The only thing that is hilarious is your incomprehension.

We have zoning designations for specific land, not a neighborhood. Since you are so knowledgeable, please scroll down the zoning map, from the proposed Stamper's Square location to 757 S. Front Street. It is zoned G2. In the middle a "residential neighborhood, by the way". G2 is mainly industrial. Why is it zoned G2? Simple. Years ago a certain politician's friend wanted to open up a nightclub in the middle of Queen Village named San Carlos nightclub. Of course the residents wouldn't go for it, so the tract of land was changed to G2 by legislation without any input from the neighbors. Overnight, a nightclub was born. Didn't matter that the rest of the area was labeled R-11, R-12, etc. This is the same trick used to open the Strip club in S. Philly.

Any square inch of land anywhere in philadelphia can theoretically-and more important, legally-get any zoning classification regardless of its location in the city's borders.

__________________
olympics rule

That's some very interesting history, and you're right--any land in Philadelphia (and anywhere else for that matter, as it happens in other cities too) can possibly be rezoned, if the powers that be decide to do so.

But mostly, you're wrong. Surrounding neighborhoods certainly do have bearing on zoning designations for individual land tracts, and not just because of "input from the neighbors."

Now that we're back in the realm of respectable conversation-
my notice of fault in your original remark was your absence of possibility. Yes, typical zoning does tend to be congruent with its surroundings, but this is in no way subjugates a piece of land to be as its surroundings. If so, there would be no commercial zones because inevitably they always abut residential areas.

The example I recited regarding San Carlos(now Fredrick's restaurant) is exactly what can happen to Stamper's Square. It can be changed through legislation rather than the ZBA and then almost no compromise needs to be made with the neighbors. It happened on south street with wholefoods, happened on broad and washington, and to a lesser extent with broad and south.

__________________
olympics rule

Well let's hope so.

http://www.planphilly.com/node/2803

Two days after a bitterly divided Society Hill rejected the 15-story Stamper Square proposal, Councilman Frank DiCicco is stepping into the fray.
This Thursday, DiCicco intends to introduce legislation that will rezone the property to a higher zoning classification, either C3 or C4. The property, a vacant lot once home to the failed NewMarket shopping mall, is now zoned C2. (see attached zoning designations below)
“The councilman is intending to introduce legislation that would allow the project to move forward, and subsequently, he’ll hold public hearings,” said DiCicco aide Brian Abernathy. “This has been a contentious enough project that it’s time to have an open conversation.”
Whether or not conversations in Society Hill have been open, they’ve certainly been energetic. Seven hours of public debate came down to a 12-to-12 vote of the local civic association on Wednesday night, meaning the project has so far failed to win decisive support among its influential neighbors.
“We see a community that is torn,” Abernathy said.
Abernathy said DiCicco had not taken a firm position on the project, but believes that in concept it is “worthy.” The legislation introduced on Thursday will remap the parcel, but the decision between C3 and C4 has not been made.
“We’re going to wait and see how the public hearings go,” Abernathy said.
Current Zoning Defended
The current zoning of C2 restricts the street-front height of a building to 35 feet, while allowing structures as tall as 60 feet near the center of the site.
The latest Stamper Square proposal by Bridgeman Development calls for a 4-star hotel and luxury condos in a 166-foot tower on the Front Street side of the site. There are rare height restrictions in C3. In very limited cases, C4 allows for structures of 500 to 700 feet.
DiCicco’s move was just a rumor in Society Hill on Friday, but it had both opponents and supporters of the project sounding wary.
Attorney Matthew White, a leader of support for the project on the Civic Association board, said the board was adamant about defending its zoning code.
“As a board member, I can say the board is clearly not in favor of rezoning, and I can’t imagine any set of circumstances in which it would be,” White said. “It would get the project built, but the community loses control over the situation.”
White, who had not yet heard the move was definite, said he’d prefer the councilman use his influence to sway board members or help the project secure a variance.
Project opponent Richard Lush was equally unequivocal: “Our zoning has protected our neighborhood for more than 40 years. It’s part of the reason we have the highest property values in the city.”
According to campaign finance reports from March and April of 2007, Frank DiCicco’s election campaign received $5,000 from Sant Properties, which owns the site, and $2,500 from developer Marc Stein, a principle with Bridgeman.
“I’m sure they’ve been contributors in the past, but that certainly is not going into our decision making,” Abernathy said.

Oh, how sweet it is...

Hate to tell the naysayers I told you so...

__________________
olympics rule

Doesn't mean a damn thing if they only people that show up are the "vocal minority".

Can anyone with knowledge here explain how this process works? Just because DiCicco proposes a change does not mean its a done deal, right? Can't the SHCA or other NIMBYs still fight it?

Yes, I've watched it happen in Old City.

This will not play out well for DiCiccio..... "According to campaign finance reports from March and April of 2007, Frank DiCicco’s election campaign received $5,000 from Sant Properties, which owns the site, and $2,500 from developer Marc Stein, a principle with Bridgeman."

DiCiccio can be bought? What? You're kidding! I'm in shock!

__________________
The idealistic are no longer concerned with influencing public opinion and creating a free world of responsible and ethical social choices, but rather imposing opinion through legislation, mandating these ethics, and outlawing choice in what the loudest sample finds offensive.

Ban the Bans. It's a slippery slope between Idealism and Fascism.