PHILADELPHIA | East Market | 284 & 248 FT | 24 & 20 FLOORS

[summersm343]

Knew this would happen at some point! I think the plans for 12th and Chestnut Tower was 33 floors of office and apartments. We’ll see if that happens!

[McBane]

This is HUGE!

What I find the most intriguing about this news is that the developer is ready to demolish a multi-story, block-long parking garage with occupied retail spaces. It's reasonable to assume this garage makes some decent money and so for the developers to decide to shut it down and demolish it shows two critical things:

1) This project has all financing lined up and is ready to go, because otherwise why close this money making garage if they still need to secure financing, city approvals*, etc.?

2) Whatever they're planning on building in its place must be pretty big because of what it's replacing. It's not as if it's just a dinky surface lot.

*Assuming it's a pretty big project, it would have to go thru CDR right? So perhaps they don't have everything lined up but again, I'd assume for them to demolish this garage, they'd want to move forward as quickly as possible.

[Nova08]

Originally Posted by McBane

This is HUGE!

What I find the most intriguing about this news is that the developer is ready to demolish a multi-story, block-long parking garage with occupied retail spaces. It's reasonable to assume this garage makes some decent money and so for the developers to decide to shut it down and demolish it shows two critical things:

1) This project has all financing lined up and is ready to go, because otherwise why close this money making garage if they still need to secure financing, city approvals*, etc.?

2) Whatever they're planning on building in its place must be pretty big because of what it's replacing. It's not as if it's just a dinky surface lot.

*Assuming it's a pretty big project, it would have to go thru CDR right? So perhaps they don't have everything lined up but again, I'd assume for them to demolish this garage, they'd want to move forward as quickly as possible.

It's definitely a good sign. But again, it might be some concern around a historical designation. They might have some financing secured, not all, and don't want to end up in a 12+ month churn while a designation is sorted out.

[iheartphilly]

^^^
Pre-emptive move by NRED to prevent historic designation of the garage and the possibility of 2 mixed used towers (if market conditions favor it). There's a lot of self-driven momentum as things are shaping up with the Market East development and FDP.

As a side note, any one got info on 13th and market office tower? It's been crickets on that one for a while now.

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by McBane

This is HUGE!

2) Whatever they're planning on building in its place must be pretty big because of what it's replacing. It's not as if it's just a dinky surface lot.

There's a site plan in place, and you can see a render or two of the ground floor of the Chestnut street side. Yes, it's big. It has a pedestrian alley way that will connect with East Market (running behind the S Girard building). Similar to East Market, the alleyway will split two retail podiums, both with a tower on top.

The smart thing about this approach is that by placing the towers setback on podiums, you ensure 360degree views for the entire building. No hideous blank walls along property lines that inherently don't generate value like we saw at the Goldenberg Walnut Street building.

[McBane]

If everyone is so concerned about this garage being historically protected, then damn, what does that say about our historic certification program? Talk about low thresholds. Regardless of its age and design, it's still A FUCKING PARKING GARAGE! But I guess after seeing that horrific health building on South Broad historically certified, anything is possible, right? Am I really off base here or is there really genuine concern that some moron would fight to protect a parking garage? Maybe the developer is concerned because, like I said before, that garage and the retail spaces probably generate a good bit of income.

EDIT: Can anyone snap a picture of the renderings that Londonee referenced in his post?

[Parkway]

Originally Posted by McBane

If everyone is so concerned about this garage being historically protected, then damn, what does that say about our historic certification program? Talk about low thresholds. Regardless of its age and design, it's still A FUCKING PARKING GARAGE! But I guess after seeing that horrific health building on South Broad historically certified, anything is possible, right?

And Robinson's Department store. Buildings are not art, at their core they serve a purpose. If their ability to perform a useful function has been significantly diminished or if the way in which it performs that function is harmful to it's surroundings that needs to be weighed against whatever architectural or historical value the building has.

There are a bunch of NIMBYs in this city that like to masquerade as preservationists who view change as something that is inherently bad.

[McBane]

^ Yes and Robinson's. How could I forget about Philadelphia's ode to the man (Victor Gruen) whose claim to fame was designing suburban shopping malls that helped put traditional shopping corridors like East Market in a death spiral? I guess no one saw that irony when they designated Robinson's as historic.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by Parkway

And Robinson's Department store. Buildings are not art, at their core they serve a purpose. If their ability to perform a useful function has been significantly diminished or if the way in which it performs that function is harmful to it's surroundings that needs to be weighed against whatever architectural or historical value the building has.

