PHILADELPHIA | The Harper | 272 FT | 24 FLOORS - Page 9

1487 · #**161** Posted **May 21, 2015, 12:18 PM**

Inga trashed it in today's paper. I honestly don't see what is so bad about it. Its much better than 1900 Arch.

McBane · #**162** Posted **May 21, 2015, 12:24 PM**

Maybe if the city didn't have these ridiculous FAR requirements....

The design is okay, but I really dislike the setback from the street. As if they're creating an illusion that high rises don't exist. Why? (Same concept with the new tower on 21st and Chestnut). To further reinforce the notion that Philly is some picturesque little village? That shipped sailed like 300 years ago. Is this to appease NIMBYs?

jsbrook · #**163** Posted **May 21, 2015, 2:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1487

Inga trashed it in today's paper. I honestly don't see what is so bad about it. Its much better than 1900 Arch.

I think it's much worse. And to lowrise portion sandwiched between the Boyd and the coern building looks absolutely ridiculous and out of place. Like it interrupts a cohesive and logical structure (even though the two buildings were separate). If it was solely the Samsung tower and the design of the lowrise was more appropriate and transitioned between the Boyd and the corner building, it'd be a lot better. I'm not sure whey they couldn't have kept the original design with the original tower on Chestnut Street and held onto the Samson Street portion for future use. Oh, well. It is what it is. It will still enliven the blocks.

jsbrook · #**164** Posted **May 21, 2015, 2:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by McBane

Maybe if the city didn't have these ridiculous FAR requirements....

The design is okay, but I really dislike the setback from the street. As if they're creating an illusion that high rises don't exist. Why? (Same concept with the new tower on 21st and Chestnut). To further reinforce the notion that Philly is some picturesque little village? That shipped sailed like 300 years ago. Is this to appease NIMBYs?

I don't think anything you are saying makes sense (no offense) or has anything to do with why it's been setback.

1487 · #**165** Posted **May 21, 2015, 3:30 PM**

Im pretty sure that when it goes for CDR there will be numerous comments and likely some changes. Perhaps that's why Inga is rushing to get her 2 cents in- to influence what is said when this project gets reviewed. The HC isnt there to evaluate new architecture- point she seems to miss. They worry about how historically certified buildings are modified by citizens or developers. Either way, I doubt this is the final product.

McBane · #**166** Posted **May 21, 2015, 5:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsbrook

I don't think anything you are saying makes sense (no offense) or has anything to do with why it's been setback.

The FAR requirement and the setback issue are two totally different issues. Sorry I didn't really make that clear.

FAR requirement is why we're in this mess in the first place - Pearl would have put a nice slender tower in the corner but couldn't, so they had to buy and demolish the Boyd in order to make it work. There's really something not right with our zoning code if slender towers can't be build by right.

And the setback issue was totally not related. I just don't like it!

br323206 · #**167** Posted **May 21, 2015, 5:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by McBane

The FAR requirement and the setback issue are two totally different issues. Sorry I didn't really make that clear.

FAR requirement is why we're in this mess in the first place - Pearl would have put a nice slender tower in the corner but couldn't, so they had to buy and demolish the Boyd in order to make it work. There's really something not right with our zoning code if slender towers can't be build by right.

And the setback issue was totally not related. I just don't like it!

It's not the FAR concept that is wrong, it's the zoning designation. This lot should be CMX-5. In fact, there are a lot of CMX-4 and RMX-4 lots around the city that should be CMX-5.

CMX-4: 700% FAR with bonuses.

CMX-5: 2000% FAR with bonuses.

That's a big difference. If they won't upzone the CMX-4 parcels then we need a CMX-4.5.

thisisforreal · #**168** Posted **May 21, 2015, 6:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by br323206

CMX-4: 700% FAR with bonuses.

CMX-5: 2000% FAR with bonuses.

That's a big difference. If they won't upzone the CMX-4 parcels then we need a CMX-4.5.

