PHILADELPHIA | Lowrise/General Developments Thread

[cafeguy]

Most of present day philly buildings look like they were designed by IKEA and put together by a robot....wall, window, pop-out, move on, wall, window, pop-out move on...


Those hotel projects looked great when they were presented, but they were fought even more than 205 race was because it blocked the view of center city as you drove off the bridge and had a billboard on top.

In a market where profits are slim, if you see a well-made building, no matter how tall it is, you work with them instead of fighting them. When a good proposal comes and it dies because people fight too hard against it, they sell it for an inflated price and the only economical thing that makes sense for the next developer is stream line 🞵🞵🞵🞵 like this.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by cafeguy

In a market where profits are slim, if you see a well-made building, no matter how tall it is, you work with them instead of fighting them. When a good proposal comes and it dies because people fight too hard against it, they sell it for an inflated price and the only economical thing that makes sense for the next developer is stream line 🞵🞵🞵🞵 like this.

Sigh . . . . .

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by 1487

But you are OK with the warehouse? NOt sure what part of this project is a downgrade over a brick warehouse that does nothing to enliven the block.

"Awful" applied to the warehouse. "Mediocre" applies to the proposal. As I said, it's a step up, but could be better. One doesn't have to see this in black and white terms.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by summersm343

There were two really nice designs from ~2012/2013 timeframe which are much nicer than this design. Shame they didn't go through and this might.

[Images redacted]

Precisely. Those other projects had something going for them. Nobody's looking for perfection. Just the tiniest sliver of imagination will do.

[domodeez]

Originally Posted by 1487

enabling?

Generally speaking, various aspects of the zoning code can and do enable/encourage low-quality materials, "buildings as bad neighbors" (i.e., how a building meets the street), and definitely cheap architecture in order to make the numbers work.

Height limits, FAR, open space requirements (each of which exists for good reason), and minimum on-site parking requirements (which does not exist for good reason) limit the amount of sqft/size a developer can build on a given parcel. Limiting the amount of developable land on a parcel and/or limiting the size of the development itself also limits a developer's ability to afford things like good architecture and design. So yes, via the Zoning code (and in other ways) enables bad and mediocre projects.

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by summersm343

There were two really nice designs from ~2012/2013 timeframe which are much nicer than this design. Shame they didn't go through and this might.

Keep in mind OCCA in their BANANA-y goodness pretty much axed both those designs.

[br323206]

Again, we have lots of posts presenting this as uniquely Philly problem. This is not unique to Philadelphia. Lackluster buildings exist, and continue to get built, in NYC, Boston, DC, London, Paris, Tokyo, etc. etc. etc. This certainly isn't the worst example, even if it isn't ideal.

[Insoluble]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

We'll have to agree to disagree. It's not like it makes widgets. It makes little kids' lunch money. It's a special case. That said, although I don't want to turn Philadelphia into Houston, I sometimes we can go too far in segregating activities within a city. A reasonable mixture of activities enhances, rather than detracts from the local fabric. All play and no work makes for a dull city. There's always room for another residential bloc and corner cafe. I for one and glad there's some business going on here (even if it's government sponsored). My beef here is that new residential bloc will look cheap and appears to have little going for it at street level.

I just honestly don't see how you can criticize the apartment proposal but defend the mint. This proposal is admittedly crappy and I wish it were a lot better, but it is 1000 times better than the mint in just about every way imaginable. Yeah, yeah, the mint has tours and is considered a tourist attraction. The same can exact thing can be said for the Hershey Factory. Neither of them belong in Old City.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by Insoluble

I just honestly don't see how you can criticize the apartment proposal but defend the mint. This proposal is admittedly crappy and I wish it were a lot better, but it is 1000 times better than the mint in just about every way imaginable. Yeah, yeah, the mint has tours and is considered a tourist attraction. The same can exact thing can be said for the Hershey Factory. Neither of them belong in Old City.

I defended the mint's location, not its architecture. I criticized the proposal's architecture, but not it's location. I definitely understand the opinion that the Mint's operations are ill-suited for its location. It's like the "one of these things is not like the other" segments on Sesame Street. I just don't see it as wholly unreasonable. Personally, I like the eclectic mix of residential, tourist, legal and small-scale manufacturing activities. The Mint is not like an automobile factory or other large-scale industrial use. I think a chocolate factory would be more like the latter than the Mint. I'm not advocating for smokestacks and boxcars on the Mall.

