PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread IX

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by 1487

I think many people (including Inga S) are a little confused about what the city can demand. The city isnt in the business of dictating design to developers. The CDR process was created in order to attempt to shape large projects but their opinions aren't binding and they cannot force a developer to do anything. thus far, it seems most developers that get ravaged at an CDR hearing attempt to make at least basic design changes but thats about all you can hope for. If the city is making a major concession on zoning or something that offers a little leeway to demand design details that go above and beyond but that doesn't apply to many projects. the city really has minimal leverage over a private development being built on privately acquired land.

That's generally how things work. Yes. But to say that the city has minimal leverage over a private development is patently false. If the city doesn't issue permits then the developer can't build. Period. The city has all of the power in the world, it's just that this power is rarely flexed by the city because most city agencies don't care much about architectural design. Construction jobs, increasing the tax base, this is generally good news, so as long as a building is designed according to zoning laws they normally get with they need. The CDR cares about the design and you're right that they're generally powerless, but the city itself has plenty of power.

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by allovertown

Prime parcels that will define the city? That's a bit much don't you think?

And calling a location a "Prime parcel" I think has a bit more to do than location.

Mate, it's riverfront property...in booming center city. Literally, end of discussion.

Originally Posted by allovertown

The things that they get done may look shitty, but shitty looking buildings still have people living in them, still add to the vitality of the city.

In the renter vs. owner mentality, this statement is very much a short-term renters philosophy and has about as much vision as my blind grandmother, who's also dead. For folks with similar thinking, I'd personally pay for their bus ticket out of town to a place like minneapolis or charlotte where any poorly designed, shlocky representation of urbanism is lauded b/c it's...well...urban.

Originally Posted by allovertown

1900 Arch is an ugly building. But I'm certainly not embarrassed when I walk past it. Embarrassment to the city? You're being overly dramatic.

What new construction building in CC do you have find embarrassing, just so I can understand your design sensibilities? And don't give me everyone's favorite whipping boy Symphony House b/c 1900 arch makes SH look like a renaissance masterpiece.

FWIW, I have a friend who is a former employee at PMC and they are a quick-buck, churn and burn shop.

[br323206]

Originally Posted by allovertown

That's generally how things work. Yes. But to say that the city has minimal leverage over a private development is patently false. If the city doesn't issue permits then the developer can't build. Period. The city has all of the power in the world, it's just that this power is rarely flexed by the city because most city agencies don't care much about architectural design. Construction jobs, increasing the tax base, this is generally good news, so as long as a building is designed according to zoning laws they normally get with they need. The CDR cares about the design and you're right that they're generally powerless, but the city itself has plenty of power.

What you're leaving out is that everything the city does, from issue permits to granting variances to reviewing plans has to be done in the context of state and federal law.

Also, if you have a zoning ordinance and say "x is allowed by right, so long as y and z" then you can't deny approvals because the architecture is lackluster. Doesn't meet the setbacks? Ok, you have leverage. Is taller than allowed? Ok, you have leverage. Meets all the requirements set forth in your ordinance? Sorry, no leverage. The time to flex that muscle was when you adopted the ordinance.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by Londonee

Mate, it's riverfront property...in booming center city. Literally, end of discussion.




In the renter vs. owner mentality, this statement is very much a short-term renters philosophy and has about as much vision as my blind grandmother, who's also dead. For folks with similar thinking, I'd personally pay for their bus ticket out of town to a place like minneapolis or charlotte where any poorly designed, shlocky representation of urbanism is lauded b/c it's...well...urban.



What new construction building in CC do you have find embarrassing, just so I can understand your design sensibilities? And don't give me everyone's favorite whipping boy Symphony House b/c 1900 arch makes SH look like a renaissance masterpiece.

FWIW, I have a friend who is a former employee at PMC and they are a quick-buck, churn and burn shop.

Buddy, there's not a single actively used building in Philadelphia that embarrasses me. Some are uglier than others but none of them embarrass me like trash strewn empty yards, or parking lots, or dilapidated abandoned buildings.

Frankly, you're consistently shown yourself to be the poster on this board who is least connected to reality. You think everything is ugly and complain about everything that gets built. You seemingly think the only thing that matters is aesthetics and your rants are increasingly boring.

And sorry but I don't think I'm interested in going halfway across the country on a bus, but perhaps you'd be willing to upgrade to a plane ticket. I'd love to visit Minneapolis, I've still never been.

