PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread IX

[ScreamShatter]

Originally Posted by UPenn18

The base of that Temple development kind of reminds me of the base of SLS. Looks great!

It also looks a bit like Wharton -- at least, color wise.

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by Sarge21

This development looks incredible, but at the cost of the Burk Mansion? Can't they find some way to salvage one of the few relics of North Broad?

Agreed. Losing the Burk Mansion is the one and only thing that worries me about this project. What would be really awesome would be ... if they just moved it. But of course, that begs the question, "where"?

[McBane]

Originally Posted by allovertown

Nothing has been announced yet for the second space. Based one what we do know however, whatever they build there will not be very tall and will make use of the Boyd's Lobby and a portion of the theater. Best guess is some type of multiplex, but it could be anything.

Based on the demolition plan though the footprint for the tower on the corner seems to pretty clearly be the same as the original plan. Whatever is going where the theater and parking lot are currently located will likely part of a as of yet unnamed new project.

I hope this is correct. I'm all for development but I think it would be pretty — if the developers leveled the Boyd just to meet FAR requirements and build the tower by right. Wouldn't the sensible solution be to approve the tower as it was on the condition that Pearl restore the Boyd. Hell, even allow them to build taller. This seems like a missed opportunity to me.

[BenKatzPhillytoParis]

Originally Posted by McBane

I hope this is correct. I'm all for development but I think it would be pretty — if the developers leveled the Boyd just to meet FAR requirements and build the tower by right. Wouldn't the sensible solution be to approve the tower as it was on the condition that Pearl restore the Boyd. Hell, even allow them to build taller. This seems like a missed opportunity to me.

Ya, horrible on all fronts. Nothing like that theatre exists elsewhere in the city. Can't be recreated. And we so casually let it be destroyed without even a plan or guarantee that the subsequent land use/construction will be worth it. I'm not sure so much has changed since Snellenburg's was disfigured in the 70s. I'm all for development, too. But as has been said on this forum, look at everything that was knocked down in the 60s and 70s because its market value was higher as a surface parking lot—and think how much it would be worth and how it would utilized today.

[Larry King]

Originally Posted by McBane

I hope this is correct. I'm all for development but I think it would be pretty — if the developers leveled the Boyd just to meet FAR requirements and build the tower by right. Wouldn't the sensible solution be to approve the tower as it was on the condition that Pearl restore the Boyd. Hell, even allow them to build taller. This seems like a missed opportunity to me.

CCRA should take a negotiation class

[summersm343]

Construction of Reading Viaduct Rail Park to begin this summer
Has received funding from the William Penn and Knights Foundations

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaki...ing_to_enable_railroad_viaduct_park.html

[PHL10]

Originally Posted by Larry King

CCRA should take a negotiation class

This +1 assuming that you mean by fighting the height of the tower they directly lead to the destruction of the Boyd. Talk about unintended consequences.

At the same time, you have a reputable developer who owns the property and has entered into some type of agreement to preserve the ornate lobby and foyer which is more guarantee that the Boyd ever had. I always thought the auditorium was a foregone conclusion.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by McBane

I hope this is correct. I'm all for development but I think it would be pretty — if the developers leveled the Boyd just to meet FAR requirements and build the tower by right. Wouldn't the sensible solution be to approve the tower as it was on the condition that Pearl restore the Boyd. Hell, even allow them to build taller. This seems like a missed opportunity to me.

Knocking down the Boyd does nothing to help them build the proposed skyscraper on the corner. They could build by right even without knocking it down.

They're knocking down the Boyd because they're going to build something else there. I think the real give away that this is the case is the indication that the portion of the parking lot adjacent to the theater is being removed according to the demolition plan. If they were really knocking down the Boyd just to move forward with the tower and weren't planning on doing anything with the land why would they also get rid of the parking lot? Having a parking lot as part of the property with nothing built on it actually makes it easier to build taller buildings on other parts of the land. In fact if they really were knocking down the Boyd with no other plan in place for the land, one would assume they'd be trying to add parking to that portion of the property, not removing the part of the lot that is already a parking lot.

I think it's safe to say that they're definitely going to build something where the Boyd Theater stands, I just don't know what that something is.

