SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Proposals (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=361)
-   -   PHILADELPHIA | 702 Sansom Street | 315 FT | 24 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=226774)

summersm343 Jan 25, 2017 4:20 AM

PHILADELPHIA | 702 Sansom Street | 315 FT | 24 FLOORS
 
Title: 702 Sansom Street
Project: Luxury condominiums, retail
Architect: SLCE
Developer: Toll Brothers
Location: 702 Sansom St., Philadelphia, PA
Floors: 24
Height: 315 ft

http://planphilly.com/uploads/media_...752.1236.s.png

http://planphilly.com/uploads/media_...752.1177.s.png

http://planphilly.com/uploads/media_....752.464.s.png

http://planphilly.com/uploads/media_....752.459.s.png

Plan Philly article:
http://planphilly.com/articles/2017/...on-square-west

Philly.com article:
http://www.philly.com/philly/busines...ower-plan.html

Philadelphia Business Journal article:
http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelp...enderings.html

boxbot Jan 25, 2017 5:31 AM

Height is nice and it's set back from the street with a somewhat appropriate podium. Facade looks like it will be cheap.

allovertown Jan 25, 2017 7:06 AM

Toll can suck on a bag of rotten walnuts. This Dr. Jekyll/ Mr. Hyde Facade treatment looks ridiculous and cheap. They can't even preserve the facades and yet they replace them with that boring crap? If you can't preserve history, then you better propose something damn impressive to replace it. this project sucks.

Larry King Jan 25, 2017 12:17 PM

I think it's pretty cool, would like a unit on the glass side

PHL10 Jan 25, 2017 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by allovertown (Post 7689467)
Toll can suck on a bag of rotten walnuts. This Dr. Jekyll/ Mr. Hyde Facade treatment looks ridiculous and cheap. They can't even preserve the facades and yet they replace them with that boring crap? If you can't preserve history, then you better propose something damn impressive to replace it. this project sucks.

I think this is all a negotiating tactic. If you look at the podium, they are setting up things to be able to keep the facades. Keeping the facades will be the trade off to defeat all the other arbitrary NIMBY complaints.

If they ram this through as is, I see this as a serious mistake. For as much as you don’t necessarily need to kiss the City’s butt to be successful, it’s unwise to run roughshod over them and make them look inept in front of their constituencies.

Boku Jan 25, 2017 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PHL10 (Post 7689544)
I think this is all a negotiating tactic. If you look at the podium, they are setting up things to be able to keep the facades. Keeping the facades will be the trade off to defeat all the other arbitrary NIMBY complaints.

If they ram this through as is, I see this as a serious mistake. For as much as you don’t necessarily need to kiss the City’s butt to be successful, it’s unwise to run roughshod over them and make them look inept in front of their constituencies.

I don't know, Kenney seems to have given his blessing per his quote in the philly.com article:

Quote:

Mayor Kenney, who had earlier called on Toll Bros. to at least preserve the existing buildings’ facades as part of the development plan, said in an emailed statement that the proposal presented Tuesday was “respectful of the design elements present on the block frontage.”

“I do believe that Toll Bros. remains committed to maintaining Jewelers Row as a historical, cultural gem,” Kenney said.


Scottydont Jan 25, 2017 12:57 PM

They're only replacing what, 3 of the building on Jewelers Row? Maybe I didn't keep up with the details, but I thought it was going to be much more extensive then that.

Seems like a big stink was raised for nothing IMO

eixample Jan 25, 2017 12:58 PM

I understand why the first three stories are made to look like the buildings they plan to tear down, but I don't understand why they didn't go with all glass on the Sansom side tower. Looks weirdly split in two, like a building version of a mullet - business in the front, party in the back.

Are there any appeals outstanding on the demolition permits? I thought they had arguments that they were illegally posted, that would allow for the historical nomination to proceed, but I haven't heard anything more about that.

eixample Jan 25, 2017 1:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scottydont (Post 7689548)
They're only replacing what, 3 of the building on Jewelers Row? Maybe I didn't keep up with the details, but I thought it was going to be much more extensive then that.

Seems like a big stink was raised for nothing IMO

They are nice buildings that are being torn down and the historical dimensions of a special street in the commercial history of the city (going way back before it was a jewelery district) is being substantially altered. This is not "much ado about nothing".

Scottydont Jan 25, 2017 1:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eixample (Post 7689552)
They are nice buildings that are being torn down and the historical dimensions of a special street in the commercial history of the city (going way back before it was a jewelery district) is being substantially altered. This is not "much ado about nothing".