There are a bunch of NIMBYs in this city that like to masquerade as preservationists who view change as something that is inherently bad.

NO, I don't think these are generally the same people with the same motivations. A lot of the people I am hearing that want to preserve would be good with a facadectomy and towers. Most NIMBYs would not want any towers and don't particularly care about the aesthetic or preservation.

Personally, I would have liked the developer to look into preservation. Perhaps they did and determined it was not feasible. Given a choice between a tower or a parking garage, I'd clearly choose the tower. Whether there was a viable middle ground that would allow for the tower and significant preservation of the limestone base, I don't know.

[iheartphilly]

^^^
Also, some buildings are art like Art Deco and Beaux arts buildings inside and out. Even some modern buildings are art and the shapes and designs of them are intended to be this this way (e.g., Beekman Tower in NYC). Too many examples to note. And, they can serve the function to house people to do what they need to do. It is odd that on this forum we jump to criticize the design of newly constructed buildings but don't look at the design as art like we should. Just saying. I, for one, consider skyscrapers to be art, knowing that it is not its sole function.

[Parkway]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

NO, I don't think these are generally the same people with the same motivations. A lot of the people I am hearing that want to preserve would be good with a facadectomy and towers. Most NIMBYs would not want any towers and don't particularly care about the aesthetic or preservation.

Personally, I would have liked the developer to look into preservation. Perhaps they did and determined it was not feasible. Given a choice between a tower or a parking garage, I'd clearly choose the tower. Whether there was a viable middle ground that would allow for the tower and significant preservation of the limestone base, I don't know.

Sorry, I didn't mean all preservationists are NIMBYs. What I meant is that there is a group of people who recognize that old-school NIMBYism is viewed in a bad light so they've switched shirts (a-la that Homer Simpson meme) and now claim their opposition is based on preservation instead of a general opposition to all things new.

As an example, that guy in Fishtown that spent years trying to get a parking lot designated because it might have had cemetery at some point (but really it was the apartment proposal for the site).

[Parkway]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

^^^
Also, some buildings are art like Art Deco and Beaux arts buildings inside and out. Even some modern buildings are art and the shapes and designs of them are intended to be this this way (e.g., Beekman Tower in NYC). Too many examples to note. And, they can serve the function to house people to do what they need to do. It is odd that on this forum we jump to criticize the design of newly constructed buildings but don't look at the design as art like we should. Just saying. I, for one, consider skyscrapers to be art, knowing that it is not its sole function.

My point isn't that buildings can't or shouldn't be beautiful but that beauty shouldn't be the sole determination of value. As a general rule, can't negatively impact those around it and its positive impact stems from it's aesthetic value or historic importance.

Buildings are very different in this regard. Value or lack there of, needs to be measure not only in aesthetic and historic importance but also in terms of what the building adds or detracts from the urban environment surrounding it. This is an important conversation to have as mid-century buildings come of age precisely because many of those buildings were so damaging to the built environment.

[SEFTA]

I like the garage. I understood that it was originally offices then turned into a garage. It's pretty magnificent in it's massiveness. I would prefer, and I think it would prove to be much more inventive, that they build towers above it. I don't expect that to happen. It would be very difficult to make it work in with the new East Market, as the pedestrian mid-block cut is pretty much the backbone of the entire East Market development. An art-deco icon.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by Parkway

Value or lack there of, needs to be measure not only in aesthetic and historic importance but also in terms of what the building adds or detracts from the urban environment surrounding it.

I know what you meant and I agree, particularly this statement that I quoted. Basically, no matter how historically or architecturally significant a parking garage may be (and really, how historical or attractive can a parking garage be?), it should never, ever, ever be protected from being redeveloped into a better use. Ever, ever, ever (in my Chris Tucker voice).

Sorry, but a parking garage, even a well designed one with ground floor retail, is one of the lowest forms of land use in an urban area and any opportunity to replace one with a more dynamic use should be welcomed by all.

[iheartphilly]

Originally Posted by Parkway

My point isn't that buildings can't or shouldn't be beautiful but that beauty shouldn't be the sole determination of value. As a general rule, can't negatively impact those around it and its positive impact stems from it's aesthetic value or historic importance.

Buildings are very different in this regard. Value or lack there of, needs to be measure not only in aesthetic and historic importance but also in terms of what the building adds or detracts from the urban environment surrounding it. This is an important conversation to have as mid-century buildings come of age precisely because many of those buildings were so damaging to the built environment.

