PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread IX

[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.

Not really sure what you mean the last 60 years or 60 floors. There was a "gentleman's agreement" not to build above the William Penn statute above City Hall. 548 feet, 61 floors. It was taken seriously and effectively had the force of law. It was a big deal in 1987 when Liberty 1 broke the compact. NOW, it is effectively dead and buried. But, no, you weren't going to see any buildings over 60 floors (a poor metric of height) more than 30 years ago. Note that the Comcast Innovation and Technology Center, the tallest building outside New York and Chicago, is to be 1,121 feet. It will only have 59 floors.

[phillyjoel]

Excuse me for being off-topic, but I had a dream the other night that Donald Trump was going build one of his giant hotels in Philly. Would we be up for this (depending on whether its a legit tower or not, of course)?

[Outta here]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Not really sure what you mean the last 60 years or 60 floors. There was a "gentleman's agreement" not to build above the William Penn statute above City Hall. 548 feet, 61 floors. It was taken seriously and effectively had the force of law. It was a big deal in 1987 when Liberty 1 broke the compact. NOW, it is effectively dead and buried. But, no, you weren't going to see any buildings over 60 floors (a poor metric of height) more than 30 years ago. Note that the Comcast Innovation and Technology Center, the tallest building outside New York and Chicago, is to be 1,121 feet. It will only have 59 floors.

Not that it matters much but , I thought Liberty One has 61 floors . I guess most of us are aware of the " Gentlemen's
agreement " that may have been responsible for skyscraper stagnation for many years but , sometime after the 1950
census , a multitude of problems / situations , were responsible for the exodus of more than half a million residents .
What ever the true reason for a hick-up in building height , I'm more concerned with the completion of the current
chapter . CITC is suppose to be completed by 2018 , FMC by 2016 , The W hotel by 2017 and SLS by ...... who knows .
Lets see what happens with job growth , taxes , infrastructure , education , safety and ..... what ever else you would
like to add . THEN , MAYBE , skyscrapers and super tall eye catchers will be a reality .... If so , I hope it is a hell of a lot
sooner than 2045 ...........

[boxbot]

Originally Posted by phillyjoel

Excuse me for being off-topic, but I had a dream the other night that Donald Trump was going build one of his giant hotels in Philly. Would we be up for this (depending on whether its a legit tower or not, of course)?

Sounds more like a nightmare.

[hammersklavier]

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.

1. The calculus of variations is your friend.

2. Most major projects in most American downtowns -- including New York and Chicago -- these days are residential, not commerical.

3. More projects have been proposed and executed in the past five years than the decade before that. Not just major projects, but small infill in the neighborhoods as well. Didn't we see a metric not that long ago that Philadelphia is currently the fastest-gentrifying city in the country?

[lwill]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Not really sure what you mean the last 60 years or 60 floors. There was a "gentleman's agreement" not to build above the William Penn statute above City Hall. 548 feet, 61 floors. It was taken seriously and effectively had the force of law. It was a big deal in 1987 when Liberty 1 broke the compact. NOW, it is effectively dead and buried. But, no, you weren't going to see any buildings over 60 floors (a poor metric of height) more than 30 years ago. Note that the Comcast Innovation and Technology Center, the tallest building outside New York and Chicago, is to be 1,121 feet. It will only have 59 floors.

The underlying causes of growth and non-growth of commercial and residential projects; I think are pretty much common knowledge. However, my points were not made with ignorance nor concern for them. My statements were aimed at another posters criticism that I underestimated the future skyline of Philly. Although providing some comparative growth in other regions may not add much predictive power by itself; I also pointed out that my rendering reflected possible construction on current "vacant" and/or parking lots-barring demolition of existing structures.

[lwill]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Not really sure what you mean the last 60 years or 60 floors. There was a "gentleman's agreement" not to build above the William Penn statute above City Hall. 548 feet, 61 floors. It was taken seriously and effectively had the force of law. It was a big deal in 1987 when Liberty 1 broke the compact. NOW, it is effectively dead and buried. But, no, you weren't going to see any buildings over 60 floors (a poor metric of height) more than 30 years ago. Note that the Comcast Innovation and Technology Center, the tallest building outside New York and Chicago, is to be 1,121 feet. It will only have 59 floors.

