PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread IX

[mPhilly]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Parker Spruce Hotel Owner Presents Plans for “Boutique” Fairfield Inn; Neighbors Air Grievances


Read more at http://www.phillymag.com/property/2015/10/20/parker-spruce-hotel-philadelphia/#ZaH05PlGqGfMt9x4.99

Jersey barriers are up all around the Parker now. Sidewalk is closed.

[loverboie]

The area surrounding the Reading Viaduct, which is slowly being converted into an elevated park, is preparing for an influx of development interest.

On Tuesday, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a bill that would rezone the area bounded by 9th, Broad, Vine and Spring Garden streets—a formerly industrial area with a lot of remaining industrial infrastructure. The bill, introduced by Councilman Mark Squilla, makes dozens of zoning changes to individual lots in the area, but most are meant to encourage greater commercial and residential density. (Check out the maps and review the proposed zoning changes here.

http://planphilly.com/articles/2015/10/2...town-north-west-market-street-roxborough

[McBane]

Originally Posted by cafeguy

Temple needs to stop focusing just on student housing and these giant projects. They need to take a page out of Drexel and Penn's playbook and start investing into the surrounding non-student neighborhood with revitalization projects and investment into faculty and staff living and having a life near campus. That whole area has beautiful old homes, but I feel like they are just generating a student ghetto while doing nothing to help the current ghetto grow.

Not so easy.

Temple is a single public university, whereas Univ City is a collection of private schools, most notably the wealthy UPenn.

Univ City sits right next to Center City whereas Temple is literally surrounded on all sides by low income high crime neighborhoods.

Univ City's surrounding neighborhoods developed as "street car suburbs" and feature larger homes, including stately victorians, that sit on wide tree lined streets; the area feels a little more spacious and green. Even before the area become gentrified, it had those good bones to build on. Temple's adjacent neighborhoods are cramped with modest rowhomes and far less tree coverage. Temple's adjacent neighborhoods are less appealing (though no less attractive then former working class neighborhoods like Fishtown or Manayunk).

Univ City features 30th Street Station and KOZ designated areas, further strengthening its appeal.

Univ City is adjacent to the river. Temple is about 20 blocks - many of them quite unsafe - from Fairmount Park.

Univ City has a hospital district adjacent to the schools which further concentrates the area as a center of employment and strengthening the area's critical mass of people and jobs; in Temple's case, the hospital and school are separate (1.6 miles), which has the opposite effect.

I don't know what Temple could do to gentrify its surrounding neighborhoods. North Broad is scarred by drive thrus, gas stations, and I don't even know what to make of this beast. Then there are the Richard Allen homes which may as well be a giant wall separating gentrification on Temple's campus from the Loft District and NoLibs. And there are really bad neighborhoods separating Temple from Brewerytown, Francisville, and Fishtown.

If Temple wanted to focus on one area adjacent to its campus to gentrify - where do you guys think makes the most sense? I think southwest/west towards the Francisville, Brewerytown, and the park - but those neighborhood's gentrification are in their infancy still and there's a lot of ground between those neighborhoods and Temple. What do ya'll think?

[MikeNigh]

Originally Posted by McBane

If Temple wanted to focus on one area adjacent to its campus to gentrify - where do you guys think makes the most sense? I think southwest/west towards the Francisville, Brewerytown, and the park - but those neighborhood's gentrification are in their infancy still and there's a lot of ground between those neighborhoods and Temple. What do ya'll think?

Make all the area around the BSL stops from city hall to temple CMX-4 + and let the towers gentrify the area.

[cafeguy]

Originally Posted by McBane

Not so easy.

Temple is a single public university, whereas Univ City is a collection of private schools, most notably the wealthy UPenn.

Univ City sits right next to Center City whereas Temple is literally surrounded on all sides by low income high crime neighborhoods.

Univ City's surrounding neighborhoods developed as "street car suburbs" and feature larger homes, including stately victorians, that sit on wide tree lined streets; the area feels a little more spacious and green. Even before the area become gentrified, it had those good bones to build on. Temple's adjacent neighborhoods are cramped with modest rowhomes and far less tree coverage. Temple's adjacent neighborhoods are less appealing (though no less attractive then former working class neighborhoods like Fishtown or Manayunk).

Univ City features 30th Street Station and KOZ designated areas, further strengthening its appeal.

Univ City is adjacent to the river. Temple is about 20 blocks - many of them quite unsafe - from Fairmount Park.

Univ City has a hospital district adjacent to the schools which further concentrates the area as a center of employment and strengthening the area's critical mass of people and jobs; in Temple's case, the hospital and school are separate (1.6 miles), which has the opposite effect.

I don't know what Temple could do to gentrify its surrounding neighborhoods. North Broad is scarred by drive thrus, gas stations, and I don't even know what to make of this beast. Then there are the Richard Allen homes which may as well be a giant wall separating gentrification on Temple's campus from the Loft District and NoLibs. And there are really bad neighborhoods separating Temple from Brewerytown, Francisville, and Fishtown.

If Temple wanted to focus on one area adjacent to its campus to gentrify - where do you guys think makes the most sense? I think southwest/west towards the Francisville, Brewerytown, and the park - but those neighborhood's gentrification are in their infancy still and there's a lot of ground between those neighborhoods and Temple. What do ya'll think?

Yeah... these are definitely difficulties. But a giant stadium doesn't move in the right direction here at all. You are correct about the GIANT homes in west philly, but there are also amazing and large row homes near temple's campus...both west and east of it. I actually think Lehigh ave could connect the riverwards one day and Cecil B Moore is already slightly making the connection to south kensington. