When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Shannon Elliott was worried she would have to close the doors of Harvey Oak Mercantile (HOM), an artisan crafts store in the Celia Building on Park Avenue that she’s owned since 2018. When she started getting a steady stream of online orders through her website and began making deliveries to area homes, she thought she had survived the worst. Then, in September, she learned that local developers Bill Cumby and Don Delson planned to demolish her building and replace it with a high-end condominium complex.
“It was heartbreaking,” said Elliott, who shares the building with Gallery on Park, a handmade gift shop and local art gallery owned by Martha Perkins. The building also houses several apartment units and office spaces with lower rents for the area.
If approved, the thirty-million-dollar development project would replace the Celia building and another building at 110/112 Park Avenue with a five-story mixed-use space. The space would consist of 36 high-end condo units above roughly 3,000 square feet of retail space and a below-ground garage.
The project would be among the first mixed-use, high-density developments in the downtown area. Some residents fear it will change the character of the town, but others argue that high-density housing will serve the community and is more environmentally sustainable.
The nine member Planning Commission is due to meet Wednesday, Dec. 15 to consider the proposal, which will also need support from the Borough Council.
Cumby, a former mayor and 50-year resident with deep ties to the town, says the units—whose prices would range from six-hundred-thousand to a million dollars—are intended for senior residents and empty nesters who want to downsize from their current homes but stay in town.
“We’re trying to build something that isn’t really available outside of Center City or the Main Line area, we want to give seniors an opportunity to age in place,” said Cumby.
But others worry that the building is out-of-scale and will set a precedent for more demolition and redevelopment in the town center.
“Replacing two-story buildings with a five-story block that towers over the neighborhood just doesn’t maintain the visual character and scale of the town — it’s clearly oversized,” said James Peyton-Jones, a borough resident and engineering professor at Villanova University.
If the developers get approval, they will need a permit to demolish the two buildings. They hope to break ground in June. Construction would take 14 to 18 months, they estimate.
A rendering by Philadelphia-based architecture firm Bernardon shows how the 110 Park Avenue project is expected to look if approved by the Planning Commission and Borough Council. The building would replace two historic properties on Park Avenue which currently house two local businesses and several apartment units.
An article published in the Swarthmorean on Oct. 8 announcing the project drew allegations of bias from some readers, who raised concerns that it was a paid advertisement on behalf of the developers. Delson was a co-owner of the Swarthmorean until 2018, and the piece featured a paragraph listing many of Cumby and Delson’s activities and charitable contributions to local organizations. In an editor’s note, the newspaper later clarified that the paragraph was intended “as contextual background rather than as an endorsement of the project.”
Martha Perkins said she was stunned when she received a letter from a property manager in September informing her that the owners of the Celia building had entered a sale agreement with Cumby and Delson.
“It was a punch in the gut,” she said.
“Our landlord never indicated this was something they planned to do, they’d always said this was their retirement plan,” Elliott added. “They made them an offer they couldn’t refuse, I guess.”
Even if they could survive during construction, Eliott and Perkins said that rents in the new building would be too much to afford.
The developers have given Elliott and Perkins until June to find a new space. Cumby said that he and Delson have offered to help the business owners find an alternative retail location at their current rent during construction. With the lack of available retail space in Swarthmore, however, Perkins and Elliott worry they might be pushed out of town.
Shannon Elliott prepares a gift item for a customer at her business, Harvey Oak Mercantile. Both Elliott and Perkins have been given until June to find another space for their businesses. (Anatole Shukla/The Phoenix)
“To be told that you have to exit your business, which you’ve built for four years, in less than a year, with no available retail space, is way too fast — I don’t have options right now,” said Elliott.
Elliott lives in Swarthmore with her husband and two children and said she feels a deep sense of attachment to the town. Both Perkins and Elliott said they’re worried that the loss of their businesses would be devastating for the area arts community.
“We showcase and sell the work of a lot of local artists, if we go, that’ll have a significant impact,” said Perkins.