Interesting idea. It seems like CMX-4 embodies pre-WWII NYC, the 6 story walk-up. Anything above that is a high rise. Our appreciation of the skyline notwithstanding, what truly is the difference between a 12 story building a 25 story building? From a zoning perspective, not much. Not enough to make a new category at least. My take is turn most of CC into CMX-5.

jsbrook · #**169** Posted **May 22, 2015, 11:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1487

Im pretty sure that when it goes for CDR there will be numerous comments and likely some changes. Perhaps that's why Inga is rushing to get her 2 cents in- to influence what is said when this project gets reviewed. The HC isnt there to evaluate new architecture- point she seems to miss. They worry about how historically certified buildings are modified by citizens or developers. Either way, I doubt this is the final product.

Hopefully not...I'll ultimately be behind this development and would rather see something move forward NOW than delay. But this is one of those rare circumstances where I'd rather see the original design and tower be built on Chestnut street. And the Samson portion function as a parking lot until a better use later materializes and the area is primed for another project.

Jawnadelphia · #**170** Posted **May 22, 2015, 1:18 PM**

You guys summarized my thinking basically.

I'll just add I hope some changes are made, this new design looks like it should be near the Goldtex building ("Loft district" if you will), and not so close to Rittenhouse Square..., but we need this corner re-developed big time.

Guess we shall see. 1911 Walnut better be a worthy of the location design.

MikeNigh · #**171** Posted **May 22, 2015, 3:48 PM**

I like the new design. Definitely much better than the other towers in the rendering. Looks modern. Definitely would have preferred the previous design though, fit the neighborhood way better.

Philly-Drew · #**172** Posted **May 23, 2015, 12:28 PM**

I thought the old design was pretty amazing. I feel like we missed the boat on a really nice tower. The new design, is, well, pretty uninspiring.

jsbrook · #**173** Posted **May 27, 2015, 2:36 PM**

Proposal denied:

http://www.phillymag.com/property/20...27GvhYzvbpB.01

Jawnadelphia · #**174** Posted **May 27, 2015, 3:13 PM**

Inga Saffron was blunt and demanded more from the development team and the Historical Commission. The forum at the Skyscraper Page felt uninspired. On Tuesday, the Architectural Committee officially gave its collective thumbs down to the proposal.
Read more at http://www.phillymag.com/property/20...ViIOVl4hd0x.99

We famous!

boxbot · #**175** Posted **May 27, 2015, 3:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TallCoolOne

Inga Saffron was blunt and demanded more from the development team and the Historical Commission. The forum at the Skyscraper Page felt uninspired. On Tuesday, the Architectural Committee officially gave its collective thumbs down to the proposal.
Read more at http://www.phillymag.com/property/20...ViIOVl4hd0x.99

We famous!

Well that's a bit of an understatement. How about this (and feel free to quote me print media): "It's a monster and they need to go back to the original plan."

summersm343 · #**176** Posted **May 27, 2015, 11:59 PM**

Another article from PlanPhilly. Seems to me like the Architectural committee does not oppose the tower, but the current design iteration. The tower can be built by right.

http://planphilly.com/articles/2015/...re-replacement

apetrella802 · #**177** Posted **May 28, 2015, 3:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by boxbot

Well that's a bit of an understatement. How about this (and feel free to quote me print media): "It's a monster and they need to go back to the original plan."

During periods of economic growth cities have a sense of confidence that is almost always reflected in the architecture of that time. Look at City Hall, whatever it is it is a monument to the capital and wealth accumulated at the high noon of the industrial revolution. The first two Penn Center building, c.1955, are nothing more than zoning envelopes raised 20 stories. The city's immense industrial nexus was in a slow but steady decline and the building of the time reflect it. Ever since One Liberty Place was built Philadelphia has seen a high level of design in its buildings and that continues today with a host of buildings, CIRA Center, FMC. CITC, W Hotel etc.

There is NO excuse for the recently proposed 1900 Chestnut st tower. It is a bait and switch scheme by the developer. I hope there is some way in which he could be strongly encouraged to go back to the original Art Dec like tower.

