We found a reference to a meeting that missed our radar in Ardmore in March. And we're most curious about it...

It was an Ardmore Progressive Civic Association Meeting. At this meeting on March 12, 2007:

Ardmore Progressive Civic Assoc. meeting with Commissioner Maryam Phillips as the meeting moderator....Starting the meeting was a land development presentation for the lot at 130 Cricket Avenue in Ardmore. The developer is proposing a (aprox. 30 unit) multi-unit condominium complex with ambitions to increase the number of units on to an adjacent back lot.

The show case item featured to us as Ward 4 residents was that this is an "affordable housing" development.....$ 500,000 plus condos.....special provision that the developer is using to gain approval ...... mandates that a percentage of the units be "affordable housing" units in exchange for the township to then waive the "min. on-site parking" required by township building codes .... from two cars to one ... per condo....When asked "whats the cost for your "affordable housing" units ..... the developer responded $ 300,000 plus per condo.

Commissioner Phillips told the developers that the Ward 4 residents "income relationship" to "affordable housing" equates to aprox. $180,000 for this area.

...of course it makes us wonder if it is true when we hear yet another property on Cricket is in play? And we have heard this additional rumor from reliable sources outside the Ardmore community.

Are we to rename Cricket Avenue "Condominium Parkway"?

We never hear much about Ardmore Progressive Civic Association and we sure wish they would join the SAC site and post updates.....we do not condone also in any way shape or form the website where we found this news, but felt we must promote this news as we have been informed the news is true, that this developer (we have no name) is seeking community input, but because of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's guidelines, there is nothing affordable about these condos even in a planning stage....but it is a decent sign that the developer chooses to interact with the community early...again this is not the only action we hear rumors of on Cricket....

And speaking of condos, we were reading once more Ardmore Initiative's recent newsletter (which is quite a good read, we might add), and it mentions this interesting thing in the "Letter from Board President":

...Despite all of the exciting and positive activity, and 3 years
after the Urban Land Institute's visit, Ardmore still hovers at the Tipping Point. Tim Mahoney’s Cricket Club Project is on hold, and action on Revitalization and the Transit Center project has been slow. A recent Civic Associations panel discussion focused on historic preservation & mentioned sustainable development. It is the hope and goal of The Ardmore Initiative that the idea of sustainable development be explored and embraced by ALL Ardmore stakeholdersbusinesses, building owners, residents, and our Board of Commissioners and township officials.

Now, what Charlie Ward states in the above referenced letter is a very reasonable. And we agree progress must continue. But we fail to see why Ardmore should put it's eggs all in one basket when it comes to condominiums. There just seem to be too many - the condos seem to be growing like mold. Every time we turn around we hear of another.

The real estate experts out there have said if condos around here haven't broken ground yet they might not get built. They also extend caution on whether or not what is built will sell. And we even found an article that we think is worth promoting with regard to that:

The Architect May Be A-List,
But the Condos Aren't Selling
By Troy McMullen
From The Wall Street Journal Online

It sounds like the ultimate home: A stylish urban condo with huge windows, sleek surfaces and the imprimatur of the star architect who designed it all.

Yet some high-end developers are discovering that it takes more than a name to move the merchandise.

Daniel Libeskind, famed for his plan to rebuild Ground Zero, designed an angular, 56-unit building in downtown Denver, yet the project hasn't recorded a sale in seven months, leaving 15 apartments unsold. Architect Robert A.M. Stern's name tops the marketing brochures for a high-rise in Stamford, Conn., but half of the 91 apartments remain available 18 months after sales began. And after two years of high-profile promotion, the newest Manhattan tower by Richard Meier, architect of Los Angeles's Getty Museum, has sold just 15 of its 31 units (not counting five bought by its developers).

Backers of these projects had hoped the cachet of a famous architect would inoculate them from a real-estate downturn. They have been charging a premium for their properties, and most aren't lowering prices. Yet these developers often ignored the first rule of real estate -- location -- and built in marginal neighborhoods far from other luxury homes and upscale stores. Some buyers, meantime, may simply have grown weary of all the name-dropping about these "starchitects."....The building in lower Manhattan would consist of 10 cube-like apartment units, each 45 feet high, cantilevered one atop each other around a central axis. Yet none of the units -- asking $29 million to $45 million each -- has even received a bid, let alone sold, says Mr. Sciame, and construction hasn't started. ....In Miami, a tower designed by Mr. Meier also hasn't broken ground.....In Denver, the Museum Residences saw an initial rush of sales after Mr. Libeskind's design hit the market in 2004. But there hasn't been a sale since September, says the developer. The apartments start at $500 a square foot, a record for the Colorado capital. But the project's location isn't as high-end: It's near the city's courthouses, and bail bonds are sold in converted Victorian homes nearby.

We also wonder about the fairy tales and condo sales, because in Ardmore although we desperately need a municipal garage, we don't want to wake up one morning and read this.

We also wonder about fairy tales and pre-construction condo sales because of what we found in reference to that big box Millionaire's WalMart that is planned for North Buck Lane in Haverford. We noticed that the vulture that brought that developer to this neighborhood is hawkingthe condos:

16-28 N Buck Lane...Haverford, PA 19041
....Haverford - The Main Line's Most Luxurious Boutique Condominium. Very Limited Opportunity To Own One Of 18 Spaciously Designed, Custom Residences At Pre-Construction Pricing. Elegant Full Service Building With Doorman/Concierge Service And 2 Secure Parking Spaces Per Home. Lavish Interior Appointments....Marseille Unit Features 2,016 Square Feet With An Open Floor Plan That Includes An Entrance Foyer, Elegant Great Room, Dining Room, Den, Sumptuous Master Bedroom Suite And Laundry Room. Estate Living Without The Maintenance. Estimated Spring 2008 Delivery. Tax Id, Taxes, Assessment & Condo Fees Tbd.

(SAC Note: "Marseille Unit"? Gag us with a gold plated toilet! Have these folks researched their French history? Will it also be "off with your head" at the Guillotine Suite and lounging about eating cake in The Marie Antoinette garden?). LOL, we LOVE the names of these ridiculous condos....we're still waiting for "Proletariat Square"...wouldn't that be a fabulous name for "work force" or "affordable" housing developments? Wow! We should get a job naming condo projects and developments! Can you see it now? "Ego Acres"? "The Bourgeoisie Building"? What fun!

In all seriousness, look at the alleged shady dealings in Haverford Township. The issue revolves around crooked commissioners, developers, and condos are even mentioned.....it is our humble opinion that even the best townships with good intentions could end up seriously damaged by the fallout of what is going on in Haverford Township. Maybe it is time for Lower Merion and Radnor just to make sure everything is okey dokey, eh?

OH, we almost forgot to mention: 130 Cricket Avenue is zoned R6A...and we all remember what happened in Haverford with R6A...this will test the new R6A zoning code amendments...of course what do we want to know (among other things)? We want to know why one more single family home in a densely packed neighborhood has to have a date with a buldozer? What happens if you significantly impact the density around here? What happens when you add more people? Hmmm?