PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread IX

[1487]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

That's about it. I think Philly comes in at a solid #5 behind NYC, SF, Chicago, Boston w/r/t genuine urban retailing (ie, not Vegas). Maybe DC is close. Miami Beach is OK, I suppose, I haven't been there for years, but when I was it seemed nice but superficial, without the depth and diversity of Philly's retail scene. Seattle must be good too (never been there) but on the whole I doubt it matches Center City. Beverly Hills is at the top as far as top end stuff goes, I guess, but it's sort of small and not a real downtown, more like a giant Ardmore or steroids.

I have heard Kansas City's south side has amazing retail too, particularly for a city its size.

Miami has an upscale mall akin to K fo P. Most upscale retailing is NOT urban. While there are plenty of nice restaurants and bars on the urban streets there are not many nice high end national chain stores. A block or two west of the main drag in Miami Beach you will find tons of lower end stores- at least when I was last there 4-5 years ago.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by summersm343

What other cities have these department stores Downtown? Not many really....

NYC, SF, Chi, Boston? Really that's about it. I can't really think of any other Downtown area that does. Only reason Seattle has a Nordstrom is because it's based there. Otherwise it would just have a Macy's and most of the upscale shopping in the area is in Bellevue - a suburb. Most of LA's upscale shopping is in Beverly Hills - a suburb. Most of Las Vegas' shopping is along the Strip which is actually a suburb and not a part of the actual city. Most of Miami's shopping is in Miami Beach - a suburb. Most of ATL, Houston, Dallas, etc. shopping is in the burbs. Most of DC's shopping is in the outer neighborhood of Georgetown although Downtown is improving and then in the burbs like Tyson's Corner.

Very few cities have actual good Downtown Shopping or city shopping in the US. Downtown Shopping? NYC, Chi, SF, Boston, DC, Philly, Seattle, Miami. That's really it.

I have to echo Cro's comment on the previous page. The cities that have multiple dept stores include Boston, NYC, Chicago, and SF, right? And the cities that don't have more than just a Macys include Las Vegas, Miami, LA, Houston, and Atlanta.

First, which cohort of cities does Philly have more in common with?
Second, which cohort of cities should Philly be emulating?

[summersm343]

Planned office building at 41st and Market gets a push in Council

A bill introduced in City Council on Thursday would change the zoning of a parcel of land at 41st and Market streets in West Philly to make way for the proposed 3.0 University Place office complex.

The building is a sequel to 2.0 University Place, an office building constructed on a nearby lot at 41st and Filbert few years ago. Like the earlier building, 3.0 University Place will be certified LEED Platinum, the highest rating a building can get for sustainable design and energy efficiency.

The new building would replace a Pep Boys. The bill, introduced by Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell, rezones the property from an auto-oriented commercial district to CMX-4, a high-density commercial mixed-use designation.

The developers put 2.0 University Place up for sale last year. Mazo bought the Pep Boys property in December. He’s hoping to establish a “Platinum Corridor” of environmentally friendly office buildings on Market between 38th and 42nd streets.

http://planphilly.com/articles/2015/09/2...t-41st-and-market-gets-a-push-in-council


More on the "Platinum Corridor" between 38th and 42nd on Market here:

3.0 University Place's Associate Architect, studioMUSarx, has developed an urban streetscape proposition for the envisioned "Platinum Corridor" in West Philadelphia. Mentioned in the Philadelphia Business Journal as a corridor that will consist of "a series of LEED-certified buildings along Market Street between 38th and 42nd streets" and total "between 1 million and 2 million square feet," the streetscape will address the public engagement and gaps created between streets, intersections, and buildings of the area. New public plazas featuring sculptures of art, tree-lined sidewalks containing pathway lighting, planters, and benches, and storm-water-infiltrated green spaces are designed to enhance the visual character and user experience of the corridor. Intermittent strips of masonry pavers of varying color, texture, and pattern are set within the expanse of the corridor's concrete sidewalk, creating a unique and dynamic edge along Market Street.

