CDR Submission here:

http://www.phila.gov/CityPlanning/pr...v2_reduced.pdf

Actually looks to be about 315' to the parapet per the CDR submission.

I like the location, just wish it were at least 150 feet taller. :dunno:

Most of their buyers probably own Toll Bros dreck in the burbs and probably think this is beautiful architecture and will jump at the chance to buy the urban equivalent.

It's probably a mix. There is not a lot of inventory right now. All of the new construction luxury condos that recently went up (One Riverside, 500 Walnut, etc...) are attracting high numbers of existing residents in the City. While this will not be a building at the level of 500 Walnut, it could equal One Riverside and, though older buildings, 10 Rit and the Ritz Residences. It will probably be on par with Hyde. Whether suburban or city residents, though, there are few enough condo buildings going up like this that I think it will fill with residents who don't care about the exterior (or find it attractive) or will compromise based on on limited stock.

For me this is a great example of where I wish the City had tools to use to negotiate with Toll------maybe something along the lines of give them more height and density in exchange for saving and reusing the existing building facades. (maybe the City trades them a few more floors if they'd hire a architect and come up with a decent design!)

Is this a "by right" proposal?

The City does have those tools, and I don't believe Toll actually wanted to build taller. I think they determined this number of units meets current demand. I suppose they could have built a taller, slimmer tower. But I don't think there's anything that would have gotten them to build an attractive one.

These units are going to do really well, people love living by Washington Square and the views with those windows will be great. I don't see what's so offensive about the design, it's a glass condo tower, could use some more balconies but what did you expect? The city screwed up and never bothered to designate the row as historic for 60+ years since the historic commission existed so what can you do? No need to cry over it forever. Most of the store owners there are all for it, the row has been in a steady decline for the last 15 years.

With this and the conversion of the Public Ledger Bldg to residential, and 500 walnut, this will liven Washington Square even more.

And new apartments/restaurants in the curtis center.

The Saint James was the only tower East of the “Broad Street Divide” to reach the sky.
This is yet another example of a missed opportunity. :rolleyes:

When is that actually opening? Ever? That PJ Clarke's announcement was 2 years ago...Maybe something is happening on the inside but I have not noticed it.

I think the apartments are open. The restaurant has had significant delays but supposedly is still happening. I think the vibrations from construction damaged the 'dream garden' painting in the lobby and that may have held things up a bit.

it's about demand and available sites. Until recently new residential development east of broad wasn't all that common, especially when talking about anything beyond midrise or rehab projects. How many ground up high rise residential projects went up between St. James and the recent stuff like 1213 Walnut? Not many

It looks very much like Time Warner to me.

https://media.glassdoor.com/lst2x/13...ble-office.jpg
Source: Glassdoor.com

The crown of the Toll Bros highrise on Jewelers Row is probably the best feature. Different than anything that we got at the moment.

Tools? How so? So you think Toll cut the height and number of units just as a matter of responding to market conditions? If Toll, or whoever, is not requesting a variance, meaning the proposed building fits within the areas zoning and meets the building and other codes, I don't know how the City can approach a private party a suggest a deal. As much as I would like something in this case such a "tool" would be open to great misuse and favoritism. I guess the City through one of its departments could approach Toll and let it be known that the City would look positively on a request for a variance if Toll would do X Y and Z.

The civic design review is suppose to address points having to do with how a building looks and works, but we all know how toothless that process is. Toothless to the point of being meaningless.

The city has enough "tools" like councilmanic prerogative to disrupt and obstruct development. I'd rather not have them interfere in by right projects as well.

In what fair and transparent way could the CDR be give actual veto power over projects? I can't think of any. Not sure when people came up with the idea that people (no matter how few) should be able to stop buildings they don't personally like from being constructed. Zoning codes and building regulations are the "teeth" that guide development. The CDR process is just an opportunity for the City and developers to possibly improve planned product for the public good. I would say in general the fact that the information is so public and so widely covered has made developers and architects try a bit harder. But giving 5 people on a panel the power to stymie development based on their personal whims is a bad idea and ripe for abuse. There are architects on the panel- should they really be empowered to shut down projects designed by competitors? If the CDR had the power to demand expensive changes that could lead to stalled or cancelled projects would that be considered a victory?