"But, no, you weren't going to see any buildings over 60 floors (a poor metric of height) more than 30 years ago".

NO, not for many regions; however, Chicago saw the construction of 11 in that time span. In terms of the last 30 yrs. Philly avgs. approx. 5 skyscrapers per decade. In 30 yrs we could see 15 new skyscrapers. However, space is limited.

[lwill]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

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.

In that time span-30 to 60 years-Chicago has lost twice as many residents. If you argue that Chicago is twice the size of Philly; both regions lost approx. the same amount of its residents. The climate may be changing here-thats debatable-with a 2% growth in the last decade. Dont know about business indices, but it doesnt matter. My point is, relative to other cities in the past; theres no reason to be overly optimistic, and whether Philly is the next Detroit or Phoenix; there are but only so many places to construct skyscrapers in my image. A good business climate will not grow potential construction space.

In addition, future development won't necessarily produce supertalls either. The new spring garden project is a good example. Although beautiful;very underwhelming.

[lwill]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

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.

Actually, you're incorrect. The decade between 1990-2000 actually saw the least skyscraper construction of either prior or subsequent decades in Chicago. That is, with 38 pre-1990 and 25 post-2000. Btwn 1990-2000 only saw the construction of 11 skyscrapers.

[Outta here]

And , just across the river ....................

CAMDEN, N.J. (AP) -- Under Republican Gov. Chris Christie, New Jersey has authorized more than $2 billion in economic development tax breaks since 2014, often to corporations with notable political connections. One grant went to a developer who owes millions of dollars on an unpaid state loan, an Associated Press review found.

That total of tax breaks handed out by New Jersey's Economic Development Authority is more than the total amount issued during the decade before Christie took office.

The aid has gone disproportionately to businesses in Camden, a beleaguered city of 77,000. Development projects in the city received $630 million in future tax breaks last year. In his January state of the state address, Christie said that the money in future tax breaks awarded to Camden development projects means the city is "seeing a new tomorrow."

As Christie considers a Republican presidential campaign, a Camden renaissance would offer a useful counterpoint to New Jersey's lackluster economic performance. But a closer look at the grants — which will amount to nearly four times Camden's annual budget — indicates they may do less for the city than advertised and more for Christie's political alliances.

Most of the jobs coming to Camden are filled by existing employees who currently work just a few miles away. One tax break exceeded the value of the company that received it. And nearly all the recipients boast notable political connections.

The Christie Administration's Camden incentives raise questions about the governor's stewardship of New Jersey's finances — and whether Christie's claims of revitalizing Camden will resonate with Republican voters opposed to corporate welfare.

"Giving huge subsidies to companies moving from the suburbs of Camden to the city is just off-the-charts crazy territory," said Michael Doherty, a Republican state senator. "If you're a high-profile individual, you can get the EDA to make decisions to your benefit."

There is much more to this article but I couldn't get it to copy and paste ..... Sorry about that .

[jsbrook]

Yep...the net increase in NJ jobs is minimal. The tax benefits to the City itself won't be realized for years. And whether it's effective in 'revitalizing' Camden, even a little bit, won't be known by the time of the 2016 election.

Originally Posted by Outta here

And , just across the river ....................

CAMDEN, N.J. (AP) -- Under Republican Gov. Chris Christie, New Jersey has authorized more than $2 billion in economic development tax breaks since 2014, often to corporations with notable political connections. One grant went to a developer who owes millions of dollars on an unpaid state loan, an Associated Press review found.

That total of tax breaks handed out by New Jersey's Economic Development Authority is more than the total amount issued during the decade before Christie took office.

The aid has gone disproportionately to businesses in Camden, a beleaguered city of 77,000. Development projects in the city received $630 million in future tax breaks last year. In his January state of the state address, Christie said that the money in future tax breaks awarded to Camden development projects means the city is "seeing a new tomorrow."