In November, Elliott and Perkins launched an online petition and Facebook Page called “Save our Swarthmore” opposing the project.
Perkins and Elliott plan to canvass residents and gain more support for the petition in the coming months.
A Changing Downtown
The 110 Park Avenue proposal comes amid a wave of changes in the downtown area. The 2014 construction of the roundabout and Inn at Swarthmore building drew controversy, with some residents voicing concerns about the projects being inconsistent with Swarthmore’s character. In 2017, residents passed a referendum allowing the borough to grant liquor licenses, which has led to the opening of new businesses like Village Vine and Ship Bottom Brewery (which will open in late December).
Cumby says the idea for the condo project was first conceived after a 2013 ordinance established a town center zoning district and called for more “mixed-use” spaces.
On Oct. 20, the developers presented an earlier version of their plans at a meeting of the Swarthmore Planning Commission, where residents expressed a range of concerns about the project.
Multiple residents voiced worries that the project would be out-of-scale for the community.
Chris Kenney, an architect, relocated with his family from Center City in 2005 because he was attracted to Swarthmore’s walkability and small-town feel. Kenney said that the project would be “essentially a gated community in our downtown.”
“I have great concerns about the scale and character of the town. I think it won’t just change the town, this will change us and not in a good way,” he said.
Some residents were more supportive.
Sharon Mester, a former president of Swarthmore Town Center, an advocacy group focused on boosting economic growth in the downtown area, highlighted the need for dense housing to serve empty nesters and bring foot traffic to local businesses downtown. She said she was hopeful that Elliott and Perkins would be able to find other retail space.
Martha Perkins at her business Gallery on Park at 104 Park Avenue. Perkins worries that having to close her business will be a loss for the local arts community. (Anatole Shukla/The Phoenix)
But Elliott says that finding available space is harder than a lot of residents realize.
“There’s actually only one leasable space open in the entire town. I just can’t go in and tell another business to get out so that I can go in,” she said.
Cumby said that he offered Perkins and Elliott “right of first refusal” in the project — meaning that they would be able to lease two of the ground-floor retail spaces in the development before they went to the open market. Elliott said that the price range for the new units wouldn’t, however, be affordable.
“The new retail space would be at the higher end of Swarthmore leases and I’m at the lower-end,” she said.
Cumby estimates the retail spaces will be priced at around twenty-five dollars per square foot, which is more than both Perkins and Elliott currently pay.
“I can’t tell you that every business is appropriate for the nicest retail in town, it may not be. There’s nothing I can do about that,” he said.
Bill Cumby Jr. sits at Hobbs in downtown Swarthmore with the latest renderings of the 110 Park Avenue Project. Cumby’s construction management company, W.S. Cumby Construction, has been responsible for several recent projects in town including the Inn at Swarthmore and the PPR Apartments. (Owen Mortner/The Phoenix)
Setting a Precedent for Demolition?
“I was really horrified when I heard the building might be torn down. It’s like your past is gone,” said Elvira Celia Poeisz, who grew up in Swarthmore during the 1960s and now lives in New York. Her grandfather, an Italian immigrant, built the Celia building in the 1920s. For decades, Poeisz’s family lived in the building and ran a shoe shop out of the space now occupied by Harvey Oak Mercantile.
Per a Historic Resources Survey commissioned by the borough in 2001, nearly every building in the downtown area is historic. The designation doesn’t, however, provide any legal protection for these buildings.
“It’s tricky, because every building in the town center is on that historical zoning. I don’t know why whoever made that decision years ago made that decision,” said Kim O’Halloran, the current president of Swarthmore Town Center.
Several residents have urged the developers to incorporate the existing facade of the Celia building into the new project. Cumby and Delson’s initial renderings showed the Celia building being integrated into the design, but they were later scrapped.
“I went to the site with a structural engineer and an architect, it really turned out to be not plausible. It was not the concrete fortress that I was led to believe, there was no way to incorporate it,” said Cumby.
