PHILADELPHIA | THE LAUREL @ 1911 Walnut | 604 FT | 48 FLOORS

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

I think Inga was decidedly "fair and balanced." She's not trashing the project, she's simply pointing out that there's room to make it not just a good building for the site, but a great one. She's simply raising discussion points.

And I think she's actually endorsing what the law firm of Philly Fan and Knight Hospitaller (notice how my name comes first? ) has been pushing--and has no doubt been Southern Land's strategy--all along: to trade some preservation of the Sansom streetscape, including at least the Warwick facade, for the agreement by neighborhood groups and other stakeholders to a taller tower. It's a win-win for everyone, and I think (hope?) where this is headed, now with Inga's apparent endorsement.

[1487]

The reality is evaluating an unfinished design is somewhat pointless. The developer has already stated that there will additional review and negotiation with the neighbors and others so its sort of hard to criticize something that is a moving target. I also don't agree with this notion that because this is Philadelphia we shoudln't have a "chicago style" tall residential tower. Glass facades cost more than masonry or metal panels so I don't understand the bitching about the glass. Normally she is accusing developers of being cheap and trying to get away with using subpar materials and then she suggests they do so because Philadelphians have low standards and will accept ANY new development. Now we get almost the total opposite critique. An out of town developer is being criticized for trying to sell us an oversized, out of place, tower clad in flashy (and expensive) glass curtain wall. This is the same person who often says Philly developers are addicted to bricks and faux historic cladding that pales in comparison to the genuine materials used on older buildings. She isn't a fan of 10 Rittenhouse for the reasons I just stated- this building is unabashedly modern and yet she indicates it belongs in chicago, but not here.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by Philly Fan

And I think she's actually endorsing what the law firm of Philly Fan and Knight Hospitaller (notice how my name comes first? ) has been pushing--and has no doubt been Southern Land's strategy--all along: to trade some preservation of the Sansom streetscape, including at least the Warwick facade, for the agreement by neighborhood groups and other stakeholders to a taller tower. It's a win-win for everyone, and I think (hope?) where this is headed, now with Inga's apparent endorsement.

You can get prime billing if I get prime compensation.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by 1487

The reality is evaluating an unfinished design is somewhat pointless. The developer has already stated that there will additional review and negotiation with the neighbors and others so its sort of hard to criticize something that is a moving target. I also don't agree with this notion that because this is Philadelphia we shoudln't have a "chicago style" tall residential tower. Glass facades cost more than masonry or metal panels so I don't understand the bitching about the glass. Normally she is accusing developers of being cheap and trying to get away with using subpar materials and then she suggests they do so because Philadelphians have low standards and will accept ANY new development. Now we get almost the total opposite critique. An out of town developer is being criticized for trying to sell us an oversized, out of place, tower clad in flashy (and expensive) glass curtain wall. This is the same person who often says Philly developers are addicted to bricks and faux historic cladding that pales in comparison to the genuine materials used on older buildings. She isn't a fan of 10 Rittenhouse for the reasons I just stated- this building is unabashedly modern and yet she indicates it belongs in chicago, but not here.

You perceive her article as trashing this and I just don't read it that way. She acknowledges that this is a draft proposal and is putting in her two cents. We do no less in this forum and with even less qualification in some circumstances (speaking of myself, certainly).

[BenKatzPhillytoParis]

Originally Posted by 1487

The reality is evaluating an unfinished design is somewhat pointless. The developer has already stated that there will additional review and negotiation with the neighbors and others so its sort of hard to criticize something that is a moving target. I also don't agree with this notion that because this is Philadelphia we shoudln't have a "chicago style" tall residential tower. Glass facades cost more than masonry or metal panels so I don't understand the bitching about the glass. Normally she is accusing developers of being cheap and trying to get away with using subpar materials and then she suggests they do so because Philadelphians have low standards and will accept ANY new development. Now we get almost the total opposite critique. An out of town developer is being criticized for trying to sell us an oversized, out of place, tower clad in flashy (and expensive) glass curtain wall. This is the same person who often says Philly developers are addicted to bricks and faux historic cladding that pales in comparison to the genuine materials used on older buildings. She isn't a fan of 10 Rittenhouse for the reasons I just stated- this building is unabashedly modern and yet she indicates it belongs in chicago, but not here.

All she's saying is the glass facade could be adjusted to be a bit more distinct. One can criticize brick and glass for being overly used while also criticizing other designs as using cheap materials without being a hypocrite. I don't see what the issue with that is.

[Kidphilly]

I think Igna is more than fair here.

The Sansom side could benefit from more deviation to embrace the street with better area context without losing space or flexibility.