Please elaborate.

PHL10 Jan 25, 2017 1:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eixample (Post 7689552)
This is not "much ado about nothing".

No offense guys but this isn't some random block in Center City, it's Jewelers' Effin' Row. You don't tear shit like this down in my mind:

http://www.ocfrealty.com/sites/www.o...IMG_7585_0.JPG

Milksteak Jan 25, 2017 1:32 PM

At first I (like many others) was very bothered that they would be tearing down a portion of Jeweler's Row, it is absolutely a historic part of the city that makes Philly what it is. Then I learned that these properties were never added to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places...and it kind of just made me sad. We lag behind other cities with protecting our historic properties, I can't even get too angry at Toll Brothers on this one. They saw an opportunity and and pursued it.

I don't want to see the properties go, but I think the city screwed up here and the developer can't entirely be blamed. As far as the building goes, it's a big 'meh' from me. The ground level looks more like a converted warehouse to me than anything else, not terrible but it doesn't necessarily integrate seamlessly into the neighborhood. If they agreed to leave the facades I would be behind this 100%.

christof Jan 25, 2017 1:38 PM

Am I wrong to say that I like this proposal and design.

Best part - this is going to get built!

Jawnadelphia Jan 25, 2017 1:40 PM

Boring design... Toll Bros. does things a little more interesting in NYC. Decent height at least.

Larry King Jan 25, 2017 1:42 PM

It sorta reminds me of the new Penn med building at 8 and walnut with the glass and brick mix. The units on the south side will be awesome, floor to ceiling windows, good sun, great views, I can't wait to see what price psf they try to hit.

Justin7 Jan 25, 2017 1:43 PM

Fine with the base. Fine with the height. The blank walls are insane. This would have killer views once it cleared the Curtis, but nope, let's throw up a shit-ton of fake brick and alucobond.

Obvious 30 second photoshop:
http://imgur.com/FCkMilC.gif

Frontst17 Jan 25, 2017 2:50 PM

Id rather preserve the buildings, but I honestly dont mind the street level frontage, its the rest of the building that sucks. It looks like they're trying to do some faux loft style design but stretched over 28 stories, which the people to the north get to look at, and then a "modern" glass wall for the people of the square to look at. Its boring and in 2017, kind of run of the mill. Could float in collowhill, not here

allovertown Jan 25, 2017 3:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milksteak (Post 7689568)
At first I (like many others) was very bothered that they would be tearing down a portion of Jeweler's Row, it is absolutely a historic part of the city that makes Philly what it is. Then I learned that these properties were never added to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places...and it kind of just made me sad. We lag behind other cities with protecting our historic properties, I can't even get too angry at Toll Brothers on this one. They saw an opportunity and and pursued it.

I don't want to see the properties go, but I think the city screwed up here and the developer can't entirely be blamed. As far as the building goes, it's a big 'meh' from me. The ground level looks more like a converted warehouse to me than anything else, not terrible but it doesn't necessarily integrate seamlessly into the neighborhood. If they agreed to leave the facades I would be behind this 100%.

Definitely the city and historic commission deserve a fair share of the blame. But there is plenty left for Toll. Seeing an opportunity to degrade Philadelphia for the benefit of their bottom line is not something I'm just fine with. Just because they can do something legally doesn't make it right. I don't begrudge them trying to make a buck, but give me a break, plenty of money can be made here without tearing apart one of the most historic streets in Philadelphia.

Preserving the facades of the buildings is the bare minimum they must do. But honestly it's so much worse than that. This tower is the ugliest stack of shit I've ever seen.

I can't believe some here called the tower at 13th and Market boring but now seem ok with this. This tower is like two towers, both more boring than the 13th and Market Tower that have been tastelessly glued together. The blank walls, the lack of detail or character. It's truly the worst Philadelphia tower design I've seen in a long long time.

Redddog Jan 25, 2017 3:07 PM

Hard to separate feelings on this.

If this weren't on Jewelers Row, I think people would have a better opinion of this. I'd love the podium if it were on Callowhill street but here it sticks out like a sore thumb.

I think if they chose different finishes that were more "period correct" for the street level (like painted wood trim work etc.), it would look better but what the hail do I know.

Peggy Shippen Jan 25, 2017 3:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin7 (Post 7689574)
Fine with the base. Fine with the height. The blank walls are insane. This would have killer views once it cleared the Curtis, but nope, let's throw up a shit-ton of fake brick and alucobond.

