HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive


The Harper in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Philadelphia Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
Philadelphia Projects & Construction Forum

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #261  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2015, 8:08 PM
McBane McBane is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,184
I don't get what's so special about that corner building. It seems very ordinary. When you think about some of those beautiful churches in the neighborhoods that have been demolished, and then you have this building being preserved, it really makes you wonder.
     
     
  #262  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2015, 8:15 PM
Larry King Larry King is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBane View Post
I don't get what's so special about that corner building. It seems very ordinary. When you think about some of those beautiful churches in the neighborhoods that have been demolished, and then you have this building being preserved, it really makes you wonder.
Agreed. I'd be all for knocking it down
     
     
  #263  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2015, 10:04 PM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Bala Cynwyd
Posts: 3,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBane View Post
I don't get what's so special about that corner building. It seems very ordinary. When you think about some of those beautiful churches in the neighborhoods that have been demolished, and then you have this building being preserved, it really makes you wonder.
I don't fully understand what's being 'preserved' anyway. I guess just the basic shape. Seems it will be reclad to match the two adjoining buildings and/or because the surface is stained/deteriorating. But maybe they can just clean it up.
     
     
  #264  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2015, 10:50 PM
MusicMan84 MusicMan84 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 274
It is more than just the "look" of this building - although if you look closely there are some nice Art Deco features which landed it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places.

However...beyond the look of the building speaking to a certain era, some significant history surrounds the building. This Hidden City article does a great job of explaining - it was written when the former proposal was still around.

http://hiddencityphila.org/2014/05/p...1900-chestnut/

Basically - the building was built by an African American lawyer in 1935 after his current office space had been non-renewed and he was turned away from other Class A Office options on the basis of his skin color.

So...it isn't just the facade that is under consideration.
     
     
  #265  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2015, 1:18 PM
Cro Burnham's Avatar
Cro Burnham Cro Burnham is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: delco
Posts: 2,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbrook View Post
I don't fully understand what's being 'preserved' anyway. I guess just the basic shape. Seems it will be reclad to match the two adjoining buildings and/or because the surface is stained/deteriorating. But maybe they can just clean it up.
As always liked that building. It has nice details, and is a good, if tiny, example from Center City's relatively small collection of art deco. I'm glad they are preserving it.
     
     
  #266  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2015, 1:48 PM
McBane McBane is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicMan84 View Post
It is more than just the "look" of this building - although if you look closely there are some nice Art Deco features which landed it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places.

However...beyond the look of the building speaking to a certain era, some significant history surrounds the building. This Hidden City article does a great job of explaining - it was written when the former proposal was still around.

http://hiddencityphila.org/2014/05/p...1900-chestnut/

Basically - the building was built by an African American lawyer in 1935 after his current office space had been non-renewed and he was turned away from other Class A Office options on the basis of his skin color.

So...it isn't just the facade that is under consideration.
Sorry, that just seems very weak to me. It's precedents like this that give the NIMBYs ammo. Like anyone can dig up any reason to save any building. Does this building have an interesting design or an interesting backstory? Sure, but the same can be said for a ton of other buildings in the city. Is it so significant that it cannot be razed? I personally don't think so.
     
     
  #267  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2015, 2:08 PM
Arch+Eng's Avatar
Arch+Eng Arch+Eng is offline
Arch. Engineer+Developer
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: PHL
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBane View Post
Sorry, that just seems very weak to me. It's precedents like this that give the NIMBYs ammo. Like anyone can dig up any reason to save any building. Does this building have an interesting design or an interesting backstory? Sure, but the same can be said for a ton of other buildings in the city. Is it so significant that it cannot be razed? I personally don't think so.
Welp that is what racism gets you. Now everyone has to deal with it.

But on another note. Am I the only one that didn't have a problem with the black and orange tower design? I actually thought it was pretty cool.
     
     
  #268  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2015, 2:45 PM
MikeNigh MikeNigh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 597
Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicMan84 View Post
Basically - the building was built by an African American lawyer in 1935 after his current office space had been non-renewed and he was turned away from other Class A Office options on the basis of his skin color.

So...it isn't just the facade that is under consideration.
Are we just using any reason what so ever that we can find to hold philly construction back? How does this matter if absolutely no one knows this is the reason the facade was kept.

Seems like we should start getting to the point where we prematurely destroy anything approaching 100 years old so it doesn't become a historic hold back / blight.
     
     
  #269  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2015, 3:58 PM
joemustardo joemustardo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 81
I personally think that Pearl Properties needs to build something really nice at this location. 1st off, it is prime location in Center City (close to shopping, food, and Rittenhouse Square). Plus, if tall enough, it can provide nice views of Rittenhouse Square. I agree the 1st design was really nice but why can't we get something like 1601 Vine Street or like 30 Park Place or 220 Central Park South in New York. What makes Rittenhouse Square nice is the character the buildings have. Why can't they build with nice limestone or brick? I think 10 Rittenhouse was done very nicely. I know it is expensive but I think it could attract buyers.
     
     
  #270  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2015, 6:14 PM
summersm343's Avatar
summersm343 summersm343 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 12,982
All off topic posts have been deleted.
     
     
  #271  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2015, 9:48 PM
summersm343's Avatar
summersm343 summersm343 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 12,982
9/2/2015

Chestnut Street side busy. Sansom street side quiet. Probably means they're redesigning the tower.