Anyone have a close up of the Walnut podium and street facing; am very curious on that. Also to me this has great potential for an elevated restaurant/lounge at the top of the base for great views down on the park

[Zoot]

Originally Posted by 1487

The reality is evaluating an unfinished design is somewhat pointless. The developer has already stated that there will additional review and negotiation with the neighbors and others so its sort of hard to criticize something that is a moving target. I also don't agree with this notion that because this is Philadelphia we shoudln't have a "chicago style" tall residential tower. Glass facades cost more than masonry or metal panels so I don't understand the bitching about the glass. Normally she is accusing developers of being cheap and trying to get away with using subpar materials and then she suggests they do so because Philadelphians have low standards and will accept ANY new development. Now we get almost the total opposite critique. An out of town developer is being criticized for trying to sell us an oversized, out of place, tower clad in flashy (and expensive) glass curtain wall. This is the same person who often says Philly developers are addicted to bricks and faux historic cladding that pales in comparison to the genuine materials used on older buildings. She isn't a fan of 10 Rittenhouse for the reasons I just stated- this building is unabashedly modern and yet she indicates it belongs in chicago, but not here.

No. The reality of evaluating an unfinished design allows for the possibility of incorporating such input into the finished product. Now is absolutely the time to weigh in. And Igna is not bashing the use of glass - she is in support of it. The facade needs to be better articulated so that it not only fits in, but also looks less generic.

And thank you Igna for the fair and accurate review....and for getting us off that silly fast food rant.

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by Kidphilly

Anyone have a close up of the Walnut podium and street facing; am very curious on that. Also to me this has great potential for an elevated restaurant/lounge at the top of the base for great views down on the park

That's this:



I don't think anyone has a problem with the Walnut Street facing. It's the Sansom Street (and to a lesser extent, 20th Street) sides that people are worried about.

[1487]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

You perceive her article as trashing this and I just don't read it that way. She acknowledges that this is a draft proposal and is putting in her two cents. We do no less in this forum and with even less qualification in some circumstances (speaking of myself, certainly).

we arent paid to offer the official architectural critique for the paper of record. Surely you can understand the difference between fans discussing renderings and her position. What she says in her articles is of a little more consequence. And again I repeat- criticizing a less than final design is sort of a waste of time. Since these aren't representative of the final look of the building its too early to start talking about where the developer went wrong.

[1487]

Originally Posted by BenKatzPhillytoParis

All she's saying is the glass facade could be adjusted to be a bit more distinct. One can criticize brick and glass for being overly used while also criticizing other designs as using cheap materials without being a hypocrite. I don't see what the issue with that is.

I take it all back. God forbid anyone here be capable of having a thought that deviates from what she writes. It's amazing because when the renderings first came out I could have sworn most people who responded were very supportive of what was being proposed. There are only a few types of building envelopes out there. If she is against glass curtain walls, against bricks, against precast panels that are made to look like stone and against metallic facade accents (which she also has trashed) please tell me what the hell she is for.

[iheartphilly]

Originally Posted by 1487

we arent paid to offer the official architectural critique for the paper of record. Surely you can understand the difference between fans discussing renderings and her position. What she says in her articles is of a little more consequence. And again I repeat- criticizing a less than final design is sort of a waste of time. Since these aren't representative of the final look of the building its too early to start talking about where the developer went wrong.

For the majority of us, our hobby is their profession. We have little to no influence unless we work for the architectural firm paid to design with input from developer and community group like CCRA (i.e., unless one of the blogger here is on the CCRA).

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by 1487

we arent paid to offer the official architectural critique ...

Speak for yourself. Some of us either are or have been.

[Knight Hospitaller]

1487, you seem to want to interpret her words in your own way, as saying something more/different that what they do. That's fine, but don't have a fit that others disagree. Inga is offering her critique/suggestions for improvement. You seem to see anything less than a full endorsement as a wholesale condemnation and inherently inconsistent (as if various facade materials can't be combined in many ways). I happen to like the project in general, but want to see more historic preservation, less break in the pedestrian experience. That may or may not be possible, but it's worth discussing. I also think the tower looks pretty good as is, but I don't see why folks can't suggest tweaks that improve it. You also seem to think that seeing her article for what it is equates to wholesale endorsement of her every word. Some of her points are more important/valid than others, but what's the problem with her articulating what's on her mind? If raising the slightest issue/question with something that isn't final is somehow inappropriate, CCRA should apologize to Pearl for saying a word about 1900 Chestnut 2.0 -- and Southern shouldn't waste its time at community meetings (but simply present something that is pretty much a done deal before soliciting input). Inga isn't going so far as to trash the entire concept (as was done by everyone concerning the Boyd), but simply pointing out areas of concern and potential improvement. Again, if such discussion is inappropriately premature, somebody tell the 30th Street redevelopment committee to quit soliciting public input until they present a final plan. That way folks can have their say when it's too late to actually change anything.

[1487]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

Speak for yourself. Some of us either are or have been.

excuse me. I will speak for myself. I am not a paid architectural critic for a major publication, nor have I been in a former life unlike some folks here. Its interesting that a writer who has no architectural background has opinions that are held as borderline gospel. A fan of the urban environment who happens to have an extensive vocabulary isn't necessarily knowledgeable enough to be qualified as a paid critic.

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

I don't think anyone has a problem with the Walnut Street facing. It's the Sansom Street (and to a lesser extent, 20th Street) sides that people are worried about.