As Christie considers a Republican presidential campaign, a Camden renaissance would offer a useful counterpoint to New Jersey's lackluster economic performance. But a closer look at the grants — which will amount to nearly four times Camden's annual budget — indicates they may do less for the city than advertised and more for Christie's political alliances.

Most of the jobs coming to Camden are filled by existing employees who currently work just a few miles away. One tax break exceeded the value of the company that received it. And nearly all the recipients boast notable political connections.

The Christie Administration's Camden incentives raise questions about the governor's stewardship of New Jersey's finances — and whether Christie's claims of revitalizing Camden will resonate with Republican voters opposed to corporate welfare.

"Giving huge subsidies to companies moving from the suburbs of Camden to the city is just off-the-charts crazy territory," said Michael Doherty, a Republican state senator. "If you're a high-profile individual, you can get the EDA to make decisions to your benefit."

There is much more to this article but I couldn't get it to copy and paste ..... Sorry about that .

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by lwill

"But, no, you weren't going to see any buildings over 60 floors (a poor metric of height) more than 30 years ago".

NO, not for many regions; however, Chicago saw the construction of 11 in that time span. In terms of the last 30 yrs. Philly avgs. approx. 5 skyscrapers per decade. In 30 yrs we could see 15 new skyscrapers. However, space is limited.

That comment was Philly-specific given an agreement that basically had the force of law not to build above William Penn. Look, I'm not going to get in a big debate. Neither of us has a crystal ball. But it's safe to say that the last 30 years, and certainly the last 60 years, is a poor predictor of future development and construction for a host of reasons. True for many cities but especially true for Philly. Also, space is not particularly limited. Maybe if you are solely talking about completely vacant lots. But there is certainly a growing appetite here for knocking down parking lots and 2 story structures to build tall buildings. See SLS International, Hudson Hotel, 1900 Chestnut, etc...Even knocking down some tall buildings. I.e. Penn Tower. Nothing fruitful can probably come from further debating Philly's growth trajectory. I'm bowing out.

[Insoluble]

Originally Posted by lwill

... and whether Philly is the next Detroit or Phoenix...

I would hope that the city can escape both of those nightmare scenarios. Things are looking positive at the moment at least.

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

1. The calculus of variations is your friend.

100% agreed in spirit, the rate of construction need not be constant. But just to be pedantic, in practice it would be impossible to come up with a predictive model for construction based on analysis of derivatives.

Originally Posted by jsbrook

... Neither of us has a crystal ball. But it's safe to say that the last 30 years, and certainly the last 60 years, is a poor predictor of future development and construction for a host of reasons...

Yes, 100% this. A constant theme in history is that you can pretty much never predict the next thirty years bast on the last thirty. In the late 40's would anyone have predicted that cities would be emptying out? In the early 80's would anyone have predicted that Philadelphia (city proper) would outpace most of its suburbs in terms of population growth and that job creation would be steady in the city? In thirty years from now will almost everyone telecommute making office skyscrapers obsolete? I doubt it, but who knows?

That being said, it's pretty much moot to say that the rendering above is optimistic, pessimistic, or spot on. It was just done for fun guys, enjoy it and don't take it too seriously. Time will tell.

[br323206]

Insoluble beat me to the punch in expressing that I hope we become neither Detroit or Phoenix. Both of those scenarios strike fear in my heart.

[AbortedWalrus]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Yep...the net increase in NJ jobs is minimal. The tax benefits to the City itself won't be realized for years. And whether it's effective in 'revitalizing' Camden, even a little bit, won't be known by the time of the 2016 election.

I have been working in Camden for seven years and I can say that there has been significant improvement in that time frame. Things are actually getting better here. I don't know that they are getting better commensurate with the amount of money being spent though.

[iheartphilly]

It is highly unlikely we will become the next Detroit. Med/Eds/Energy will continue to keep Philly relevant, unless you think institutions, for example, like PENN, Temple, Drexel, and its hospitals and research will dry up and people will no longer need hospital services and Oil and Gas refineries and production will cease to exist because we will not be dependent on them to power our automobiles or heat our homes.