     
     
  #272  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2015, 6:28 PM
summersm343's Avatar
summersm343 summersm343 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 12,982
Update from Building Philly



More photos here:
https://www.facebook.com/BuildingPhilly
     
     
  #273  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2015, 5:48 PM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Bala Cynwyd
Posts: 3,614
Back from the shore this weekend. I was chatting on the beach with a Pearl employee who claims the tower will be similar to the pulled version but blander and less objectionable. Not surprised. I'm envisioning a 'bland' filter, similar to that used on the retail spaces on Chestnut. Sadly, it seems we won't see something like the beautiful art deco teaser. But it's nice addition of density to the area, and I'm happy enough at this location if it's not an ugly distraction. I feel that Pearl is going to be the next Dranoff. Becoming a real player but not from the design standpoint. I was long happy that Dranoff WAS building and where (areas that could really benefit from a project of size) but not particularly happy with WHAT he was building. It's only with SLS and One Riverside that I think he's stepped it up to the next level with buildings of good design. I expect that Pearl will need a few more hits/notches on its belt before we see anything architecturally significant or impressive from them.
     
     
  #274  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2015, 4:13 AM
jjv007 jjv007 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 658
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbrook View Post
Back from the shore this weekend. I was chatting on the beach with a Pearl employee who claims the tower will be similar to the pulled version but blander and less objectionable. Not surprised. I'm envisioning a 'bland' filter, similar to that used on the retail spaces on Chestnut. Sadly, it seems we won't see something like the beautiful art deco teaser. But it's nice addition of density to the area, and I'm happy enough at this location if it's not an ugly distraction. I feel that Pearl is going to be the next Dranoff. Becoming a real player but not from the design standpoint. I was long happy that Dranoff WAS building and where (areas that could really benefit from a project of size) but not particularly happy with WHAT he was building. It's only with SLS and One Riverside that I think he's stepped it up to the next level with buildings of good design. I expect that Pearl will need a few more hits/notches on its belt before we see anything architecturally significant or impressive from them.
In this case, I would just say accept what comes and the development it brings. We need to pick our battles and not complain about every project that's under 100%. Let's save the complaints for projects like 1919 Market.
     
     
  #275  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2015, 1:45 PM
McBane McBane is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,184
Pearl's big screw up was releasing a rendering of a nice building and then coming back with something far uglier. Had they come right out with their second design, the reaction probably wouldn't have been THAT negative.

Can someone remind me why the original design was pulled? I feel it was killed b/c NIMBY opposition to what Pearl proposed to raze in order to fit it in. In order to build the tower by right, the design had to be reconfigured. Is that right?
     
     
  #276  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2015, 3:25 PM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Bala Cynwyd
Posts: 3,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBane View Post
Pearl's big screw up was releasing a rendering of a nice building and then coming back with something far uglier. Had they come right out with their second design, the reaction probably wouldn't have been THAT negative.

Can someone remind me why the original design was pulled? I feel it was killed b/c NIMBY opposition to what Pearl proposed to raze in order to fit it in. In order to build the tower by right, the design had to be reconfigured. Is that right?
NIMBY/neighborhood opposition may tie into height and building by right. But the teaser rendering was never a real design that Pearl actually planned to build.
     
     
  #277  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2015, 3:58 PM
Baconboy007 Baconboy007 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBane View Post
Can someone remind me why the original design was pulled?
Wind tunnel
     
     
  #278  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2015, 9:12 PM
boxbot's Avatar
boxbot boxbot is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Delco., Pa.
Posts: 839
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBane View Post
Can someone remind me why the original design was pulled?
Bait and switch.
     
     
  #279  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2015, 3:10 PM
allovertown allovertown is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjv007 View Post
In this case, I would just say accept what comes and the development it brings. We need to pick our battles and not complain about every project that's under 100%. Let's save the complaints for projects like 1919 Market.
I totally disagree wIth saving the complaints for 1919 Market. 1919 Market replaced an embarrassing grass field that had been undeveloped for decades. And honestly, it's turning out to be a pretty decent looking albeit undersized tower. It's not the best thing in the world but it's a hell of a lot better tHan what was there before.

This isn't replacing an empty field. This is replacing an amazing piece of architecture that was destroyed so that this building could exist. This project has really big shoes to fill and if it fails to impress it should be severely criticized. I was all for the partial demolition of the Boyd when I thought it was leading to a beautiful skyscraper. If this project is a turd I would have rather it just not been built and the Boyd was still there with at least the possibility that it could be restored one day.
     
     
  #280  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2015, 3:33 PM
1487 1487 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 3,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by allovertown View Post
I totally disagree wIth saving the complaints for 1919 Market. 1919 Market replaced an embarrassing grass field that had been undeveloped for decades. And honestly, it's turning out to be a pretty decent looking albeit undersized tower. It's not the best thing in the world but it's a hell of a lot better tHan what was there before.

This isn't replacing an empty field. This is replacing an amazing piece of architecture that was destroyed so that this building could exist. This project has really big shoes to fill and if it fails to impress it should be severely criticized. I was all for the partial demolition of the Boyd when I thought it was leading to a beautiful skyscraper. If this project is a turd I would have rather it just not been built and the Boyd was still there with at least the possibility that it could be restored one day.
Boyd wasn't going to be restored regardless. Various firms looked at it and there is a reason none of the proposals got off the ground. There is already intense competition for dollars amongst the existing theaters in the city. The market wasn't sufficient to justify the expense of a proper restoration
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:48 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.