SAC wants to thank both Diane Mastrull of the Philadelphia Inquirer and Tom Murray and Cheryl Allison of Main Line Life for their dedication and fair and comprehensive coverage of Ardmore over the past few years.

Now onto the Inquirer coverage today which makes you consider the role of politics in the process, right? And we disagree with Bruce Reed's assertion that moderation in development is not a bad thing to consider. It's not. Overdevelopment is a bad thing. This redevlopment concept has roots that pre-date the days of eminent domain and plan A and plan B in general,but in the meantime the economy is changing faster then we can catch up. Duh. Let's exercise some common sense. And not waste the federal funds for a train station. Or waste any more valuable time, even though in another sense we shouldn't rush - it's kind of complicated still, huh?

As a community we HAVE wasted a lot of years and a lot of money. We need to move forward, but we need to be mindful that the days of a booming economy and real estate market have passed us by. And the vision of Ardmore should be the vision of her people, not just government and "experts". We hope Mr. Dranoff can meet the vision and expectations, we really honestly do. We don't have much to go on though since he is the only developer the Save Ardmore Coalition has not met yet. His rendering of the train station was most welcome the other night, as were aspects of all the plans we saw from the other developers, Strategic and BET. We hope we all can continue to learn and grow from each other.

And we can't say Commissioner Gould was incorrect in his comments the other night...there is something to be said about the "what ifs" of the township giving away land - they give up control - so in the case of garages, will they be profit centers for the township and the taxpayers of Lower Merion as they should be, or who will they profit?

Lots of things to think about, so please, get involved with Ardmore.

Posted on Fri, Mar. 21, 2008
Ardmore renewal goes to Carl Dranoff
By Diane Mastrull
Inquirer Staff Writer

(Images)

In the end, it was not Carl Dranoff's bulging portfolio of urban redevelopment projects that won him the job late Wednesday of reviving Ardmore's well-worn business district.
It was the outsize ambition of a competitor.

Edward Lipkin had proposed a $300 million makeover of the Main Line village's downtown, replete with a six-story hotel and office tower straddling the railroad tracks. But on March 4, just eight weeks after Lower Merion Township commissioners selected him to lead the transformation, Lipkin bailed out of the project, citing uncertainty about amassing the necessary financing in a tight credit market.

At first, residents and business owners said they were shocked. Then they expressed relief....Ultimately, the commissioners agreed. In an 11-0 vote close to midnight Wednesday, the board picked Dranoff's far more modest $150 million proposal for a mix of stores, offices and apartments. He described himself as elated at getting a second "bite of the apple."

....Dranoff also scaled back the height of some buildings and added more pedestrian-friendly features to lure shoppers from Suburban Square across the tracks to patronize stores and restaurants on Lancaster Avenue. Residents called for more public space, so he accommodated them with an amphitheater.

.....Dranoff had won over two influential groups: the Ardmore Business Association and the Ardmore Initiative, a business district authority......Saying the post-Lipkin scramble had resulted in the production of "three fine plans," Commissioner Brian Gordon added, "The winner of this process is truly the community."....Commissioner Lewis F. Gould Jr. did not share that view and did not cast a vote. The ultimate cost of Ardmore's redevelopment to township taxpayers, he said at the meeting, is not known. Given the sobering economic times, Gould said, he could only support the renovation of the train station, for which the township and SEPTA have secured a $5.8 million grant from the Federal Transit Administration; it is set to expire Sept. 30.....In an interview yesterday, Commissioners Chairman Bruce D. Reed said that limiting the work to the train station "carries the . . . risk of further delaying or denying the rejuvenation of Ardmore's business district."

