PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread IX

[shadowbat2]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

I think they did.

I had no idea the Rappaport estate controlled that entire land assemblage. Incredible that vestiges of a speculator who died some twenty years ago still remain in this city.

Not for much longer hopefully.

I wondering if they still own that parking lot at 13th and market....

[ksb]

Originally Posted by Hrytsyu

How comforting they are building a 600 unit, six-level building entirely of matchsticks. A new high watermark for L&I. Furthermore, we have seen what fire is capable of doing to similar structures...in Conshohocken, for example.

Well, not Philadelphia L&I -- the property in question is on the Lower Merion side of the Schuylkill River.

This kind of building seems to be all that O'Neill constructs. They are also building on Rock Hill Road between Belmont and Conshohocken State Road and will likely do the same exact kind of structures there.

[Larry King]

Originally Posted by ksb

Well, not Philadelphia L&I -- the property in question is on the Lower Merion side of the Schuylkill River.

This kind of building seems to be all that O'Neill constructs. They are also building on Rock Hill Road between Belmont and Conshohocken State Road and will likely do the same exact kind of structures there.

A building of that size would need steel in Philadelphia. The suburbs are stupid

[Elevator1]

Not a fire break to be seen in any of these tinder boxes. They
hope the sprinklers catch a fire before it gets the whole thing. Meets the minimum standard. Couldn't pay me to live in one of those.

[shadowbat2]

You should take a look at the LA thread....wood framing 7-8 stories high! This despite a massive fire they had....

Not a fire break to be seen in any of these tinder boxes. They
hope the sprinklers catch a fire before it gets the whole thing. Meets the minimum standard. Couldn't pay me to live in one of those.

Indeed, this happened in Edgewater NJ, amazing no one had died

[br323206]

Originally Posted by ksb

Well, not Philadelphia L&I -- the property in question is on the Lower Merion side of the Schuylkill River.

This kind of building seems to be all that O'Neill constructs. They are also building on Rock Hill Road between Belmont and Conshohocken State Road and will likely do the same exact kind of structures there.

They also have built, and are proposing more of the same, at the 422 and Trooper Road intersection near Valley Forge.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by shadowbat2

You should take a look at the LA thread....wood framing 7-8 stories high! This despite a massive fire they had....

I'm pretty uneasy about all the 4-5 story stick built apartment buildings going up around town. Apparently 5 stories is as high as you can go in Philly with wood frame.

Even 777 S Broad is wood frame - we had a debate about this back then too . . . http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=153337&page=2

You'd think builders would be going with the light prefab metal frame instead. Can it be that much more expensive? You'd think it'd be more durable as well as fire resistant. I'd imagine the insurance bills on these apartment bldgs would be a lot lower over the long term with metal frame, especially as more incidents like that in LA come to light.

[1487]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

I'm pretty uneasy about all the 4-5 story stick built apartment buildings going up around town. Apparently 5 stories is as high as you can go in Philly with wood frame.

Even 777 S Broad is wood frame - we had a debate about this back then too . . . http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=153337&page=2

You'd think builders would be going with the light prefab metal frame instead. Can it be that much more expensive? You'd think it'd be more durable as well as fire resistant. I'd imagine the insurance bills on these apartment bldgs would be a lot lower over the long term with metal frame, especially as more incidents like that in LA come to light.

whether or not a building is sprinklered will factor into other aspects of construction. A 5 story wood framed building may not be an issue for insurers if the building is fully sprinklered. In addition you can get a multi-hour fire rating with adequate thickness of drywall. While masonry and steel are better at resisting fire than wood, the idea in a modern building would be to contain the fire at its source long enough for the sprinkler system to extinguish the fire. Im pretty sure that big apt complex in conshohocken that nearly burned to the ground a few years back was not fully sprinklered.

[hammersklavier]

Heck, even DC is seeing larger examples of wood-frame construction.

Part of that seems to be due to new kinds of framing that have been endorsed by the International Building Code, such as "cross-laminated timber". And, keep in mind that even the most lightweight metal solutions are still an order of magnitude more expensive than wood.

Don't be surprised to see more all- or largely-wooden buildings, especially if things like this bring their construction costs down enough to make redevelopment of e.g. the vast vacant lots on Broad Street or Washington Avenue viable.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

Heck, even DC is seeing larger examples of wood-frame construction.

Part of that seems to be due to new kinds of framing that have been endorsed by the International Building Code, such as "cross-laminated timber". And, keep in mind that even the most lightweight metal solutions are still an order of magnitude more expensive than wood.

Don't be surprised to see more all- or largely-wooden buildings, especially if things like this bring their construction costs down enough to make redevelopment of e.g. the vast vacant lots on Broad Street or Washington Avenue viable.

I am definitely not a big fan of the wood commercial building trend. The combination of fire and moisture vulnerability leads me to believe most of these midrise stick built structures will age poorly or prove to be unadaptible to new uses over time . . . they are essentially "disposible", single-wear architecture, like a cheap polyester prom dress . Few will likely evolve as timeworn swatches of urban fabric that give a city character, the sense of perpetual reinvention, the sense of history (IMHO). Just generic, corporate throw away stuff. Hard to get excited about such buildings.

[summersm343]

Stunning Footage of Philadelphia

http://philly.curbed.com/archives/2015/06/29/best-philadelphia-video-rooftop.php

[acenturi]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Stunning Footage of Philadelphia

http://philly.curbed.com/archives/2015/06/29/best-philadelphia-video-rooftop.php

Go to the author's web site for many more videos and photos. His collection is one of the best and highest quality that I've seen for any city in the world.

