Page 27 reads:
The faceted tower crown recalls Art Deco details of other
crowns which accentuate tower tops throughout Center City.
It will be interesting to see how they do this with glass.

Also, there looks to be 3 small setbacks on the tower. All and all above street eye view will be a glass tower. I don't hate. Here are the stats for this 307'6" proposed bldg:

Zone
CMX-5
Site Area
12,440 s.f
.
Proposed Floor Area
135,540 s.f
.
Total Floors
24 stories
R
esidential Units
85 r
esidential dwelling units
Retail Commercial Space
4,529 s.f
.
Bicycle Storage
30 secur
e bicycle spaces
Parking Accommodation
Off
-site valet parking located at 618 Market Street Garage

I think the new setbacks make the tower a bit more interesting. Before it was just a big boring box, so this is an improvement IMO.

Minimal changes. Slight improvements. But's let's just do this already! Ready to get this underway since it is happening.

Street level/podium looks even more bland. Not expecting much from Toll except height.

Proposed height is 291 ft per the CDR submission.

That's habitable height. With all of the mechanical things etc, it'll be 307 ft.

The building should have balconies. Definitely my favorite amenity when I lived in an apartment tower. And I think the high end buyers Toll Brothers is going for would want them. Plus the building would look more like a residential tower and less like an office building.

This is awful. A great, distinctive, low-rise urban retail block forever ruined:(

Ah, you are right.

Yes, it is sad. The architecture is poor and it does not fit with its surroundings. But it seems a done deal now, and I hope your statement is an exaggeration. The rest of the buildings on the block are intact. Focus should be on preserving those. I think the block still could retain most of its charm.

Article about latest design by Inga-

http://www.philly.com/philly/columni...-20180301.html

^^ Interesting that Inga suspects that Toll will simply get approvals and then flip the property/project.

This just makes my blood boil:

I hate it when people think developers will shrink a tower AND improve the design. First off, once a building exceeds a certain threshold, a building's height really doesn't make much a difference from the street. But more importantly, asking a developer to build a smaller (less profitable building) but then make expensive changes to the design is utterly ridiculous and shows a complete lack of understanding of how economics work. Instead, the government should ask in these situations - how much taller can you build to improve the design and still maintain your profit margins? I wouldn't expect anyone in Philly's government to understand such a concept.

I hope they do flip it...hard to imagine another developer would put up something worse.

I thought this was presently a 'by right' build, so what approvals do they need? There might be some court cases hanging out there, but aren't they ready to go, at least as far as permits go?

from Inga "Generic, placeless, and grossly underdetailed", true

The preservationists are exhausting their last effort at appeal, which will most likely fail. Then I'd say that Toll is ready to go if it wants to. A shame. Putting aside the arguments about destroying the neighborhood, they could have come up with a good building even if out of context with its surroundings. They give us this garbage, but they give New York this: https://www.121e22nd.com/

^ That goes back to my point. Our government demanded Toll shorten their tower and incorporate the facades. It was a public attack that made absolutely no financial sense for Toll; on top of it, the city had zero leverage b/c the tower required no zoning variances. Did Kenney really think Toll would say, "Sure Mr. Mayor, we'll redesign the tower and hopefully break even."

The smart thing would have been to privately go to Toll and ask for a better design in exchange for more units (i.e., taller building) to offset the cost of a better design.

I think the general point is valid but has little relevance here. Toll would have given them shit no matter what. Almost everything they do but the Rem Koolhaus tower I linked has been complete shit. Plus, Toll does not seem to have been all that upset about shortening this tower (and height was not the government's main gripe). I'm not at all sure they did not happily shorten it for market reasons and perceived demand.

All good points. And probably right that they shortened the tower due to market demand, but still, Kenney's comments reflect a total ignorance of basic economics. Too often government agencies and civic groups (NIMBYs) want buildings shorter (less units, less profit) AND better designed (more expense, less profit).

This could have been so much different from a PR basis-------and I think they could have easily avoided 95% of the controversy and probably would have been welcomed with open arms.
1. save the facades,-----a no brainer
2. included retail at least on the ground floor, so the idea of jewelers row might have continued
3. before releasing any designs they should have had a informational meeting with the neighbors (Washington Sq. west?) to hear just in general their concerns and worries and desires (something many developers do)
4. not try to play games with the lot lines and including a City alley in their plans
5. tried to include some parking (doubtful considering the site, but show that they tried)
6. if they wanted more height or other factors from the City they could have talked to the mayor/others before going public

And then as the first tower they are building in Philly, I think it would have served them well to have designed a much better building.

Does any of this directly make them more profit? Who knows. But they could have been under construction by now, and time equals money.

As it is I don't think you could have drawn a pre-construction roadmap as poorly as the one they have traveled. They've had problems from day 1 and in my observation not that many people like the project as it now stands.