Obvious 30 second photoshop:
http://imgur.com/FCkMilC.gif

I disagree; I think the tower is half-decent- not anything special, by any means, but not terrible- but the base is just godawful, especially compared to what it's replacing.

Jayfar Jan 25, 2017 4:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milksteak (Post 7689568)
At first I (like many others) was very bothered that they would be tearing down a portion of Jeweler's Row, it is absolutely a historic part of the city that makes Philly what it is. Then I learned that these properties were never added to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places...and it kind of just made me sad. We lag behind other cities with protecting our historic properties, I can't even get too angry at Toll Brothers on this one. They saw an opportunity and and pursued it.

I don't want to see the properties go, but I think the city screwed up here and the developer can't entirely be blamed. As far as the building goes, it's a big 'meh' from me. The ground level looks more like a converted warehouse to me than anything else, not terrible but it doesn't necessarily integrate seamlessly into the neighborhood. If they agreed to leave the facades I would be behind this 100%.

Beyond that the City screwed the pooch majorly by zoning the block CMX-5. They should change that, but it won't have any effect retroactively.

Gonzo the Great Jan 25, 2017 4:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peggy Shippen (Post 7689655)
I disagree; I think the tower is half-decent- not anything special, by any means, but not terrible- but the base is just godawful, especially compared to what it's replacing.



Well , since we are posting opinions on something we have no control over ..... I think the whole thing sucks . It just
appears to have the wrong style cladding for the area . Bet some members on this site could do a better job with a
box of legos . :yes:

Redddog Jan 25, 2017 4:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gonzo the Great (Post 7689754)
Well , since we are posting opinions on something we have no control over ..... I think the whole thing sucks . It just
appears to have the wrong style cladding for the area . Bet some members on this site could do a better job with a
box of legos . :yes:

Toll Bros should ask the Mormons to design it and put an end to all this.

City Wide Jan 25, 2017 4:32 PM

Regardless of the other various issues related to this proposal I've got to say in general I'm very underwhelmed by this design. As others have pointed out the new street level buildings really don't work within the context of the rest of the block. Would it have been so hard to replace the 3 buildings being torn down with a front that looked like 3 different buildings, even if they were of a modern design.
I would have thought that for their first Philly highrise Toll would have brought their A game, really try to make a statement of sorts. This is not "A" level design.

City Wide Jan 25, 2017 4:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PHL10 (Post 7689544)
I think this is all a negotiating tactic. If you look at the podium, they are setting up things to be able to keep the facades. Keeping the facades will be the trade off to defeat all the other arbitrary NIMBY complaints.

Other then the ongoing lawsuit relating to the posting of this proposal, I thought this was a "by right" building, meaning Toll doesn't need to negotiate. They aren't asking the City for anything. Who knows, maybe they would like to go a few floors taller and they are trying to put themselves into a good trading position.

I just realized that on some of the drawings the east end is windowless brick :slob: and in other drawings the north window wall wraps partial around the corner on the east end. I really don't think much of this design but the blank end walls really blows.

TempleGuy1000 Jan 25, 2017 5:39 PM

It's some what of a conscience that the police raided V Jewelers on this block yesterday. They can't close some of these POS stores quick enough.

Just to float another opinion of mine: the blank brick wall sucks

frbrown Jan 25, 2017 5:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TempleGuy1000 (Post 7689829)
It's someone what of a conscience that the police raided V Jewelers on this block yesterday. They can't close some of these POS stores quick enough.

Just to float another opinion of mine: the blank brick wall sucks

Wow hadn't heard of that. for anyone who's interested here's more info

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/201...burglary-ring/

jjv007 Jan 25, 2017 5:52 PM

Imo we need to try to stop labeling too many things "historic" that are only borderline so. That being said, this is a "meh" design for sure.

hammersklavier Jan 25, 2017 5:56 PM

I am of two minds about this render.

As a massing diagram, it is excellent! This is an elegant solution to the massing challenge of integrating a high-rise structure into a low-rise commercial district. I would actually be fine with more buildings of this type on Jeweler's Row so long as they followed this type of massing plan and kept the low-rise commercial district streetscape intact.

As a rendering, this really isn't that good. Ironically, the streetscape -- the part they want to demolish -- is by far the best-designed part of the building. This is more than a little silly, unless Toll Brothers is trying to preemptively curtail neighborhood groups' power over the design -- ramming it through approvals and offering us a turd.