More massing renderings here:
http://www.studiomusarx.com/the-platinum-corridor-streetscape-1/

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

It's really too bad the top Walnut Street property owners can't get together, for the sake of their mutual benefit, and pledge not to rent to certain businesses: banks, cell phones stores, low-end fast food, drug stores, etc.

I've said this a million times here and at Philly Speaks... but a simple zoning overlay on our main shopping corridors would really be all that's required. The fact that there are something like 8 Banks along Walnut Street, multiple eye exam stores, etc. says it all.

Banks are like retail cancer. You start with one, then it multiplies, then it spreads and before you know it, you have a street like Market West - a complete deadzone outside of M-F, 9-5.

[Teakwood]

Originally Posted by Londonee

I've said this a million times here and at Philly Speaks... but a simple zoning overlay on our main shopping corridors would really be all that's required. The fact that there are something like 8 Banks along Walnut Street, multiple eye exam stores, etc. says it all.

Banks are like retail cancer. You start with one, then it multiplies, then it spreads and before you know it, you have a street like Market West - a complete deadzone outside of M-F, 9-5.

Let's say that the retail stores that everyone feels need to be on Walnut and around Rittenhouse are blocked out by the banks and such. Does anyone feel that this will negatively affect residential development in this part of the city? While retail in those areas seems ideal, the lack of retail seems to me like it would create an Upper East/West side type neighborhood. Could it possibly be more beneficial as a whole if that area does not continue to develop as the premier downtown shopping area, thus allowing another area (Market East?) to pick up the slack, and maybe develop from less into more than what we imagine Walnut/Rittenhouse should look like?

[br323206]

Originally Posted by Londonee

I've said this a million times here and at Philly Speaks... but a simple zoning overlay on our main shopping corridors would really be all that's required. The fact that there are something like 8 Banks along Walnut Street, multiple eye exam stores, etc. says it all.

Banks are like retail cancer. You start with one, then it multiplies, then it spreads and before you know it, you have a street like Market West - a complete deadzone outside of M-F, 9-5.

The idea that high-end retail can't exist next to fast food and cell phone stores is silly. Guess what is right across from Neiman Marcus in Beverly Hills? A Subway. There is a bank right across from the Barney's and another right across from Louis Vuitton. There are multiple CVS stores, and GASP! a Cheesecake Factory! No one is advocating an overlay for Wilshire Blvd.

[Outta here]

Originally Posted by McBane

I have to echo Cro's comment on the previous page. The cities that have multiple dept stores include Boston, NYC, Chicago, and SF, right? And the cities that don't have more than just a Macys include Las Vegas, Miami, LA, Houston, and Atlanta.

First, which cohort of cities does Philly have more in common with?
Second, which cohort of cities should Philly be emulating?

Oh boy , I just know someone is gonna be pissed about this response but ,
First , I don't want or expect Philly to have " more " in common with any cities so ,
Second , Philly doesn't have to " emulate " any city .

The " Quaker " idea for Philly was ok in it's day , however it is long past due for moving
into the 21st. century .
There is enough diversity ( of every kind ) in Philly that it should proceed and continue
to grow in it's own particular , exciting and fruitful way .

I'm a Chicago born guy and love most things about it ... but this town is on the cusp
of leaping into a category , envied by many ..... The not so big secret , .... don't stop now .

[MikeNigh]

I think the opposite, philly should not be afraid to emulate or copy other cities if it is in it's best interest. For philly to really be independent then it has to truly not care if it's like other cities or not.

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by Teakwood

While retail in those areas seems ideal, the lack of retail seems to me like it would create an Upper East/West side type neighborhood. Could it possibly be more beneficial as a whole if that area does not continue to develop as the premier downtown shopping area, thus allowing another area (Market East?) to pick up the slack, and maybe develop from less into more than what we imagine Walnut/Rittenhouse should look like?

First of all, as a resident of this area. no.