And....now read this editorial by our SAC President Sharon Eckstein, brought to you in it's entirety courtesy of Main Line Life

As I see It: Opportunity for Ardmore to move forward By Sharon Eckstein

The Lower Merion Township Board of Commissioners is meeting on Wednesday March 19 to hear presentations from three developers and then intend to select a new developer for the Ardmore Transit Center Project. I am concerned that the developer selection process is moving forward because it is perceived as being needed for "Ardmore's revitalization" and because the Ardmore redevelopment process has been dragging on for years with no benefit to the Ardmore community. Will the township step back and reassess the Ardmore Transit Center Project when millions of taxpayers'money has been spent with no product produced? Will the township reconsider its plans when to do so requires a willingness to contemplate the current economy? Will the township acknowledge the organic growth occurring in Ardmore and reorient itself?Perhaps it would be wise to view Mr. Lipkin's withdrawal from the project as an opportunity, a chance to reassess exactly what is needed in Ardmore.

We have $6 million in federally earmarked funds to build a new train station. The clock is ticking on this earmark and no progress has been made in building the station. As Ken Haskin's opinion piece clearly stated in last week's paper, this $6 million dollars will be enough to give Ardmore a new train station. There should be no delay with moving forward on this project.

It would be astute to inventory what projects are being proposed right now for the Ardmore redevelopment area and then evaluate whether it is wise for the township to proceed with giving away the only remaining undeveloped land that it owns to a developer.

As a result of organic growth, and not an RFP (Request for Proposal), the following proposed developments are slated to occur within blocks of each other in Ardmore: 130 Cricket Avenue -A private developer has proposed a 38-unit condominium. This condominium plan is on appeal. A single Victorian will be demolished in order for this project to occur. One block north we find 104 Cricket Avenue -A private developer has proposed a mixed-use 70-unit condominium for this site. This matter which was slated for the last planning commission agenda was withdrawn but is sure to appear on an agenda in the immediate future. The Stuard Funeral Home will be demolished in order for this project to occur. One block east we find 11 Athens Avenue -A private developer plans to build a four-story, 40-unit condominium on the site of a two-story apartment building and lot. This project is not yet on any township agenda. One block north we find 35 Cricket Terrace -A developer intends to build a six-plus-story mixed-use condominium on the site of a one-story business. This project could be built in accordance with current MUST (Mixed Use Special Transit) allowable heights but the developer wishes to build higher and so the project has not yet been built. One block west we find.

Ardmore Avenue and Lancaster Avenue Intersection -A developer plans to raze a strip of now vacated commercial properties and build a mixed-use multistory condominium.

And what else is being proposed a stone's throw away from all of these projects? A mixed-use condominium complex of 275 residential units above first floor retail on the parking lot across from Ruby's. Suburban Square wishes to develop this parking lot, currently free surface parking for its shoppers. And, the Verizon building across from Ardmore's Martin Honda Dealership is for sale and being considered for development.

So with all this development already slated to occur in Ardmore, why is the township proceeding with selecting a developer? How many condo units are enough? How much retail is enough? How will our infrastructure support all this development? What will it be like to live and work through all this demolition and construction? And most importantly, how will Ardmore maintain its unique character in the face of all these projects? The above listed projects anticipated in South Ardmore, as proposed, will increase the number of residential units in Ardmore tremendously. At least 150 new units will be built. If you add in Suburban Square's proposal there are 425 new residential units for an area less than a half-mile in radius.

What is driving the township's continued focus on "redeveloping Ardmore?"

Clearly, Ardmore is being redeveloped. Why is the township so interested in giving all of the undeveloped land that it owns (its parking lots) away to a developer to build on when supposedly part of what is driving this project forward it Ardmore's need for parking? These questions continue to plague me even in the face of the more open, more participatory, and more respectful process that has guided the Ardmore Transit Center Project these past two years. I appreciate and am grateful for the greater transparency of process, the creation of an Ardmore AdHoc Committee, and the community outreach done by most of the developers. Nevertheless, I cannot quiet the nagging voice within me that feels tremendous concern for Ardmore's future. The township should now be focusing on starting projects that we all need and agree upon. Build the train station. Coordinate all currently proposed Ardmore development projects so that they do not overwhelm Ardmore or negate Ardmore's character. Build the Bernicker lot mixed-use parking structure. And then, stop the redevelopment efforts from moving forward just because it was what was planned years ago.