Condominiums could be coming to 15th and Dickinson green space known as Dickinson Grove

The double-wide lot at 1441-43 Dickinson St. currently functions as a small green space known as Dickinson Grove. With a new zoning notice posted for the lot, the days of this plot of land functioning as a community gathering spot could soon be over.

Photo of the lot from yelp.

The notice posted is for the two existing lots to be combined for a three-story structure with a roof deck to be used as three condominium units. The lot is currently zoned as RSA-5 for single-family residential usage.

The South Broad Street Neighborhood Association full description:

1441-43 Dickinson Street – The application is to create one (1) Lot from two (2) existing Lots and for the erection of a new 3-Story structure with Roof Deck and Pilot House for use as Three (3) Condominium Units.

Many people in the neighborhood use the space for dog walking year-round, in addition to neighborhood gatherings in the summer. It’s the only green spaces for the community in Newbold. The lot has a few trees and a small flower bed, which are maintained by the community.

The zoning meeting is being held Tuesday, February 16 at 7 p.m. The meeting is located at the Constitution Health Plaza at 1930 S. Broad St. in the 1st floor conference room.

22 thoughts on “Condominiums could be coming to 15th and Dickinson green space known as Dickinson Grove

  • February 16, 2016 at 11:08 am

    It’s a shame that so little vision from developers and the city exists for green space in this neighborhood of Newbold/Pt. Breeze. Who is going to want to live in a neighborhood without parks and gathering spaces???

    • February 16, 2016 at 11:30 am

      The only green space? What about the (now under construction) DiSilvestro Playground just a few blocks down S 15th Street at Morris? It’ll be quite green from the presentation I saw.

    • February 16, 2016 at 12:30 pm

      The shame is in the City’s failure to introduce any type of comprehensive plan. In no way is this the responsibility (nor could it be) of developers.

      • February 16, 2016 at 12:40 pm

        It certainly is a failure on the city’s part. But we have to be in this together, last time I checked developers are citizens, too. I haven’t seen any developers lobbying and/or organizing residents around park or green spaces opportunities.

        And, I’m happy to eat crow if I missed something and this is the case somewhere in Newbold/Pt. Breeze…

        • February 16, 2016 at 1:14 pm

          The entire development community has been begging the City to allow us to use storm water offsets to fund these types of projects. The dollars are there but the City refuses to create an environment to unlock them.

          For example, I will spend $400,000 on storm water management at 2010 Wharton. I would love to write a $400,000 check to be used for public green space somewhere else but there is currently no mechanism for me to do so.

          • February 16, 2016 at 1:43 pm

            That’s because storm water management has been ignored for far too long in this city. Philadelphia is mandated to come into compliance with federal regulations, but combined storm/sewer systems limits what the city can do on the infrastructure end. Instead storm water has to be diverted before it ever hits the sewers. You can’t pay your way out of that, you just need to do it.

          • February 16, 2016 at 3:40 pm

            So in that scenario how would you propose to manage stormwater at the 2010 Wharton site?

            • February 16, 2016 at 4:13 pm

              We wouldn’t. Far better ways and places to manage storm water than small residential developments.

              Imagine converting those dollars to storm water improvements at our local schools.

              • February 16, 2016 at 4:26 pm

                That’s a pretty shortsighted way to handle stormwater. Your development would be forever contributing to the overtaxed sewer system, causing raw sewage to spill into our rivers during heavy rains for the rest of our lifetimes. It’s undoubtedly a burden on developers, and will be an even greater burden as requirements are applied to smaller and smaller projects, but it’s the one opportunity for stormwater management features to be put in place before that site is totally inaccessible for the next 30+ years.

                Ideally we’re putting in stormwater management on public AND private property, not just kicking the burden over to public projects. Imagine stormwater improvements on private projects and at local schools, and also adequate funding at local schools by eliminating the 10 year tax abatement which is wholly unnecessary at this stage in our city’s rebirth, but that’s a different story.

                We have all of these requirements because it’s far less of a lift than replacing the sewer system around the city, which would require not only new mains, but new connections to EVERY building that currently has a combined connection. Never gonna happen, so get used to those green roofs and detention basins. Someday we may actually be able to use our rivers for recreation without the fear of parasites.

          • February 16, 2016 at 4:47 pm

            Remember when you got sued for cleaning up a vacant lot? that was cool.