[Cro Burnham]

I'm not too worried about PMC . . . yet.

This whole section of town has been vacant for 60 years.

As long as the projects are high density, engage the street and riverside reasonably well with retail, etc., and don't have dryvit or precast concrete facades, I can't worry too much.

These are good properties with alot of potential. Prime is a bit of hyperbole at this point. In 10 years? Very possibly. Now? Just the same ol' vacant weedy lots they've always been, but with higher expectations given the general developnent buzz.

But we need to get something going with some density, even if it's not celebrity architecture. Once the people and activity come, more quality will follow because developer risk will be lower and they will be able to profit more by investing in quality. Initial developments might tend to be a little plainer. I think that's ok as long as people come. Get the ball rolling.

[1487]

Originally Posted by allovertown

That's generally how things work. Yes. But to say that the city has minimal leverage over a private development is patently false. If the city doesn't issue permits then the developer can't build. Period. The city has all of the power in the world, it's just that this power is rarely flexed by the city because most city agencies don't care much about architectural design. Construction jobs, increasing the tax base, this is generally good news, so as long as a building is designed according to zoning laws they normally get with they need. The CDR cares about the design and you're right that they're generally powerless, but the city itself has plenty of power.

I don't agree. Offering a license to start construction is a function of whether or not the owner submits the required documents that meet code and are signed and sealed by a licensed engineer or architect. L&I's mission has nothing to do with vetting design and there is nothing legal or proper about the city trying to grant permts based on someone's personal perception of what constitutes good design. I laugh when people like Inga infer the city should "force" developers to build "good" buildings as if there is consensus on what that means. Many of the buildings she praises I find forgettable or even ugly. City agencies generally should not be trying to extort developers for aesthetic changes. The historical commission and planning commission are supposed to render opinions largely because developers are proposing to change something that is protected or something that is zoned in a way that wouldnt allow the project to proceed by right. When a project is proposed that falls within zoning and planning regulations there really isnt much the city can do (or should do) to force a developer to build a certain style of building.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by 1487

Hard to believe they would move anyone from Utopian suburban office parks with low taxes to 1900 Market. News of a company like DOW leaving gets lots of discussion about how the City is not business friendly or competitive- news like this- no so much. This is a huge lease.

This is a national trend, and not surprising at all.

Urban office locations are increasingly considered far closer to utopia than suburban.

Many companies care far more about recruiting and retaining employees than the cost of office space and even local taxes. They often quote that as why they move close-in. That goes double for tech and other sectors that rely heavily on 20-somethings.

If rent+services is a $10/sf difference, that might be a $2,000/year difference per employee, less than 2% of the cost of employing people in a typical office.

Same with taxes. The low tax, low service model draws some types of business, but in many industries the top firms are in the higher-tax, higher-service markets.

It's also about synergies. Many companies want to be near customers, collaborators, hotels, and so on. Often they specifically want these things to be walkable.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by 1487

L&I's mission has nothing to do with vetting design and there is nothing legal or proper about the city trying to grant permts based on someone's personal perception of what constitutes good design. I laugh when people like Inga infer the city should "force" developers to build "good" buildings as if there is consensus on what that means. Many of the buildings she praises I find forgettable or even ugly. City agencies generally should not be trying to extort developers for aesthetic changes.

I agree, we definitely DO NOT want the City in the business of judging aesthetics. Imagine the reign of terror that would be unleashed by our local politicians who have about as much combined aesthetic sense as Liberace.

What might be more reasonable would be for the City to have:

1) clear, transparent zoning that encourages high density and commercial activity and discourages car-oriented design in central and key commercial areas; clearly, too many Philadelphians are still very backward - almost conventionally suburban - in their fear of density and pedestrian/bike/transit-oriented design, and this forces developers to cut corners to keep the returns they need with lower density developments where lower density is clearly unnecessary except for the parking space mongers and change/street activity-loathers .

2) prohibitions against the use of the lowest-grade facade finishes (EIFS, vinyl siding, clunky precast, etc.), particularly if the city is investing subsidies in the project.

But everything needs to be clear, simple, and consistent, otherwise you have people like Jannie Blackwell trying to tell developers how to design their projects.

Or this sickening commentary courtesy of Zoning board chairwoman Julia Chapman to the development team of 4220 Baltimore:

"I just have a different perspective of Baltimore Avenue." . . . . "Why don't you want to complement what's been there and continue what's been there?" . . . . . "Why do you have to have 9-foot ceilings? I don't have 9-foot ceilings."

http://planphilly.com/articles/2015/04/3...-apartment-project-at-43rd-and-baltimore

This why we don't want to give these morons any aesthetic leeway in their authorities.

