And I don’t think you or I would either.

I hope Mural Arts redoes the mural in the neighborhood.  But this time put it on a wall where the City owns the development rights so that it will not be covered.

R.I.P. Mural, you will be missed.

I hope the mural will be repainted on one of the blank walls of the rec center half a block away.

All the walls there are too small to do it full sized.  I’m sure the city wants to give us a new Rec. Center, though, so when they rebuild it into a beautiful new facility they’ll make a wall just for the mural.

Me?  Of course I didn’t.  If I had that kind of money, I would be doing a lot more than I am right now.  Who the hell are you to ask me whether I did something or not anyway?

And while that may be true, there are more than a few murals that are a major part of the city and its culture and history.  I don’t care if some unimportant mural gets covered but if one that actually tells an important story.. a story that people coming into the area are building over and covering up… then it is every bit as important as a tiny house that doesn’t even need to be built in the first place.  Also, you do realize that people do paint murals around the city that have nothing to do with that initiative I hope?

Given that it is not a mural that tells an important story..if it were a bigger lot, I might agree with you.  It isn’t though.  You can barely even fit a house there.

You can’t paint something the same way twice.  It’s not possible.  You can try.  You can even cheat and make stencils or find some way to follow the exact same pattern, but you can’t ever duplicate it.

Oh, and for the record.. I don’t like whenever a forced mural goes up as part of a development project or anything else, just like I don’t like to see overzealous “greening” of everything.  I just think this is unnecessary.  It’s such a tiny spot, and the mural is part of a series.

Those murals happen to bring in tourists by the way.

Bummer!  This is one of my favorite murals, as autumn is my favorite season.

I live 2 blocks up Bainbridge.  I’m sorry to see the mural go, sorrier that it was ever needed in the first place and THRILLED that it is no longer needed (because someone in developing it into something other than a grade-level parking lot). 

[...] month, we pointed out two murals that would soon be covered by new construction. Autumn, located at 9th and Bainbridge Sts., received an outpouring community support to try to save it. A far newer mural, created as part of [...]

[...] from Chapterhouse, construction on two homes is moving along nicely. The home on the corner was a source of controversy when it was initially proposed, as it was to cover the “Autumn” mural, by David Guinn. Now, as [...]

[...] imagine many of you recall the controversy that was set off last winter when a developer purchased the vacant lot on the corner…, and proposed a new home that would cover “Autumn,” a beloved mural. In the end, the [...]

[...] mostly find ourselves reporting on murals being covered up by new development, like “Autumn,” once located two blocks away from the mural pictured above, or the Noam Chomsky mural now covered on Fairmount Avenue. So it brings us special pleasure to [...]