For what it's worth, Inga has no problem with the 20th Street side (see the fourth slide):

http://mobile.philly.com/beta?wss=/philly/gallery&id=362814131&viewGallery=y

[1487]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

1487, you seem to want to interpret her words in your own way, as saying something more/different that what they do. That's fine, but don't have a fit that others disagree. Inga is offering her critique/suggestions for improvement. You seem to see anything less than a full endorsement as a wholesale condemnation and inherently inconsistent (as if various facade materials can't be combined in many ways). I happen to like the project in general, but want to see more historic preservation, less break in the pedestrian experience. That may or may not be possible, but it's worth discussing. I also think the tower looks pretty good as is, but I don't see why folks can't suggest tweaks that improve it. You also seem to think that seeing her article for what it is equates to wholesale endorsement of her every word. Some of her points are more important/valid than others, but what's the problem with her articulating what's on her mind? If raising the slightest issue/question with something that isn't final is somehow inappropriate, CCRA should apologize to Pearl for saying a word about 1900 Chestnut 2.0 -- and Southern shouldn't waste its time at community meetings (but simply present something that is pretty much a done deal before soliciting input). Inga isn't going so far as to trash the entire concept (as was done by everyone concerning the Boyd), but simply pointing out areas of concern and potential improvement. Again, if such discussion is inappropriately premature, somebody tell the 30th Street redevelopment committee to quit soliciting public input until they present a final plan. That way folks can have their say when it's too late to actually change anything.

Unless she lives around the corner from the development I don't see why her opinions of an unfinished design matter. When you meet with community groups with a PRELIMINARY design you are doing so to seek input and get a consensus. The entire point of the exercise is that what is being shown isn't etched in stone. Offering a full critique based on 3-4 renderings of something that is still being developed makes no sense. She did the same thing on the LOVE park design before it was done and then it turned out the FINAL design which included stakeholder input wasn't as objectionable as she thought it was going to be. If you want to be a critic you need to at least establish what it is you would like to see. My experience is that she prefers a VERY small number of architectural firms and developers and whatever they propose is generally praised, but aside from that she is against almost everything and the reasoning is constantly shifting. I'm fully aware that different buildings have to exist within different contexts and there isn't a one size fits all solution, but she is on the record criticizing architects/developers for using almost every modern building material in existence. And whatever is being criticized is typically done with the inference that cost cutting is the primary culprit. I will repeat- she didn't like 10 Rittenhouse which tries to pay homage to it's masonry surroundings and it set far back from Rittenhouse square where it won't overwhelm those on street level or any other buildings with park frontage. With this building she is complaining about too much glass (as opposed to less glass and more masonry like material on 10 Rittenhouse), too much height and not enough setback. I also find the notion that having too many small retail entities on the lower level laughable. This is commonplace in CC where many storefronts within older buildings are quite narrow. In what world does having too many door openings and separate retail establishments ruin the pedestrian experience along a retail strip? How is this any different from chestnut street and walnut street between broad and 20th?

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by 1487

Its interesting that a writer who has no architectural background has opinions that are held as borderline gospel. A fan of the urban environment who happens to have an extensive vocabulary isn't necessarily knowledgeable enough to be qualified as a paid critic.

Tell that to the Pulitzer Prize folks:

http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/2014-Criticism

But what do those guys know?

[Cro Burnham]

What an unnecessary meta discussion about Inga. Boxbot, new thread please.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by 1487

Unless she lives around the corner from the development I don't see why her opinions of an unfinished design matter. When you meet with community groups with a PRELIMINARY design you are doing so to seek input and get a consensus. The entire point of the exercise is that what is being shown isn't etched in stone. Offering a full critique based on 3-4 renderings of something that is still being developed makes no sense. She did the same thing on the LOVE park design before it was done and then it turned out the FINAL design which included stakeholder input wasn't as objectionable as she thought it was going to be. If you want to be a critic you need to at least establish what it is you would like to see. My experience is that she prefers a VERY small number of architectural firms and developers and whatever they propose is generally praised, but aside from that she is against almost everything and the reasoning is constantly shifting. I'm fully aware that different buildings have to exist within different contexts and there isn't a one size fits all solution, but she is on the record criticizing architects/developers for using almost every modern building material in existence. And whatever is being criticized is typically done with the inference that cost cutting is the primary culprit. I will repeat- she didn't like 10 Rittenhouse which tries to pay homage to it's masonry surroundings and it set far back from Rittenhouse square where it won't overwhelm those on street level or any other buildings with park frontage. With this building she is complaining about too much glass (as opposed to less glass and more masonry like material on 10 Rittenhouse), too much height and not enough setback. I also find the notion that having too many small retail entities on the lower level laughable. This is commonplace in CC where many storefronts within older buildings are quite narrow. In what world does having too many door openings and separate retail establishments ruin the pedestrian experience along a retail strip? How is this any different from chestnut street and walnut street between broad and 20th?

By that standard, most of us should just shut up and go home. And here Zoot thought that we were doing something more productive today than talking about Wendy's.

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

What an unnecessary meta discussion about Inga. Boxbot, new thread please.

And while you're at it, Boxbot, set up a new thread about meta discussions. Come to think of it, better make that an entire new subforum.