All I could think of with the new tower design is a early 20c. industrial building that was dressed up with cheap looking external cladding materials.

iheartphilly · #**178** Posted **May 28, 2015, 4:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by apetrella802

During periods of economic growth cities have a sense of confidence that is almost always reflected in the architecture of that time. Look at City Hall, whatever it is it is a monument to the capital and wealth accumulated at the high noon of the industrial revolution. The first two Penn Center building, c.1955, are nothing more than zoning envelopes raised 20 stories. The city's immense industrial nexus was in a slow but steady decline and the building of the time reflect it. Ever since One Liberty Place was built Philadelphia has seen a high level of design in its buildings and that continues today with a host of buildings, CIRA Center, FMC. CITC, W Hotel etc.

There is NO excuse for the recently proposed 1900 Chestnut st tower. It is a bait and switch scheme by the developer. I hope there is some way in which he could be strongly encouraged to go back to the original Art Dec like tower.

All I could think of with the new tower design is a early 20c. industrial building that was dressed up with cheap looking external cladding materials.

Pearl properties has a large portfolio of buildings that they rent out in the city. They have the capital and collateral to support a signature new building and is a long term player in real estate in Philly so I don't truly understand the new crappy design. Rather than make a bold statement with a high quality looking building, they choose some cheap looking graduate-type high rise building that is inappropriate for the area.

McBane · #**179** Posted **May 28, 2015, 1:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by summersm343

Another article from PlanPhilly. Seems to me like the Architectural committee does not oppose the tower, but the current design iteration. The tower can be built by right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

Pearl properties has a large portfolio of buildings that they rent out in the city. They have the capital and collateral to support a signature new building and is a long term player in real estate in Philly so I don't truly understand the new crappy design.

Looking at both of these posts, I have to honestly wonder - just b/c Pearl can build this tower in its current design - would they totally ignore the Planning Commission? Would doing so irritate the Commission and jeopardize future projects? On the flip-side, would acquiescing generate some sort of goodwill that could be cashed in later? I bring this question up specifically because they are a "long term player in real estate in Philly."

Anyone that's actually in the construction/real estate/development industry know if this is a factor?

philatonian · #**180** Posted **May 29, 2015, 1:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by apetrella802

During periods of economic growth cities have a sense of confidence that is almost always reflected in the architecture of that time. Look at City Hall, whatever it is it is a monument to the capital and wealth accumulated at the high noon of the industrial revolution. The first two Penn Center building, c.1955, are nothing more than zoning envelopes raised 20 stories. The city's immense industrial nexus was in a slow but steady decline and the building of the time reflect it. Ever since One Liberty Place was built Philadelphia has seen a high level of design in its buildings and that continues today with a host of buildings, CIRA Center, FMC. CITC, W Hotel etc.

There is NO excuse for the recently proposed 1900 Chestnut st tower. It is a bait and switch scheme by the developer. I hope there is some way in which he could be strongly encouraged to go back to the original Art Dec like tower.

All I could think of with the new tower design is a early 20c. industrial building that was dressed up with cheap looking external cladding materials.

Booya! Thank you! That is exactly what it was! There was so much shadiness in the whole slip from the Boyd to what it's become, it was such a mess it seems it had to have been orchestrated: Live Nation gets the hardship exemption, in the mean time Rodin and Pearl pitch a 5-star movie theater to placate the cinema buffs, and a similar-in-design Art Deco tower to do the same for the architecture nerds. Then bam, once the auditorium is demolished-on-paper, iPics and Rodin back out, and Pearl gets exactly what it wanted all along: a big, clear lot to build the lowest common denominator. It's all so blatant it makes my head hurt.

I doubt Pearl will ever get back to the original Art Deco design. The rendering was so preliminary it was barely professional. I liked it, but it was a sketch. It also makes more financial sense for the tower to be on Sansom Street and not the corner, so the low level retail component can get the best foot traffic. Loading docks and parking garage entrances will probably end up on Sansom under the tower. I don't agree with that, but from it makes sense from a business standpoint.

I am glad to see that residents are making a stink about this. On one hand, what you say about economic growth during economic booms is true: it gave us City Hall and it's giving us the CITC. But it also allows for so much simultaneous development that it's easy to let crap slip through the cracks. If we hadn't lost the Boyd for this building, that easily could have happened here. I hope they stay on top of Pearl and pressure them to deliver something better.