My take: This thing clearly suffers from massively misplaced priorities. The podium is absurdly overdesigned for a structure that would have about the same height as the tallest structure they're planning on demolishing; the tower is likewise underdesigned and shockingly schizoid, betraying a lack of -- even a lack of caring about -- architectural cohesion. This building could actually fit better into the context of Jeweler's Row than most of us had feared, but it needs quite a bit of work to get there.

I would:

1. Design the podium around a façadectomy rather than a total demolition. There is clearly no reason for a complete demolition other than to save a few shekels for a developer known to be rolling in the dough. Stripping the 20th century interventions off 702-4 Sansom's ground floors and extending the 4th floor as a minimalist, highly contrastive curtain wall would be more than adequate to accentuate the rather handsome block of late 19th century and early 20th century commercial architecture.

ETA: The more I'm looking at that faux-1920s podium, the more insulting I think it is.

2. This is a building, not 2towers1core! Design with cohesion in mind. Make both sides of the building speak to each other. 700 Sansom is clearly not going anywhere, and given that it's the oldest true rowhome in the city, should not ever go anywhere. Put windows on that side. Eastward views, especially over the Curtis Center, should be particularly valuable. I don't particularly expect The Bridge 2.0 from a notoriously conservative designer, but compared to this abomination 10 Fucking Rittenhouse is a masterclass in historicist design.

So in sum: the architects figured out how to best mass this building, but for everything else, they really need to start from scratch.

skyscraper Jan 25, 2017 6:42 PM

An example of a building that is embarrassed of its own existence. One facade is meant to match the brick historic buildings, the other is glass so that it just reflects its surroundings rather than be a part of them.
I get that they are trying to placate the historicists who don't want this building at all, but they might as well clad the thing in camoflage to hide it.

1487 Jan 25, 2017 6:47 PM

CDR presentation is on the site now.

allovertown Jan 25, 2017 7:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hammersklavier (Post 7689858)
I am of two minds about this render.

As a massing diagram, it is excellent! This is an elegant solution to the massing challenge of integrating a high-rise structure into a low-rise commercial district. I would actually be fine with more buildings of this type on Jeweler's Row so long as they followed this type of massing plan and kept the low-rise commercial district streetscape intact.

As a rendering, this really isn't that good. Ironically, the streetscape -- the part they want to demolish -- is by far the best-designed part of the building. This is more than a little silly, unless Toll Brothers is trying to preemptively curtail neighborhood groups' power over the design -- ramming it through approvals and offering us a turd.

My take: This thing clearly suffers from massively misplaced priorities. The podium is absurdly overdesigned for a structure that would have about the same height as the tallest structure they're planning on demolishing; the tower is likewise underdesigned and shockingly schizoid, betraying a lack of -- even a lack of caring about -- architectural cohesion. This building could actually fit better into the context of Jeweler's Row than most of us had feared, but it needs quite a bit of work to get there.

I would:

1. Design the podium around a façadectomy rather than a total demolition. There is clearly no reason for a complete demolition other than to save a few shekels for a developer known to be rolling in the dough. Stripping the 20th century interventions off 702-4 Sansom's ground floors and extending the 4th floor as a minimalist, highly contrastive curtain wall would be more than adequate to accentuate the rather handsome block of late 19th century and early 20th century commercial architecture.

ETA: The more I'm looking at that faux-1920s podium, the more insulting I think it is.

2. This is a building, not 2towers1core! Design with cohesion in mind. Make both sides of the building speak to each other. 700 Sansom is clearly not going anywhere, and given that it's the oldest true rowhome in the city, should not ever go anywhere. Put windows on that side. Eastward views, especially over the Curtis Center, should be particularly valuable. I don't particularly expect The Bridge 2.0 from a notoriously conservative designer, but compared to this abomination 10 Fucking Rittenhouse is a masterclass in historicist design.

So in sum: the architects figured out how to best mass this building, but for everything else, they really need to start from scratch.

Great post. As much as I tore into this building, you are correct in assessing that the massing really is perfect for this location. But the design is just so pitiful on every level. For a building to be so bland yet so offensive at the same time is quite the dubious achievement.

summersm343 Jan 25, 2017 8:18 PM

CDR submission

http://www.phila.gov/CityPlanning/pr...et_CDR_web.pdf

summersm343 Jan 25, 2017 8:21 PM

Toll Bros. reveals Jewelers Row 29-story tower renderings

Quote:

After eight months of heated debate, zoning appeals, and historic nominations, Toll Brothers has finally revealed its design proposal for a soaring condominium tower on Jewelers Row in Washington Square West.