[EastSideHBG]

Target confirms it will open store at 12th and Chestnut in 2016
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20...hestnut_in_2016.html#ArwlFBFW9KBxJ6LS.99

[1487]

Originally Posted by domodeez

Generally speaking, various aspects of the zoning code can and do enable/encourage low-quality materials, "buildings as bad neighbors" (i.e., how a building meets the street), and definitely cheap architecture in order to make the numbers work.

Height limits, FAR, open space requirements (each of which exists for good reason), and minimum on-site parking requirements (which does not exist for good reason) limit the amount of sqft/size a developer can build on a given parcel. Limiting the amount of developable land on a parcel and/or limiting the size of the development itself also limits a developer's ability to afford things like good architecture and design. So yes, via the Zoning code (and in other ways) enables bad and mediocre projects.

There are factors at work that affect what is offered. Sorry, but that is an oversimplification of what drives design. Generally speaking, moden construction materials are not impressive compared to older buildings- especially in a city like philadelphia. There are certain things that have changed permanently in terms of construction materials, methods, craftsmanship, etc. There could be a host of reasons why one material is used vs another- and cost isn't likely much of a factor on a project of this scale. The type of brick used probably represents a fraction of a % of the cost of the project. Compared to what was built 75 years ago almost anything built today can be considered mediocre. I don't see what is so offensive about this design vs other modern multifamily buildings being built here and in the burbs. It generic, inoffensive, modern and fully expected in today's market. everything that exists in the zoning code represents some sort of compromise- anyone can pick out a project they don't like and then say "if the code was set up specifically to serve my preferences we would never have buildings like this". And then someone who argued for the restrictions that currently exist would be complaining about how your preferred design was ruining the character of their neighborhood, etc. This isn't an exact science, nor are there any clear "right" answers.

[1487]

Originally Posted by br323206

Again, we have lots of posts presenting this as uniquely Philly problem. This is not unique to Philadelphia. Lackluster buildings exist, and continue to get built, in NYC, Boston, DC, London, Paris, Tokyo, etc. etc. etc. This certainly isn't the worst example, even if it isn't ideal.

exactly. What modern apt tower can really compare to stuff built before WW2 in terms of materials, detail and craftsmanship? We are in a different era. I can't think of a single large, multifamily building in CC that has been built in last 10 years that I truly find impressive. Murano and RARC are probably my highest rated ground up apt towers.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by 1487

exactly. What modern apt tower can really compare to stuff built before WW2 in terms of materials, detail and craftsmanship? We are in a different era. I can't think of a single large, multifamily building in CC that has been built in last 10 years that I truly find impressive. Murano and RARC are probably my highest rated ground up apt towers.

It's all subjective.

You like the way Murano looks but the fit and finish inside the units is VERY cheap. In fact, a lot of the buyers have gutted them simply to upgrade the finishes...and that was a new build.

You might not like the way 10 Rittenhouse looks, but certainly the materials are a cut above both buildings you mention (I'm talking inside the units). I've found other obscure buildings like 301 Vine to be done well as well. What's the only complaint that people have about 10 Rittenhouse? That the bricks weren't hand laid one by one? Give me a break. That's like complaining that your car was built by a robot instead of by hand. That panels that are used in those buildings are laid by hand and then they're put up in blocks...so who cares. No big buildings are built with hand laid brick anymore...or should I say, very few are...it's not a real knock.

At the end of the day, the perception of quality for most really is about whether or not the person likes the aesthetics of the building. Which is not really a good indicator of if the building truly is well done or not.

We have this debate ad nauseum. I think there are a class of buildings that are clearly very cheaply done (think the PMC building behind Comcast)...and then mostly everything else is in a tier above that. Luckily, we haven't been completely inundated with the mid-America prefab 🞵🞵🞵🞵 that is popping up all over the urban south (think Atlanta and Nashville)...though proposals like 4th&Race make me think that could change.

Otherwise it's a matter of taste.

[1487]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

It's all subjective.