Kenney said that tearing down buildings and starting from scratch is “one of the least sustainable ways to build,” and suggested that the developers try harder to preserve and renovate the Celia building as part of the project.
“The building is currently occupied, it would be quite surprising to discover that it was in a state of structural failure. Buildings are adaptively reused all the time,” he said.
Melanie Rodbart, a structural engineer and borough resident, worries that replacing the two buildings could set a precedent for the demolition of other historic buildings in the business district.
“If these two buildings are demolished, then all the guardrails are off. If this happens, this will continue to happen,” she said.
“If this plan is approved, then there may well be others in the pipeline. There would really be no basis to deny the conversion of the rest of the town center into five-story blocks,” added Peyton-Jones.
Cumby argues that the Historic Resources Survey wasn’t intended to protect buildings in the town center from demolition.
A ‘massing model’ prepared by Swarthmore resident and architect Chris Kenney shows the scale of the development in the context of the surrounding streetscape. Both Kenney and Rodbart expressed concerns that the renderings released by the developer showed only a limited perspective.
“This isn’t an anti-demolition ordinance, it’s just a list of buildings that were there at a time. No one would suggest demolishing the Shirer Building or Michael’s, but this isn’t an iconic building,” he said.
The decision to grant approval for the demolition rests with the Borough Council. Cumby expects to receive approval by April of this year.
Along with Kenney and other concerned residents, Rodbart is looking into options to legally challenge the demolition, including hiring an attorney.
“Our zoning code specifically references when buildings are permitted to be demolished and right now this project just ignores that,” she said.
The developers have included environmentally sustainable features like a green roof and electric vehicle charging stations in the most recent version of the design, but some community members are pushing them to go further.
“I’d like it to be an all-electric building. The whole idea for climate change is, ‘Let’s make everything as energy efficient as possible and then electrify everything,’” said Phil Coleman, a lifelong borough resident and energy-use professional who has advised governments around the globe on energy efficiency.
During the Planning Commission meeting on Oct. 20, Robin Schafley, a member of Swarthmore’s Environmental Council, urged the developers to use renewable energy such as solar panels, static solar heating, and geothermal heat pumps in the project.
According to Cumby, many of the exact energy features of the building are not yet certain.
“We haven’t gotten that far yet, once we know that we have the shape of the building, that’s where a lot of the green aspects will be developed,” he said.
Cumby said that he isn’t sure if the building will meet requirements for LEED — a green building certification program that rates buildings based on environmental sustainability. But he noted that his firm usually uses many LEED-recommended practices in their projects including recycling waste.
The project would have 40 parking spaces under the building, with hydraulic lifts that could stretch the total capacity to as many as 70. Coleman said the total number should be closer to 20, noting the building site’s proximity to mass transit.
“It can be dramatically lower than what they’re proposing,” he said. “This whole one person, one car economy is on the way out.”
“We have a train line and we’ve got a bus that goes from Chester to Upper Darby, we’ve got Uber and Lyft, do you really need a car?” he added.
Some environmental and housing advocates see denser housing near public transit hubs as a priority. That struggle has mostly played out in cities but is increasingly debated in suburban communities like Swarthmore.
Gabriel Straus ’23, who rents a four-bedroom apartment with roommates on Park Avenue, is a supporter of the project.
“From a climate standpoint, we need to build more dense, transit-oriented development in inner-ring suburbs like Swarthmore,” he said.
Coleman agrees, noting that the embodied energy lost in the demolition of the existing buildings will be “dwarfed by the energy benefits of denser living over the 50 or 150 year lifespan of the new development.”
‘No Goals for Affordable Housing’
The six-hundred-thousand dollar starting price point for the condo units has heightened concerns for some residents about the lack of affordable housing in town. The project would involve the destruction of several rental units that are moderately priced for the area.
Gavin Stief is a current tenant in the Celia Building. He said in a September op-ed published in the Swarthmorean that he is looking for a new apartment but that there are “slim pickings out there in this overheated rental market.”