          • February 19, 2016 at 3:17 pm

            You do realize that the water department has a fee in lieu option for stormwater management in their regulations, right (check Chapter 300)? You totally have the option to pay that instead. Then that money would be used to install green infrastructure elsewhere.

            I guess it’s too hard to keep your city regulations straight though when you are busy trying and failing to run for public office.

        • February 16, 2016 at 1:39 pm

          I wouldn’t say it’s totally the city’s failure that there is no green space within the artificial confines of “Newbold.” That’s just what happens when you decide to carve out a neighborhood of your own that doesn’t contain any public green space, or the possibility thereof outside of Di Silvestro. Just outside Newbold boundaries is Chew on 18th and Ralph Brooks on 20th.

          As a whole though, the Point Breeze area is certainly lacking in quality green space and that is totally the City’s fault. While the was sitting on vacant land for decades, it didn’t use that time to acquire the neighboring vacant, tax delinquent parcels and assemble land for green space that would have benefited the neighbors long before the development boom. Instead it let them sit fallow, then started selling them off piecemeal, preventing comprehensive development, green space or other. Biggest missed opportunities: Childs School – could have required public green space as part of purchase. Would have been cheaper than the city doing it itself. Instead we get a parking lot. Drexel School – city could have condemned or sent to sheriff sale based on massive municipal liabilities after its demolition and bought it at auction for green space in the heart of Newbold. We get wacky houses instead. 1300 Capitol – while it’s just 2 blocks from Wharton Square, how cool would it be to have a block-long park right off the avenue? The aforementioned Ralph Brooks park – there were vacant lots surrounding it that were sold at sheriff’s sale or privately which could have been picked up by the City for a song, allowing an expansion of the park into something even greater. Bouvier Garden – city owned vacant lots abutting it and across the street, plus tax delinquent parcels mixed in that could have turned into something really special. We’re getting duplexes here somehow? There are probably more that are before my time, but jeez, just a little foresight, creativity, and maybe willingness to negotiate with private property owners could have been a boon to the neighborhood and the city.

          Ironically a comprehensive city plan prioritizing green space would also have prevented city lots at 20th and Annin (prime location for green space) from being sold to a developer for his home or being used for the benefit of his coffee shop…

          • February 17, 2016 at 12:14 pm

            Thanks for this great recent recap of where the opportunities have been squandered!

            I truly struggle to fathom why some sort of group can’t just look 10 years down the road and help to organize neighbors around some positive green and open space preservation. Heartbreaking.

      • March 8, 2016 at 10:29 am

        I have had family in this neighborhood for over 40 years and I chose to move here to raise my children however the developers have come along and are trying to make the neighborhood into what they want just so they can make money. It is not about making anything green and it is not about changing the area for the better because if there was no money to be made they would not be here. I think the citizens in the community should get more involved and after reading the many posts online and in the newspaper I will be INVOLVED and trying to stop the “Development of our neighborhood”.

    • February 16, 2016 at 4:20 pm

      A current picture of that lot would more useful. It’s nothing but mud. It’s too small to support the dog traffic it receives.

  • February 16, 2016 at 1:11 pm

    Yes, public meeting to offer your feedback is tonight, coordinated by South Broad Street Neighbors Assn. 7pm. Constitution Health Plaza is the former St. Agnes building.

  • February 17, 2016 at 12:20 pm

    Oh, and don’t forget the wasted tax revenue. Those two lots currently generate a whopping $414 per year! Just build.

  • February 17, 2016 at 1:44 pm

    It’s about time this eyesore was paved over. Every time I walk past it’s just a trashcan overflowing with little dog turd bags. It smells like the inside of Chiarella’s kitchen.

    • February 18, 2016 at 8:43 am

      @DJ, doubt you’ve ever seen the lot. You just said elsewhere you never go west of Broad.

      • February 23, 2016 at 1:15 pm

        Lou. I will fight you to the death and win.

  • February 20, 2016 at 11:08 am

    Well.. If there’s one thing this city needs is more condos with ugly metal bump outs.

  • February 20, 2016 at 1:28 pm

    One thing not mentioned in the article is that there will be off street parking that will have an entrance on 15th St.

    While I don’t want to see that space go I am more concerned that they want to put in a multi unit. I don’t see an issue with a standard row home

Comments are closed.