[jjv007]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Stunning Footage of Philadelphia

http://philly.curbed.com/archives/2015/06/29/best-philadelphia-video-rooftop.php

Nice, very well taken!

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

I am definitely not a big fan of the wood commercial building trend. The combination of fire and moisture vulnerability leads me to believe most of these midrise stick built structures will age poorly or prove to be unadaptible to new uses over time . . . they are essentially "disposible", single-wear architecture, like a cheap polyester prom dress . Few will likely evolve as timeworn swatches of urban fabric that give a city character, the sense of perpetual reinvention, the sense of history (IMHO). Just generic, corporate throw away stuff. Hard to get excited about such buildings.

I would like to point out that the vast majority of Philadelphia's existing building stock, including putatively midrise 19th century loft buildings, is also wood-framed (usually with a masonry skin). I'll agree that the general quality of wood has gone down over the past half century -- due to the exhaustion of suitable virgin timber -- but it seems kinda silly to me to worry too much about the long-term viability of such structures when examples survive all around us.

[1487]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

I am definitely not a big fan of the wood commercial building trend. The combination of fire and moisture vulnerability leads me to believe most of these midrise stick built structures will age poorly or prove to be unadaptible to new uses over time . . . they are essentially "disposible", single-wear architecture, like a cheap polyester prom dress . Few will likely evolve as timeworn swatches of urban fabric that give a city character, the sense of perpetual reinvention, the sense of history (IMHO). Just generic, corporate throw away stuff. Hard to get excited about such buildings.

whether not a building has steel or woo frame has no bearing on how that building stands the test of time. There really isn't any lateral loading on the structural members of a low rise building so once the building is built there really isn't much change in the load on the structure- snow on the roof would be one exception. This really is a non issue in terms of the durability of a building for the long haul. Roofing and exterior cladding are far more critical. If a building is sealed and maintained properly there shouldn't be any moisture in contact with the skeleton of the building regardless of what materials make up that skeleton.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by lsksl

New building by Bjarke Ingels is coming to the Navy Yard

http://www.phillymag.com/property/2015/06/26/bjarke-ingels-navy-yard/

This is the same firm responsible for the new WTC 2 in New York.

". The gravity defying design of the building mimics the circular nature of the new park"

I hope it's something attractive and interesting. Even if it's not that attractive it's a great thing for the Navy Yard as it will probably catch some attention.

Renderings released + article. http://www.philly.com/philly/business/homepage/20150630_A_BIG_SPACE.html#disqus_thread

I would have thought more glass to take advantage of the new park space but it's still an interesting building. Different. I kinda like it.

I'm curious if anything tall will ever be built at the Navy Yard. Yes, I know it's supposed to be a suburban-type office park but a (relatively) tall building - something in the neighborhood of 12-15 floors - with an iconic design and visible from 95, Stadiums, airport, etc. would be nice, I think. It would have to be a statement building that lets passerby know it's there. Otherwise, there's not really any indication from 95, etc. that there's this burgeoning business center.

[cafeguy]

Just rumors right now... but word in the halls of Jefferson is that they want to build a "tower of innovation"...ie... do what the science center is doing and build a remarkable building for it. We'll see!!!

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

I would like to point out that the vast majority of Philadelp. hia's existing building stock, including putatively midrise 19th century loft buildings, is also wood-framed (usually with a masonry skin). I'll agree that the general quality of wood has gone down over the past half century -- due to the exhaustion of suitable virgin timber -- but it seems kinda silly to me to worry too much about the long-term viability of such structures when examples survive all around us.

I believe most of those 19th c. loft buildings - or any large 120+ year old multi-story buildings pretty much anywhere in the world, even traditional Philly row-houses - have masonry structural walls (ie, not a "skin") of varying thickness. Though typically the horizontal supports and often interior columns are massive timber beams. As you point out, interior wood beams and flooring planks are usually very thick and heavy in the old buildings, less prone to rot.

The new buildings are extremely light and efficient (possibly, at least when new, structurally more stable?). Hopefully termites do not present a threat given the concrete/steel plinths most rest on . . . but in the event of a fire, they go up like a pile of twigs. They essentially vaporize. I'd also imagine that in the event of water infiltration, which is probably very likely over time given the flimsy stucco sheathing that is typically used on rear and side facades, the plywood won't hold up well.
I'm sure many of these buildings will be around for 30, 40 years or so. But I doubt many will stand the test of time and become permanent elements of the streetscape. That's my main point. They seem like placeholders to me, and though some are decent looking, they're hard to feel attached to, to feel they will become part of the urban fabric over the long term. It's what I think of as "provisional" architecture, like military barracks. Not that that really matters, it's just my personal feeling.

But the fire threat is real and a threat not only to the buildings themselves, but to nearby properties. That's a real concern in my opinion.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by cafeguy

Just rumors right now... but word in the halls of Jefferson is that they want to build a "tower of innovation"...ie... do what the science center is doing and build a remarkable building for it. We'll see!!!

Hopefully on the site of that block-long orange shoe box of theirs on Chestnut!

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by mcbane

I'm curious if anything tall will ever be built at the Navy Yard. Yes, I know it's supposed to be a suburban-type office park but a (relatively) tall building - something in the neighborhood of 12-15 floors - with an iconic design and visible from 95, Stadiums, airport, etc. would be nice, I think. It would have to be a statement building that lets passerby know it's there. Otherwise, there's not really any indication from 95, etc. that there's this burgeoning business center.

Doubtful . . . runway approach, FAA obstacles.