The design proposal calls for a 29-story tower with 115 condo units and 2,600 square feet of retail at 702-710 Sansom Street. A total of five buildings will be demolished to make way for the residential building.

The developer and designer, New York-based SLCE Architects, presented its design proposal to the Washington Square West Civic Association’s zoning board and local residents Tuesday night, ahead of its scheduled Civic Design Review meeting in early February.

The proposed 29-story tower tops out at about 354 feet and will replace five buildings on Jewelers Row and another on South 7th Street. A majority of the 32 buildings on Jewelers Row range between three and four stories tall.

According to Toll Bros. representative Brian Emmons, of five designs the developer presented to community stakeholders over the past few months, they preferred the tallest height most.

As the meeting came to a close around 8:30 p.m., the zoning committee met privately to vote whether or not to support the by-right project. They will have a seat at the February 7 Civic Design Review meeting, where Toll Bros. and SLCE will present their proposal again.

Depending on the outcome—CDR can ask them to return for a second go—Emmons said they’ll have a more definitive timeline. But construction is expected to take two years, with the first eight to nine months including demolition and building out the core and facade.
http://philly.curbed.com/2017/1/25/1...ers-renderings

Groundhog Jan 25, 2017 8:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjv007 (Post 7689852)
Imo we need to try to stop labeling too many things "historic" that are only borderline so. That being said, this is a "meh" design for sure.

Especially in a city like Philadelphia, where there is lots of real history, I think there needs to be a separate classification that is less stringent and easier to set up than the "historic" classification. Historic classification should require something to be completely saved, while a lesser designation, say, "archetype architecture" would require some restoration/elements of a building to remain in place, but would generally allow for significant alterations to a property with fewer (although still some) hoops to jump through for developers.

Flyers2001 Jan 25, 2017 8:57 PM

I can't wait to hear from Inga. :hell:

jjv007 Jan 25, 2017 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Groundhog (Post 7690157)
Especially in a city like Philadelphia, where there is lots of real history, I think there needs to be a separate classification that is less stringent and easier to set up than the "historic" classification. Historic classification should require something to be completely saved, while a lesser designation, say, "archetype architecture" would require some restoration/elements of a building to remain in place, but would generally allow for significant alterations to a property with fewer (although still some) hoops to jump through for developers.

This is an excellent point :tup:

summersm343 Jan 26, 2017 1:02 AM

Toll Takes Wraps Off Jewelers Row Tower

Read more at http://www.phillymag.com/property/20...iBCL6uTDMx8.99

City Wide Jan 26, 2017 1:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Groundhog (Post 7690157)
Especially in a city like Philadelphia, where there is lots of real history, I think there needs to be a separate classification that is less stringent and easier to set up than the "historic" classification. Historic classification should require something to be completely saved, while a lesser designation, say, "archetype architecture" would require some restoration/elements of a building to remain in place, but would generally allow for significant alterations to a property with fewer (although still some) hoops to jump through for developers.

I fully agree with you about the need for more type of historic listing. An example of a less stringent regulation would be on a block like jewelers row you couldn't change the brick openings in the buildings street face, but you could put any type of window you wanted in that opening. That way the guts, the bones of the basic structure would be in tack, but the other stuff that's relative easy to change, could change. The devil would be in the details, as always.
One problem is the City's Historic Commission is very, very small, has almost no budget, and is generally poorly run by well meaning folk. They don't want any more listings or historic districts or blocks. There's almost no policing of the listings the City already has.

All that being said, this proposal remains a big stinking turd. Other then the sad interaction with the rest of the block, and the fact that it looks like the retail spaces are right out of a strip mall (and not designed around having upper floor workshops and other jeweler related space) the tower will just sit there not knowing what it wants to be. But I imagine with the slick sales campaign that Toll runs, this will be a successful project. Boring and successful, probably just what Toll wants.

summersm343 Jan 27, 2017 2:47 AM

Renderings For Jewelers Row Project From Toll Brothers

Read more here:
http://www.ocfrealty.com/naked-phill...-toll-brothers

SEFTA Jan 27, 2017 3:12 AM

702 Sansom Street, Jewelers Row, showed here with boxy proposal at 709 Chestnut Street, both in red.
http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/...%20Row%202.jpg

http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/...lers%20Row.jpg


It's ashame they couldn't figure out how to fill all those surface lots with buildings before tearing down historic buildings
http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/...%20Row%203.jpg
:yes:

jsbrook Jan 27, 2017 3:33 PM

What proposal at 709 Chestnut Street? Isn't that abandoned?

http://philly.curbed.com/2016/9/12/1...velopment-deal

I do not believe this has been revised or picked up by any other developer.