Second of all, the Upper West Side in particular along on Broadway, and the Upper East side along pretty much every avenue with the exception of Park probably has triple the amount of retail of Walnut Street and Market East combined. The streets are residential, the avenues retail - and tons of it. There's a reason why real estate in these areas, including our Rittenhouse/Fitler, is so valuable - b/c you have this wonderful access to safe live/work/play amenities all within a 5minute walk.

One of the fundamental concepts of city living is walk-ability and mixed-use. Segregating city's into specific function zones (here's where your museums go, here's where your offices are, here's where people live, here's where people shop) is a failure b/c without mixed use you always create a dead zone at some point in the day.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by Teakwood

Let's say that the retail stores that everyone feels need to be on Walnut and around Rittenhouse are blocked out by the banks and such. Does anyone feel that this will negatively affect residential development in this part of the city? While retail in those areas seems ideal, the lack of retail seems to me like it would create an Upper East/West side type neighborhood. Could it possibly be more beneficial as a whole if that area does not continue to develop as the premier downtown shopping area, thus allowing another area (Market East?) to pick up the slack, and maybe develop from less into more than what we imagine Walnut/Rittenhouse should look like?

Why? Why purposely kill Walnut Street retail? That's dumb. Philadelphia is a big enough city that it should be able to support two premiere retail corridors; one along Walnut/Chestnut and one along Market East. No point in killing one for the other when you can have both. In the future I see Walnut becoming a luxury and high end retail strip and Market East/Chestnut being the middle range to lower end of the high end retail spectrum.

[Teakwood]

Originally Posted by Londonee

First of all, as a resident of this area. no.

Second of all, the Upper West Side in particular along on Broadway, and the Upper East side along pretty much every avenue with the exception of Park probably has triple the amount of retail of Walnut Street and Market East combined. The streets are residential, the avenues retail - and tons of it. There's a reason why real estate in these areas, including our Rittenhouse/Fitler, is so valuable - b/c you have this wonderful access to safe live/work/play amenities all within a 5minute walk.

One of the fundamental concepts of city living is walk-ability and mixed-use. Segregating city's into specific function zones (here's where your museums go, here's where your offices are, here's where people live, here's where people shop) is a failure b/c without mixed use you always create a dead zone at some point in the day.

The dearth of retail that you speak of on the Upper East/West sides is not the type of retail that everyone here seems to advocate for Walnut/Rittenhouse. The retail on the Upper East/West sides are largely the banks/drug stores/fast food restaurants/cell phone stores that people here seem afraid of (yes there are lots of other retail as well, it is a very large area).

Quick UWS search: Broadway between 96th & 97th: Citibank, Bank of America, T-Mobile, Walgreens, 2 Nail Salons, 7-Eleven, Dunkin Donuts, and an Eyeglass Center.

However, on the Upper East/West sides, those things are seen as ameneties, not problems. People that choose to live on the Upper East/West sides do not want to have big brands/crowds/tourists in their neighborhood. The shops that everyone here want for Rittenhouse are concentrated elsewhere further south in Manhattan.

Of course I am not suggesting that retail up and leaves Rittenhouse. If the types of shops change, so be it. Will the uber-rich up and leave that area because they cannot have shops to walk to? My guess is a large percentage of the population around Rittenhouse would prefer it be less of a shopping destination, and only contain the ameneties that they need. Rittenhouse will not devolve and un-gentrify as a result of banks and drug stores.

However, a concerted effort in another area in the city could help it become the premier shopping destination that Walnut seems like it should be. Not that it would be strictly commercial, but if some uber-rich want to live near their favorite shops, maybe a new area of high income residents will develop there as well. I don't see it as a Rittenhouse or bust situation for high end retail. Rittenhouse's loss could be another part of the cities gain, which could potentially be a net positive for the city

[Teakwood]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Why? Why purposely kill Walnut Street retail? That's dumb. Philadelphia is a big enough city that it should be able to support two premiere retail corridors; one along Walnut/Chestnut and one along Market East. No point in killing one for the other when you can have both. In the future I see Walnut becoming a luxury and high end retail strip and Market East/Chestnut being the middle range to lower end of the high end retail spectrum.