You like the way Murano looks but the fit and finish inside the units is VERY cheap. In fact, a lot of the buyers have gutted them simply to upgrade the finishes...and that was a new build.

You might not like the way 10 Rittenhouse looks, but certainly the materials are a cut above both buildings you mention (I'm talking inside the units). I've found other obscure buildings like 301 Vine to be done well as well. What's the only complaint that people have about 10 Rittenhouse? That the bricks weren't hand laid one by one? Give me a break. That's like complaining that your car was built by a robot instead of by hand. That panels that are used in those buildings are laid by hand and then they're put up in blocks...so who cares. No big buildings are built with hand laid brick anymore...or should I say, very few are...it's not a real knock.

At the end of the day, the perception of quality for most really is about whether or not the person likes the aesthetics of the building. Which is not really a good indicator of if the building truly is well done or not.

We have this debate ad nauseum. I think there are a class of buildings that are clearly very cheaply done (think the PMC building behind Comcast)...and then mostly everything else is in a tier above that. Luckily, we haven't been completely inundated with the mid-America prefab 🞵🞵🞵🞵 that is popping up all over the urban south (think Atlanta and Nashville)...though proposals like 4th&Race make me think that could change.

Otherwise it's a matter of taste.

I wasnt talking about materials specifically nor was I talking about interiors. I was simply saying those buildings are pretty nice designs for modern residential towers- they still arent classic or comparable to older buildings. I havent been in the murano but a guy who worked in my house had done work in there and confirmed builder was using bottom basement materials in the units.

People who arent in the construction trade really dont know what is cheap or what isn't. Nor do they have any idea about the cost differential between various materials. When people dont like the look of something when it comes to architecture they seem to automatically presume its there because its cheap. It could be there due to availability, color palette, insulation value, ease of assembly, etc.

i dont think the 4th and race building is likely prefab when you look at all the variations in cladding materials.

[br323206]

Originally Posted by 1487

People who arent in the construction trade really dont know what is cheap or what isn't. Nor do they have any idea about the cost differential between various materials. When people dont like the look of something when it comes to architecture they seem to automatically presume its there because its cheap. It could be there due to availability, color palette, insulation value, ease of assembly, etc.

To that point: I love the look of Wissahickon Schist and that it adds a unique touch to buildings in this area. My friend, upon first seeing it, proclaimed that it looked tacky and like "fake stone." Once I explained its significance he appreciated it much more.

[summersm343]

Temple University Snohetta designed library CDR Submission

http://www.phila.gov/CityPlanning/projectreviews/PDF/1901-1947NParkAve_CDR_ForWEB.pdf

[Cro Burnham]

A monster residential development visible from the Schuylkill Expressway is going up right on the river next to Manayunk . . . . maybe the old Connelly Container site?

Anyway, it is huge, I never noticed it before. Looks to be about 8 stories . . . and to be made entirely of wood stick framing which I thought was against the Philly fire code (5 stories max). Perhaps this is in Montco?

Anybody know what this development is? It's really big.

Ah - found some info:

http://www.ocfrealty.com/naked-philly/big-new-building-getting-framed-visible-from-i-76

O'Neill . . . . big shock it's wood frame, then . . . hope that Bala Cynwyd fire department knows what it's getting itself into.


http://mlpbuilders.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/IMG_6714.jpg

[br323206]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

A monster residential development visible from the Schuylkill Expressway is going up right on the river next to Manayunk . . . . maybe the old Connelly Container site?

Anyway, it is huge, I never noticed it before. Looks to be about 8 stories . . . and to be made entirely of wood stick framing which I thought was against the Philly fire code (5 stories max). Perhaps this is in Montco?

Anybody know what this development is? It's really big.

Ah - found some info:

http://www.ocfrealty.com/naked-philly/big-new-building-getting-framed-visible-from-i-76

O'Neill . . . . big shock it's wood frame, then . . . hope that Bala Cynwyd fire department knows what it's getting itself into.

Yep, O'Neill building another O'Neill special. This was really controversial because of the lack of access. But they are improving the Pencoyd Bridge to provide pedestrian access to the Wissahickon train station, so that's a plus.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by br323206

Yep, O'Neill building another O'Neill special.

The guy seems shameless on so many levels.

[1487]

when I first saw this I really thought it was in manayunk.