I've got no answer and doubt that there is a perfect one, and your points about the present panelists are valid. I doubt that the present CDR process is nothing more then just a very small speed bump for developers and as they learn how to game the process I expect the CDR to become even more meaningless. I don't know how it would work but when a project needs a variance, that is a chance for the City to exercise some control, control in many different areas. But it could also be a time where that control is abused. I hope the City keeps trying to find a way to encourage a better quality of building. If one method doesn't work, then try something else. In general gov't needs to find ways of being more fluid.

:previous: That sounds like you are describing the dictatorship of an individual who had too much control over city development. An individual named Ed Bacon. :sly:

It took a brash developer by the name of Willard G. Rouse III to challenge the corruption to allow skyscrapers in the city of Philadelphia, affecting the entire commonwealth.

This Ed Bacon sounds like villainous scoundrel and this Willard G. Rouse sounds like a dashing hero. I've never heard such a tale. Could you share more?

Many seem to believe that the government has the right or obligation to tightly control how every new building looks. I don't think that is the case. When dealing with budgetary issues, neighborhood group issues, site constraints, economics, etc there are a lot of things that affect how tall a building is going to be or how it's laid out. What happens in a case where the immediate neighbors push for something that hard core urban design folks hate? Who should win that battle? Concessions in design are made for a host of reasons, it's not always about a developer or architect not caring about a building's surroundings. At no point in time has everyone liked or approved of every building that has gone up in this city. 60 years ago they wanted to tear down City hall because it's architectural style was so obsolete and it's design made the building inefficient. In fact, many were critics of the building shortly after it was completed. Back then folks were asking "how did anyone let the City build this monstrosity?" Now it's a registered landmark and prominently featured as a symbol of the City.

That's the building I was thinking of near Columbus Circle. I've eaten at the Mandarin Oriental a few times; it has great views of Central Park.

702 Can have the very same affect on Washington Square and Independence Mall if they make the tower tall enough. If they make the tower 400 - 600' they can add more units as well as a Boutique Hotel at the top. There is potential for much more in this tower.

They could, but hotels are hard to accomplish in the Philly market, and the Public Ledger Building across the street looks to be getting one (it is definitely getting condo or apartment units, and hotel was in the original plan). And I think this is by right now, so they are not going to mess around with requiring a variance on this very controversial project.

Ed Bacon was a dark lord of the Sith.
He was so powerful and so wise, he could prevent skyscrapers from being built in his hometown.

Legend has it that his statue was being built to replace the statue of William Penn atop of Philadelphia City Hall. His secret plan was called the Death Star. It had the power to destroy an entire skyscraper from a single blast.

Bacon’s attempt to rename City Hall as his Sith Temple failed when a dashing Jedi named Willard G. Rouse the Third came into town.

A light saber battle took place between the two.
It was a public display of passage for Rouse, who eventually defeated the evil Sith Lord to usher in skyscrapers into the City of Philadelphia.

Jedi Master Rouse the Third died from smoking Death Sticks.
The End.

Nice. ^ ^ ^

But you forgot the whole chapter on Sir Kevin:

http://www.cinema10.com.br/upload/pe...2519_kevin.jpg

"Jewelers' Row tower needs more work, city board says"

http://planphilly.com/articles/2018/...ity-board-says

No shit it does. Such a lazy project. Not optimistic that Toll will go to much effort to design a better building, though. Any improvements in response to CDR are likely to be marginal.

CDR Re-submission:

http://www.phila.gov/CityPlanning/pr...%20Webpage.pdf

Can anyone tell if anything has been changed? They don't outline any specific changes in response to the first hearing. It seems that the top of the tower has been updated.

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.