I agree though that when I first heard pearl was buying the property I was really hopefully they'd work out a deal where they'd fix the body in exchange for getting the variances they needed to build their skyscraper. Pearl fixes the theater and then in return the neighborhood gives them permission to build. It wasn't to be though, it's a shame.

[DIESELPOLO]

Originally Posted by lwill

Not for nothing, but I don't think you're thinking big enough. 2045? I expect many more highrises and density happening.

[Outta here]

That's probably true . There may well be much more density and high
rise structures completed by 2045 , and you might be able to enjoy the
bold new look of Philly then ...... if your not ALREADY 35 years old . So
good luck with that ..........

[R5Ryder]

Kind of off topic, but someone either in this thread or the CITC thread posted photos or diagrams of the original design of 2 Liberty prior to the mods requested by Cigna. Any chance that anyone has a link to that? I did search but the search function kind of stinks.

Also, on topic - the rendering by Iwill - are several of those just "fantasy" buildings? Specifically the approx 900' towers on the Delaware waterfront, and 31st and Chestnut (or Market, can't really tell.)

[McBane]

Originally Posted by allovertown

I think it's safe to say that they're definitely going to build something where the Boyd Theater stands, I just don't know what that something is.

So the city is still handing out demolition permits before they see actual plans for the site? Hasn't the city seen enough of this to finally learn their lesson? I don't recall hearing that the Boyd was in danger of imminent collapse (but maybe it was?).

And to clarify, I don't have any sort of vendetta against Pearl and am looking forward to the tower on 19th and Chestnut. I'm was never one to chain myself to the Boyd to avoid demolition. And after of decades of swings and misses, I'm not sure anything could rescue the Boyd. BUT, I do have a problem with knocking down structurally sound buildings when the public has not been presented with a plan as to what those buildings will be replaced with. How many times have developers made promises, demolished buildings, and then allowed the empty lot to sit and rot for decades?

I'm not saying that Pearl is going to pull a fast one. But I don't think any developer should be allowed to demolish structurally sound buildings without an approved plan and financing in place. The Boyd is an eyesore but not any more so than an empty lot. I hope we see some concrete evidence of a replacement very soon.

[1487]

Originally Posted by McBane

So the city is still handing out demolition permits before they see actual plans for the site? Hasn't the city seen enough of this to finally learn their lesson? I don't recall hearing that the Boyd was in danger of imminent collapse (but maybe it was?).

And to clarify, I don't have any sort of vendetta against Pearl and am looking forward to the tower on 19th and Chestnut. I'm was never one to chain myself to the Boyd to avoid demolition. And after of decades of swings and misses, I'm not sure anything could rescue the Boyd. BUT, I do have a problem with knocking down structurally sound buildings when the public has not been presented with a plan as to what those buildings will be replaced with. How many times have developers made promises, demolished buildings, and then allowed the empty lot to sit and rot for decades?

I'm not saying that Pearl is going to pull a fast one. But I don't think any developer should be allowed to demolish structurally sound buildings without an approved plan and financing in place. The Boyd is an eyesore but not any more so than an empty lot. I hope we see some concrete evidence of a replacement very soon.

You do not need to show what will replace a demolished structure in order to get a demo permit.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by McBane

So the city is still handing out demolition permits before they see actual plans for the site? Hasn't the city seen enough of this to finally learn their lesson? I don't recall hearing that the Boyd was in danger of imminent collapse (but maybe it was?).

And to clarify, I don't have any sort of vendetta against Pearl and am looking forward to the tower on 19th and Chestnut. I'm was never one to chain myself to the Boyd to avoid demolition. And after of decades of swings and misses, I'm not sure anything could rescue the Boyd. BUT, I do have a problem with knocking down structurally sound buildings when the public has not been presented with a plan as to what those buildings will be replaced with. How many times have developers made promises, demolished buildings, and then allowed the empty lot to sit and rot for decades?

I'm not saying that Pearl is going to pull a fast one. But I don't think any developer should be allowed to demolish structurally sound buildings without an approved plan and financing in place. The Boyd is an eyesore but not any more so than an empty lot. I hope we see some concrete evidence of a replacement very soon.