Schaufler urged the developers to set aside six affordable units to replace the ones that will be lost if the project is approved in her public comment in October, but Cumby said he has no plans to do so.
“We’re not an affordable housing developer, we’ve worked with those developers in the past and they tend to build in impacted places like North Philadelphia, Chester, or Jersey City — not in Swarthmore,” he said.
Rachel Pastan, Helen Nadel, and Jayatri Das, three Swarthmore residents, created a petition calling on the Borough Council to establish an affordable housing task force to look at increasing the number of affordable units in town.
“The town government has no definition for affordable housing or goals for affordable housing. Naturally-occurring affordable housing exists in town, but there’s no record of how many units exist or where they’re located,” said Nadel.
The group plans to present their proposal at an upcoming meeting of the Borough Council in January and hopes it will be voted on in the coming months.
Kim O’Halloran said that mixed-use projects like 110 Park Avenue are a step in the right direction but noted the need for more community input, especially from the merchants.
Cumby and Delson plan to hold a Zoom meeting to field questions from town center merchants this Monday.
Theresa Richardson, who owns popular Park Avenue brunch spot Occasionally Yours with her husband, said she doesn’t yet know enough about the project to make a judgment but has concerns about how the construction process might impact business.
“My biggest thing is the timetable, I’d like to know how long it’s going to take from beginning to end, that’s going to be something that’s hard for them to predict, but I’d like to at least get an idea,” she said.
Pete Canakis co-owns Renato Pizza with his father and lives in Broomall. He said he thinks the development is part of a new wave of construction that will modernize the downtown area and bring more customers into his business.
“Small businesses need foot traffic, this will bring more people into everyone’s businesses, whether it’s a pizza shop, a market, or hardware store,” he said.
Bill Ryba has owned Paulson and Company Rugs since 2007, which is just steps away from the proposed building site for 110 Park Avenue. He said he thought the construction process would be “a big deal” but that proximity to new housing would bring in more customers.
“I imagine they’re going to have flooring, they’re going to need rugs and I’m right here so it should benefit me and I can help them out,” he said.
Small business owners Martha Perkins and Shannon Elliott stand outside the Celia Building which houses Gallery on Park and Harvey Oak Mercantile. Elliott and Perkins’ businesses will be displaced if the 110 Park Avenue project is approved. (Anatole Shukla/The Phoenix)
For now, Elliott and Perkins have their hands full with a steady stream of holiday shoppers buying candles, greeting cards, jewelry and other handcrafted gifts — many of them delivered to the stores by local artists.
The uncertainty about the future of their businesses is a source of near-constant worry for both women.
“If I had to relocate outside of Swarthmore, I wouldn’t, that would be that. I’m Gallery on Park, I’m committed to staying in Swarthmore, and if my business can’t find a place to land in this town, then I would close my doors,” Perkins said.
Elliott said that many customers who come in are supportive but unaware that the project is still moving forward.
“So much of the community just doesn’t know what’s going on,” she said. “They like cute shops like mine, but there’s a very high chance that I will go out of business because of this.”
If we ever want to get rents and housing prices under control, we need to build more housing, period. The high price tag on the condos indicates something: the people who will live in this development have the resources to buy housing in Swarthmore. If the building doesn’t get built, they’re still going to need somewhere to live: instead of living in this condo, they’ll just bid long-time residents out of their homes. But that doesn’t involve any construction, so the “neighborhood character” that we’re so concerned about will simply die a slow and silent death as long-time residents are priced out. The same thing has happened to countless communities across the country. Measures like rent control or “affordable housing” treat the symptoms, not the disease—they’re like turning the air conditioner on when your house is on fire.
And the fact of the matter is that every single housing project, no matter how limited, is going to get complaints. I understand that nobody really wants a construction site in their backyard, and nobody wants a business to disappear. But we can’t just kill every project because it doesn’t meet our perfect standards or because it might inconvenience someone. Not only does it push up rents, it just means the only people affected by construction and development are places without the political capital to tie developers up in lawsuits (read: poor, historically disadvantaged communities, usually minorities).
