Look back at Marbury: Positive change ‘often initially met with concern’
To the editor:
Almost twenty years ago today, discussion of proposed new development in Pelham had reached such an angry pitch that the New York Times wrote about it.
Neighbors turned on neighbors. Critics insisted the proposed development would destroy Pelham’s special character.
Today, the Marbury development is cited as an example of what new developments should aspire to be.
I’d like to encourage all of us to keep in mind that change, however positive, is often initially met with concern. Imagine how overwhelming the Tudor apartments on Fifth Ave. must have seemed when they were first proposed, nearly a century ago. Can’t you just hear outraged locals arguing the buildings were too big, and would ruin Pelham’s country feel? Can’t you hear somebody complaining about the roof line?
Back then, there must have been some leaders patiently explaining why those buildings might change Pelham, but for the better. Odds are, those were the same people who had been putting in the time to guide Pelham leading up to that decision, too. Because the people most involved are usually the people most informed.
Something to think about, as we consider new buildings, and as we go to the polls.
Marisa Panzani
217 Highbrook Ave. North
W. Williams • Mar 17, 2019 at 3:25 pm
Hey Marisa, you’re talking apples and oranges. The assisted living project which was the subject of the NY Times article, has NOTHING to do with the Marbury Corners project.
The assisted living project was a 6+ story monstrosity proposed for 101 Wolfs Lane. THAT was the subject of the NY Times article. (BTW, the developers of that proposal eventually went out of business).
Marbury Corners is a 4+ story co-op building that was built within the confines of the Village code (no 6-story special allowance!) and generates a positive residential (not rental) cash flow for the Village.
Fact checking is a good thing …