Detroit's Auto Industry and all of the suppliers within its proximity is more vulnerable to downsize and even fail because of foreign car manufacturers and their suppliers and the higher demand for them by American consumers. Also, Toyota and Honda have manufacturing facilities in the US outside of Detroit.

[cafeguy]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

It is highly unlikely we will become the next Detroit. Med/Eds/Energy will continue to keep Philly relevant, unless you think institutions, for example, like PENN, Temple, Drexel, and its hospitals and research will dry up and people will no longer need hospital services and Oil and Gas refineries and production will cease to exist because we will not be dependent on them to power our automobiles or heat our homes.

Detroit's Auto Industry and all of the suppliers within its proximity is more vulnerable to downsize and even fail because of foreign car manufacturers and their suppliers and the higher demand for them by American consumers. Also, Toyota and Honda have manufacturing facilities in the US outside of Detroit.

Eds and Meds won't dry up... but research funds are dramatically down and will not be increasing or growing by any means for the foreseeable future and hospital profit is also much lower these past two years and considered to be continuing a decline as basic/small medical needs are pushed out to suburban or local hospitals while the city hospitals will focus primarily on large procedures.

So, eds and meds won't be going anywhere for the long-term, but you can definitely expect to see very VERY limited growth unless these institutions can promote entrepreneurialism to grow in other ways, find ways to cut costs, or increase admissions.

[lwill]

"But it's safe to say that the last 30 years, and certainly the last 60 years, is a poor predictor of future development and construction for a host of reasons. True for many cities but especially true for Philly".

To say one cannot develop models to predict future growth, or in fact using past indices to do so is completely untrue. Its the whole reason inferential statistics exists.
Read: Urban Growth in Developing Countries:A Review of Projections and Predictions, 1999.

"That being said, it's pretty much moot to say that the rendering above is optimistic, pessimistic, or spot on. It was just done for fun guys, enjoy it and don't take it too seriously. Time will tell".

Thank you.- Its always tough to give in the city of Brotherly- love. Anyway, I created the rendering for people to enjoy. I always wanted to see what Philly might look like in the future but never could find a rendering, so I did it my self.

......by the way here are some more:

[acenturi]

Originally Posted by lwill

"But it's safe to say that the last 30 years, and certainly the last 60 years, is a poor predictor of future development and construction for a host of reasons. True for many cities but especially true for Philly".

To say one cannot develop models to predict future growth, or in fact using past indices to do so is completely untrue. Its the whole reason inferential statistics exists.
Read: Urban Growth in Developing Countries:A Review of Projections and Predictions, 1999.

"That being said, it's pretty much moot to say that the rendering above is optimistic, pessimistic, or spot on. It was just done for fun guys, enjoy it and don't take it too seriously. Time will tell".

Thank you.- Its always tough to give in the city of Brotherly- love. Anyway, I created the rendering for people to enjoy. I always wanted to see what Philly might look like in the future but never could find a rendering, so I did it my self.

......by the way here are some more:
<< IMAGES NOT REFERENCED - Refer to Original Post >>

For the life of me, I cannot understand this post, or the overall general negative philosophical aspects of any of your FEW posts. YOU SEEM TO BE BENT ON FORECASTING DOOM FOR PHILLY, REGARDLESS OF THE OBVIOUS MAJOR REVERSAL OF RECESSION EFFECTS ON DEVELOPMENT.

[lwill]

Originally Posted by acenturi

For the life of me, I cannot understand this post, or the overall general negative philosophical aspects of any of your FEW posts. YOU SEEM TO BE BENT ON FORECASTING DOOM FOR PHILLY, REGARDLESS OF THE OBVIOUS MAJOR REVERSAL OF RECESSION EFFECTS ON DEVELOPMENT.

How you got that from my posts is actually scaring me.

Anyway, hope you all enjoy the renderings. I hate the way most pics completely omit the fact that U city is also a part of the general business district. It should be included as "our downtown" area as well.