Well, I think beauty adds to the value of a building and usually you get a more vigorous fight from the preservationist than not, but that can't be looked at in a vacuum. And, sure I agree with you that value is not just one dimension, as historic and provenance value are added to the equation. I think it is much easier to value a building based on market values of location and its immediate environment and purpose. The other values tend to be more subjective and to the whims of people that interpret some kind of historical/preservation handbook or documents. These people don't look at it from an economic point of view. They want to preserve something they deem worth preserving at any cost but don't write the checks. Developers are sometimes put between a rock and a hard place. The tough part about all of this is the juxtaposition of a developer applying capitalism and economics on such a structure. Take the Divine Lorraine building, without, historic tax credits, that building would of not been renovated and fit for use and would of continue to fall into disrepair. On the flip side, some developers, like SLC, find creative ways to work it in like the project, i.e., The Laurel, at RH Square and add value to the neighborhood and the environment around it.

[jjv007]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

As a side note, any one got info on 13th and market office tower? It's been crickets on that one for a while now.

It needs tenants.

[tsarstruck]

Originally Posted by SEFTA

I like the garage. I understood that it was originally offices then turned into a garage.

That's not true. It was built in 1940 as a garage.

http://www.philly.com/philly/columni..._building.html

[City Wide]

Originally Posted by McBane

I know what you meant and I agree, particularly this statement that I quoted. Basically, no matter how historically or architecturally significant a parking garage may be (and really, how historical or attractive can a parking garage be?), it should never, ever, ever be protected from being redeveloped into a better use. Ever, ever, ever (in my Chris Tucker voice).

Sorry, but a parking garage, even a well designed one with ground floor retail, is one of the lowest forms of land use in an urban area and any opportunity to replace one with a more dynamic use should be welcomed by all.

I like to consider myself a diehard preservationist who is sick over the loss of historic/older/decent buildings and churches, but after thinking about this I agree with you, some type of buildings should just not be fought over (and is there any indication that anyone is trying to save this garage?) Take a bunch of hi-def photos and call in the wrecking ball. As long as there are permits and contracts for it's replacement, I say let it die. Just don't leave us with a unused lot.

I'd like this building to continue to live and function and in a better world maybe it could be incorporated into something much bigger, but I think there are much bigger and more important battles to be fought. And we don't live in a perfect world!

What if Philly had the very first parking garage with a double spiral ramp and it was known in certain circles for its unusual use of post tensioning. As far as I'm concerned even a F.L.W. designed garage shouldn't be saved; anything related to the storage of cars is open season for demo.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by McBane

I know what you meant and I agree, particularly this statement that I quoted. Basically, no matter how historically or architecturally significant a parking garage may be (and really, how historical or attractive can a parking garage be?), it should never, ever, ever be protected from being redeveloped into a better use. Ever, ever, ever (in my Chris Tucker voice).

Sorry, but a parking garage, even a well designed one with ground floor retail, is one of the lowest forms of land use in an urban area and any opportunity to replace one with a more dynamic use should be welcomed by all.

I also agree with Parkway's point, but I don't see how you take that statement and then jump to the idea that no parking garage should ever be preserved. This building fits in well within basically any urban enviroment. It has street facing retail on all sides and it is a very striking building. It is indistinguishable as parking garage. It succeeds as a building regardless of use, and the use no matter how humble is still useful. I am no defender of the car or the right to parking spaces, but the simple reality is they are in demand in this city. Demolishing this garage, only discourages the demolition of other nearby garages that are all inferior by making their parking spaces more valuable.

I remember in the early 2000s, riding the bus down chestnut freequently, and this building always caught my eye, I never would have guessed it was a garage.

All of that said. I don't think it is worthy of historic preservation. As unique and interesting as this building is, it's not important enough to say it should remain forever, especially considering it is not in great repair. But it's unique, it's interesting, it's useful, it's (ironically) pedestrian friendly. If it's going to be torn down, it should be torn down for something, it shouldn't just be torn down so they can keep their options open and prevent historic preservation down the line. The future is a fickle place, and as great as the Market East development looks, there's no telling what will happen in the future. If they tear this down and plan to build something in 5 years, everyone on this board should be well aware at this point that major projects planned numerous years down the line, have a a low probability of ever being built.

So I'm fine with knocking it down, but it should be to build something as soon as they finished knocking it down. I'm no fan of looking at an empty lot instead of a handsome building, while they wait for the right market conditions to build the next phase.

[jsbrook]

I remember seeing some renders of the new towers as part of the global project. Anyone have easy access and ability to post? Not sure if they were just placeholders and that is what is actually envisioned, but I remember them looking decent.