And finally, can we stop pretending large mixed-use developments are somehow a modern intrusion? The oldest building in Swarthmore is a massive four-and-a-half-story mixed-use building with about a hundred housing units and tens of thousands of square feet of office space. You might know it as Parrish Hall.
You’ve almost verbatim articulated the “YIMBY” or market-urbanist position on housing, which certainly holds merit in some contexts. Its critical flaw is in viewing all neighborhoods and housing markets as the same and prescribing a broad brush solution that fails to account for different market dynamics across communities—instead insisting on the doctrine of unconditionally increasing supply.
The key thing is here is that the project would result in the destruction of six affordable units that are currently occupied, replacing them with luxury units. The increase in supply may marginally ease the housing market in the area over the course of years—but it’s not at all clear that that will offset the loss in affordable units which may displace tenants from the community.
I am indeed articulating the YIMBY position on housing. And I’ve heard the complaint a million times: *this* neighborhood is somehow exempt from the laws of supply and demand because it’s special. I can (and indeed possibly will in a future piece :p) cite study on top of study on top of study showing that when new units are built in an area, it lowers surrounding rents. Sure, this building is “luxury” housing (a meaningless term that’s just free advertising for developers—today’s cheap apartments were “luxury housing” when they were built). But what matters is it frees up 36 other spots in the area. Housing doesn’t cause people to pop into existence—they’re going to come here no matter what. The choice we’re faced with is whether they’ll have space to fit in with the existing community or whether they’ll push existing residents onto the streets.This same song and dance has played out in every neighborhood in America. So I ask: where in the area would you prefer there be development? Because unless we start putting apartments in the Crum Woods, basically any project is going to involve the demolition of at least one housing unit.
More generally, what’s your solution to the unconditionally increasing *demand* for housing besides unconditionally increasing supply? Job and population growth are going to happen, whether we like it or not. We can choose to meet demand, or we can hem and haw and block every attempt to solve the problem because it might inconvenience someone. Imagine if the conditions we apply to new housing were applied to literally anything else—if we had to spend six months doing an environmental impact study and community review process before we allowed people to wear masks when COVID hit, to make sure people won’t litter and compromise the neighborhood character.
And if you’re wanting socialism, I suggest you take a look at the development practices of historical socialist states (spoiler: not overly concerned with neighborhood character). Or, for that matter, modern states that provide large amounts of public housing, such as many Asian countries. In those places, we wouldn’t even have a community meeting—the developer, or state-owned developer, would announce its plans to build a building on its own property and that would be that. The US fetishization of “local community input” over the needs of the country at large is unique. Our major-city housing crisis is also uniquely bad. That’s not a coincidence.
You should probably look up the definition of gentrification. There’s nothing wrong with such buildings, except when they cater only to a specific demographic that did not exist in a town historically. Like it was mentioned in the article, such a project will lead to more similar projects, leading to the displacement of more and more residents from Swarthmore to accommodate wealthier individuals.
Maybe it doesn’t concern you because you as Swarthmore offers you housing security, but other students depend on these affordable options in the town center, either because they cannot afford room and board, or because the school is kicking us out for the umpteenth time during the break leaving us nowhere to go as is the case now. Imagine these were demolished to accommodate more luxury condos? Such a project is yet another example of poor urbanism practices.
I’m just as much against gentrification as you are. And I, too, am worried about affording housing—not just in Swarthmore, but wherever I end up after I graduate. That’s why I want to increase the housing supply! Every rich old person that buys a condo in that building is one more rich old person I don’t have to get into a bidding war against when I’m trying to find a roof for my own head.