I'm not advocating that at all. I'm suggesting that Philadelphia could survive the stupidity of leasing agents in Rittenhouse, and still manage to find high end retailers. It seems that many on here have a high end retail must exist in Rittenhouse if it is to come to Philly mentality, which I disagree with. Would anyone on here really complain if for some reason high end shops started popping up in Callowhill because they seem like they should have been in Rittenhouse? Rittenhouse doesn't need high end shops to remain a desirable area in the city, but would be great if it has it. Other areas could become great because of high end retail.

[MikeNigh]

I think we need to work on attracting more tourists if we want more high end retail. High end retail seems to gravitate towards the top tourist cities.

[Larry King]

All these posts about how to get a few overpriced clothing stores on a 3 block stretch of downtown? Philly inferiority complex shining through today

[1487]

Originally Posted by br323206

The idea that high-end retail can't exist next to fast food and cell phone stores is silly. Guess what is right across from Neiman Marcus in Beverly Hills? A Subway. There is a bank right across from the Barney's and another right across from Louis Vuitton. There are multiple CVS stores, and GASP! a Cheesecake Factory! No one is advocating an overlay for Wilshire Blvd.

Stop the lies! They do not have banks or drug stores in "premier" shopping areas in other cities! This ONLY a Philly issue!

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by Larry King

All these posts about how to get a few overpriced clothing stores on a 3 block stretch of downtown? Philly inferiority complex shining through today

It's not about that at all, and you know it. Most people don't really care about Vuitton.

It's about how to rid premier Center City streets of vitality-killing schlock joints like eyeglass, fast food, cellphone, and bank outlets.

Let's get some more interesting stuff on our best streets.

[1487]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

It's not about that at all, and you know it. Most people don't really care about Vuitton.

It's about how to rid premier Center City streets of vitality-killing schlock joints like eyeglass, fast food, cellphone, and bank outlets.

Let's get some more interesting stuff on our best streets.

How many of these stores are on Walnut? A total of 5 or 6? Have you seen any evidence that these places are killing pedestrian traffic or driving down the rental rates on Walnut? What makes people think that people with money don't use cell phones or banks? Explain that to me. Banks are "schlock joints"? WTF does that even mean?

[hammersklavier]

The problem Market West has (and Rittenhouse Row is having) is called the "self-destruction of diversity" -- since banks (and, today, cell phone stores) can literally outbid anyone else if they care to, small super-high-end corridors can be completely overrun with them. In Death and Life, Jacobs noted that three of Broad and Chestnut's four corners -- at the time perhaps the city's "peak land value intersection" -- were banks.

There are only a couple of potential solutions to this issue. You can constrain the number of spaces banks can bid for. Or you can make more space available (extending the district) than the banks can possibly fill. Theoretically. In reality, however, it isn't hard to notice that on business districts thoroughly overrun with banks, they replicate themselves every block to the point of utter silliness. And -- as cell phones have become ubiquitous -- with cell phone stories aping banks, what really needs to happen is that Philadelphia's retail profile needs to go up. We can already support more retail than we do, but we don't have quite the same "destination-ness" that New York or Chicago or LA do.

[Teakwood]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

Jacobs noted that three of Broad and Chestnut's four corners -- at the time perhaps the city's "peak land value intersection" -- were banks.

It seems as if we are luckily down to zero at that intersection! Retail areas are always evolving and changing. If Rittenhouse were to become quieter, it just leaves open the opportunity for another area to become more bustling. I miss when South Street was more counter-culture, and less mainstream shops. However, South Street's loss seems to be Frankford Ave's gain.

[br323206]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

It's not about that at all, and you know it. Most people don't really care about Vuitton.

It's about how to rid premier Center City streets of vitality-killing schlock joints like eyeglass, fast food, cellphone, and bank outlets.

Let's get some more interesting stuff on our best streets.

I've literally never heard anyone complain that Walnut Street wasn't vital. It's a vibrant retail corridor. One of the best in the country. Having a Verizon store does nothing to change that.