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by allovertown

Buddy, there's not a single actively used building in Philadelphia that embarrasses me. Some are uglier than others but none of them embarrass me like trash strewn empty yards, or parking lots, or dilapidated abandoned buildings.

Frankly, you're consistently shown yourself to be the poster on this board who is least connected to reality. You think everything is ugly and complain about everything that gets built. You seemingly think the only thing that matters is aesthetics and your rants are increasingly boring.

Just out of curiosity, where are you from? This whole post speaks to a certain provincialism that I believe we need to transcend as a city to truly become world-class. I think it's a good thing to not ALWAYS accept the status quo - what an odd (I guess easier, nay, more realistic?) way to walk through life?

Lastly, I wish I could speak more to the excitement level of your posts, but I've never heard of you before.

[Cro Burnham]

Allovertown, Londonee, you are both nice, astute posters. I think your mutual flameout is based on a few misinterpreted phrases. In reality i think you probably both agree on a lot more than you disagree about re: Philly development and urbanism.

There's lots of jerks here that deserve your barbs (me!) but neither of you do. Make nice! Find your obvious common ground and sing cumbaya together!

[Insoluble]

Originally Posted by allovertown

You think everything is ugly and complain about everything that gets built. You seemingly think the only thing that matters is aesthetics and your rants are increasingly boring.

FWIW, Londonee was one of the only people to come out praising CITC when the renderings were first released. (I know it's hard to believe now that we're all super excited about the construction, but seriously, go back and read the first few pages of that thread. It's amazing how many people were trashing it.) I think you are both great posters who have contributed valuable insights and hope neither of you suffers the misfortune of having to move to Charlotte!

[summersm343]

Fight nicely.

[hammersklavier]

Re: PMC's purchase of the River City/Riverwalk parcels:

This is not an easy property to build on. Its previous use was a railyard (can you say environmental contamination?) and the sections along JFK all abut and/or lie astride the SEPTA tracks. Even if envisaged as a multiphase project, you're looking at several million that needs to be spent to get the parcel building-ready. And that's not considering the increasingly creative architecture that the JFK parcels would need, heading east.

Don't forget, guys, PMC has also purchased the much-easier-to-redevelop Marketplace Design Center a block down. Given that PMC's MO is not well geared towards dealing with difficult sites like Riverwalk, my guess is that they're not actually intending to develop it so much as flip it, using the profit gained in the sale to redevelop Marketplace Design. And if that's the case, it's likely they got an unusually good deal for the site due to the previous owners' (rumored) financial difficulties.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by Londonee

Just out of curiosity, where are you from? This whole post speaks to a certain provincialism that I believe we need to transcend as a city to truly become world-class. I think it's a good thing to not ALWAYS accept the status quo - what an odd (I guess easier, nay, more realistic?) way to walk through life?

Lastly, I wish I could speak more to the excitement level of your posts, but I've never heard of you before.

I'm from Philly, but believe me, despite my philadelphian upbringing there's not an iota of negadelphian in me. I love this city and believe it to be well on its way to world class. I guess I just totally disagree that anything happening in Philly right now is status quo. The changes in this city over the past two decades are amazing.

But I still view this as a city with a lot of work still to be done. There are still so many puzzle pieces to be put in that aesthetics aren't that important to me at this point. This current site is a disaster. Jfk is a prime downtown street that is suddenly besieged by parking lots and empty grass. The fact that this could soon change has me excited. I just don't get the idea that every empty lot in this city should just stay empty until there's a beautiful trophy tower ready to be built there. Sometimes totally transforming an area in need of some love is well worth it even if the building isn't aesthetically beautiful.

There are a lot of really nice buildings going up on philly now and some not so nice ones. But every building is adding people and energy and vitality. We don't even know what this building (s) will look like but whatever gets built here increases the momentum on west market and increases the momentum for something truly great to be built in the future on one of the still many suitable tower locations nearby.

That's simply the type of stuff I'm more concerned with. I love a beautiful building as much as the next skyscraper nerd but at the end of the day how important are beautiful buildings to the success of a city? In most cases I'd rather have something than nothing.

But we can disagree. Haha as much as your shot about not knowing who I am hurt me, considering all the pain I've taken to craft my presence here across 160 glorious posts, I can forgive. Not one, but two posters have asked for our beef to end, so I'll knock it off.