1487 Jan 27, 2017 4:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsbrook (Post 7692077)
What proposal at 709 Chestnut Street? Isn't that abandoned?

http://philly.curbed.com/2016/9/12/1...velopment-deal

I do not believe this has been revised or picked up by any other developer.

yes, that's dead.

Milksteak Jan 27, 2017 4:17 PM

Wouldn't it be nice if Toll filled in 709 instead of taking out part of Jeweler's Row? There are still prime lots for the taking.

SEFTA Jan 27, 2017 4:57 PM

I kept it in, 709 Chestnut Street, because the thread is not closed. It also makes my point, that with all the other available lots, why do they need to tear down historic buildings. Unless I hear it is officially dead, I try to remain optimistic. Tho the renderings of 709 didn't scream a great project, I liked the idea of it happening. I keep the red as only proposals. The blue are under construction or, at least, very hopeful. Seeing all the projects together is really impressive. Reflects the interest in the area.
The Jewelers Row tower will have a great view of Washington Square.

Groundhog Jan 27, 2017 6:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SEFTA (Post 7692180)
I kept it in, 709 Chestnut Street, because the thread is not closed. It also makes my point, that with all the other available lots, why do they need to tear down historic buildings. Unless I hear it is officially dead, I try to remain optimistic. Tho the renderings of 709 didn't scream a great project, I liked the idea of it happening. I keep the red as only proposals. The blue are under construction or, at least, very hopeful. Seeing all the projects together is really impressive. Reflects the interest in the area.
The Jewelers Row tower will have a great view of Washington Square.

I love these mock ups you do, they really give better perspective on how a building will interact with the rest of the city. Is there any way you could post a protected view (to prevent people like me from mistakenly screwing up all your hard work) that would let us look around in it?

summersm343 Jan 27, 2017 6:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsbrook (Post 7692077)
What proposal at 709 Chestnut Street? Isn't that abandoned?

http://philly.curbed.com/2016/9/12/1...velopment-deal

I do not believe this has been revised or picked up by any other developer.

I'm keeping 709 Chestnut open for now. Roseland backed out in September, but Parkway still owns the lot and could easily partner with another developer. If we don't hear anything soon I'll close the thread. I'm going to start closing some threads we haven't heard anything about and will reopen them if new info or a new projects surfaces.

SEFTA Jan 28, 2017 3:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Groundhog (Post 7692308)
I love these mock ups you do, they really give better perspective on how a building will interact with the rest of the city. Is there any way you could post a protected view (to prevent people like me from mistakenly screwing up all your hard work) that would let us look around in it?

I have not been able to figure a way of sharing the info on GoogleEarth. I wish I could. It's quite entertaining to see all the current projects and proposals interact in the city. If you have any suggestions... each building is it's own KMZ file.

http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/...phia%20279.jpg

http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/...phia%20280.jpg

Human Scale Jan 28, 2017 4:44 AM

^Use ArcGis City Engine, optimally with VR

They use Philadelphia in a lot of their YouTube videos, presumably because so many West Chester University Geography and Planning graduates go to work for ESRI in Redlands.

https://youtu.be/lcLEOGO1JPE

https://youtu.be/nj78eQxidFc

Raymond LuxuryYacht Jan 28, 2017 6:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Human Scale (Post 7692827)
^Use ArcGis City Engine, optimally with VR

They use Philadelphia in a lot of their YouTube videos, presumably because so many West Chester University Geography and Planning graduates go to work for ESRI in Redlands.

https://youtu.be/lcLEOGO1JPE

https://youtu.be/nj78eQxidFc

I'm a Millersville grad who works for Esri. Yes, Philly seems to be the go-to demo scene for any presentation. The city from what I can tell was an early participant in 3-D modeling. They had a rep from the city at UC, I believe 2 years ago talking about how they use ArcMap for crime mapping. There's a 3-D building web service of the city you can pull into ArcGIS Earth that I believe is the one you see in many demos. The service doesn't have CITC yet, so hopefully it will updated soon to capture all the new building construction!!


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:31 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.