Pearl didn't receive a demo permit. Previous owner of the Boyd "proved hardship" and they received the demo permit to demolish the entirety of the Boyd with the exception of the front facade and move ahead with the iPic development. When the Boyd was sold to Pearl that demo permit transfered with it. Pearl is now demolishing the Boyd but have not announced what will replace it. As others have mentioned though, pearl is preserving a great deal more than was originally anticipated.

[lwill]

Originally Posted by DIESELPOLO

Not for nothing, but I don't think you're thinking big enough. 2045? I expect many more highrises and density happening.

Actually, I think you and your friend may be a little optimistic. In the last 30 years, Philly has only seen the construction of approx. 12 commercial skyscrapers. My rendering shows 10 (As stated in the addresses below my photo; two structures would be obscured, and one would fall beyond the scope of the image). So, I actually acknowledge the possibility of 13 commercial skyscrapers by 2045 which is more than has been done in the last 30 years. In addition, the 30 years before that; only 13 commercial skyscrapers were built including City Hall.

Also, my renderings only show buildings where parking lots exist now. Barring demolition of existing structures; the locations I show are the only places within my image that commercial building could go.

In addition, I think I was a bit generous as well. All of my structures reflect buildings over 50 floors. Again, in the last 30 years; there has been only six building over 60 floors. In fact, there has only been 6 in the last 60 years.

[lwill]

Originally Posted by DIESELPOLO

Not for nothing, but I don't think you're thinking big enough. 2045? I expect many more highrises and density happening.

.....and in terms of your density proposition; I would imagine any density would be at the expense of the taller buildings i've rendered. In fact, I think that is what Philly will more likely reflect. Buildings closer to 30-40, and a maybe six above 50 floor by 2045-.

[lwill]

Originally Posted by DIESELPOLO

Not for nothing, but I don't think you're thinking big enough. 2045? I expect many more highrises and density happening.

...and by the way to give you some perspective; Chicago has seen the building of 42 skyscrapers, Los Angeles 16, Atlanta 25, Houston 11, and San Francisco 13 in that time span.

[summersm343]

The Nest - Temple update

Looks like Bradley Maule did some more digging on the Nest project and Temple University is not considering it a project. Possibly a developer or architect made it with no further intentions (which is both disappointing and not). Disappointing because this is a great development - not because Burk Mansion will not be demolished. Still baffled why Temple is demolishing the entire block along Broad with not definitive plans.

Here is the article if you want to read!
http://hiddencityphila.org/2015/03/burk-mansion-threatened-amidst-temples-growth/

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by lwill

Actually, I think you and your friend may be a little optimistic. In the last 30 years, Philly has only seen the construction of approx. 12 commercial skyscrapers. My rendering shows 10 (As stated in the addresses below my photo; two structures would be obscured, and one would fall beyond the scope of the image). So, I actually acknowledge the possibility of 13 commercial skyscrapers by 2045 which is more than has been done in the last 30 years. In addition, the 30 years before that; only 13 commercial skyscrapers were built including City Hall.

Also, my renderings only show buildings where parking lots exist now. Barring demolition of existing structures; the locations I show are the only places within my image that commercial building could go.

In addition, I think I was a bit generous as well. All of my structures reflect buildings over 50 floors. Again, in the last 30 years; there has been only six building over 60 floors. In fact, there has only been 6 in the last 60 years.

I don't know whether your diagram is over or under optimistic. But it's worth noting that it's been a very different climate for most of the last 30 years than it is now. For one thing, Philadelphia was steadily losing population until just a few years ago. There is a still a ways to go, but Philadelphia's relationship with its business community was also much more troubled than it is now. Not a recipe for tall buildings and new construction.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by lwill

...and by the way to give you some perspective; Chicago has seen the building of 42 skyscrapers, Los Angeles 16, Atlanta 25, Houston 11, and San Francisco 13 in that time span.

All of those cities except for Chicago saw substantial population growth during that time as well. Philly is starting to see that. Chicago was a mixed bag during the period. It lost population between 2000 and 2010 but grew 4% between 1990 and 2000 when much of the building took place (and again now). I think the bottom line is that Philly will see substantial changes to the skyline if the population grows and we retain and attract business. If we don't, we won't.