The fundamental point is that “wealthier individuals” don’t just disappear if you don’t build enough housing for them. They’ll instead use their money to buy or rent existing units, displacing residents just the same. Sure, it’ll all look just as old and historic, but the soul of the place will die a silent death just like so many neighborhoods in New York City, San Francisco, and so on—and we won’t notice until it’s far too late. We have two options if we want to avoid gentrification: build enough housing to accommodate demand, or make Swarthmore a less appealing place to live. I like the first option a lot better, especially when it involves building dense, environmentally-friendly housing, with modern acessibility and fire safety regulations, a block down the street from a train station—which seems to me the very definition of good urbanism. This project and others like it are critical if we have any chance of stopping climate change, solving our housing crisis, and preventing displacement and gentrification.
The oldest building in Swarthmore is the Benjamin West house (1724) on the college campus, followed by the Ogden farmhouse (1732) at Cedar & Swarthmore.
Post : In Praise of Delsonville
URL : https://billlawrenceonline.com/in-praise-of-delsonville/
Posted : December 9, 2021 at 9:00 am
Author : BillLawrence
Categories : Bob Small
In Praise of Delsonville
By Bob Small
There has been a great deal of controversy about a proposed Condo Development at 110 Park Ave. ( https://duckduckgo.com/?q=110+Park+Avenue+Swarthmore&t=brave&ia=web&iaxm=maps ) which would house 36 Units and be five floors (plus parking garage) and is being proposed by long-time Swarthmoreans Bill Cumby, Jr. and Don Delson. The Condos would go for a modest $700,000. There has been a lot of opposition because two stores there, HOM and Gallery on Park would be evicted, the small town look of Swarthmore would be blown up, along with other disruptions.
For a long time, it’s been evident to me, and others, that the concept of Swathmore is outdated and needs to be blown up. Why should we live in a town whose archaic name, and many of it’s street names, such as Chester, harken back to England, a country that still has a Monarchy!
No, it’s well past time to end this madness, both actually and conceptually. This new Condo is but the first salvo in a long needed reset, both physically and spiritually.
In honor of the re-founding fathers, we must change the name to Delsonville (I already have the t-shirt concession) in honor of one of the old Turks who is doing this, not for money or prestige, but because he sees the need, the want.
Now the College can continue to call itself Swarthmore. It won’t bother us, we won’t bother it. Septa can do what it will. It is of no matter.
This new Delsonville won’t require “cutesyî boutique stores, everything being Amazon now. Nor will we need food stores, as again this will be pick-up or delivery. New beer and wine and more stores, are sketched in, as part of the upcoming Quaker Casino(s).
Who will live here, you ask? Only those who can afford to, which, one is assured, will eliminate any remaining criminal element. We can advertise five minutes from Philly, which will be correct once the bullet trains are in place. A perfect place for the new breed of Professionals, etc.
What of the people now forced to move, you say? Well, they will be setting off on new adventures and we wish them well. They had become too dependent on an affordable Swarthmore, and need to retool and relearn. And pack their bags in the morning,
Tomorrowland is here today. And we call it Delsonville.
In Praise of Delsonville
Add a comment to this post: https://billlawrenceonline.com/in-praise-of-delsonville/#respond
You should write satire for Campus Journal, this is gold. Teach me your ways. Please email me at firstname.lastname@example.org I would love to write an article with you.
Fully Automated Luxury Delsonville
I just want to congratulate and applaud the journalist, who wrote a better article on this than any other local outlet. Nice work!
The Planning Commission meets at 7:30 TONIGHT at Swarthmore Borough Hall to discuss this proposal & vote on it. Here’s the agenda, which includes time for public comments: http://www.swarthmorepa.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/540
Once built, there will be no return nor vestige of Swarthmore as we know it. The scope and scale of the proposed. building will dwarf those around it, casting shadows where sunlight once beamed. Parking and traffic in general will change the open feeling the town currently enjoys. Please ban together and do everything within your power to retain the magic that is Swarthmore.
I promise you Swarthmore is never going to turn into a budding metropolis. All the goddamn NIMBY’s in this town I’m so glad I graduated