[PhiLaw]

Originally Posted by allovertown

I'm from Philly, but believe me, despite my philadelphian upbringing there's not an iota of negadelphian in me. I love this city and believe it to be well on its way to world class. I guess I just totally disagree that anything happening in Philly right now is status quo. The changes in this city over the past two decades are amazing.

But I still view this as a city with a lot of work still to be done. There are still so many puzzle pieces to be put in that aesthetics aren't that important to me at this point. This current site is a disaster. Jfk is a prime downtown street that is suddenly besieged by parking lots and empty grass. The fact that this could soon change has me excited. I just don't get the idea that every empty lot in this city should just stay empty until there's a beautiful trophy tower ready to be built there. Sometimes totally transforming an area in need of some love is well worth it even if the building isn't aesthetically beautiful.

There are a lot of really nice buildings going up on philly now and some not so nice ones. But every building is adding people and energy and vitality. We don't even know what this building (s) will look like but whatever gets built here increases the momentum on west market and increases the momentum for something truly great to be built in the future on one of the still many suitable tower locations nearby.

That's simply the type of stuff I'm more concerned with. I love a beautiful building as much as the next skyscraper nerd but at the end of the day how important are beautiful buildings to the success of a city? In most cases I'd rather have something than nothing.

But we can disagree. Haha as much as your shot about not knowing who I am hurt me, considering all the pain I've taken to craft my presence here across 160 glorious posts, I can forgive. Not one, but two posters have asked for our beef to end, so I'll knock it off.

You must be from Rhawnhurst

[PHL1]

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/201507...n_of_historic_East_Park_Canoe_House.html

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by PhiLaw

You must be from Rhawnhurst

Damn dude. Those are fighting words. Haddington.

I understand your confusion though. Rhawnhurst residents are really well known proponents of urbanity.

[tower]

i am from rhawnhurst

people usually don't know where it is

[boxbot]

Why are Mommy and Daddy fighting?

[ePlanningPhila]

I was the original poster regarding the PMC riverwalk purchase and the concern over their potential development at the site, because the parcel is highly visible from 30th St. Station and their track record for quality development is abysmal. Seeing how the comment sparked a wide ray of involvement on this topic, I can firmly state, design aesthetics in this city need to be addressed.

Government does have the power to dictate design principles. There are hundreds of municipalities across the nation that do this.

Example: I have family who lives in Phoenix (sprawl city). I do not particularly like Phoenix. They live in an area right outside Phoenix, called Gilbert. When there last, I commented on

1) The amount of development going on; because it truly was astounding the number of projects being coordinated in this town of 200,000; meaning they had adopted pro - development policy that developers could get behind!!

2) The design aesthetics were all coordinated, medium to high quality. The quality of landscaping alone was astounding. And for these to be developed independently, but to feel so cohesive astounded me.

So I asked my cousin. How do they do this? Because in Pennsylvania you rarely see anything of the sort. And he told me the municipality adopted minimum design guidelines that all developers must follow. These guidelines dictate what materials cannot be used. (cheap cladding, etc). He informed me it sets a standard that developers know they must adhere to if they want to develop in Gilbert. This is all a part of their zoning code. And trust me, they were developing. They had no problem adding extra landscaping, using higher quality materials, etc. Because they knew the ROI was still there.

In no way whatsoever do I believe final design variances should be given to city council (this is a HUGE MISTAKE). As Cro - Burnham stated we need the following:
1) Clear transparent zoning (we sort of have; not really)
2) Minimum Design Guidelines (we do not have)

We do not need city council having their hand in every project, this is unnecessary.

Final note:
I do not think one poster in this forum is expecting a trophy tower at Riverwalk. We all want to see the parking lot elevated to a higher use. (this is a pro - development forum). I for one do not expect every project to be some billion dollar tower. What I do expect is a company turning hundreds of millions in profit from their projects, to reinvest a small % of their gains, into the built environment (the aesthetics/design) that we the citizens of Philadelphia will have for a lifetime. PMC will still develop if the city adopts minimum guidelines. I guarantee it, because there is just too much opportunity here. The vacancy rate is 1.6%, we are a pro - development town right now. So let's use that as an opportunity to set the tone, to say hey, if you want to develop in Philadelphia, that is great. But your project needs to be quality.

That simple.

This is how you have proper investment. And this is how you elevate Philadelphia to World City Status. Which I know we all aspire to do.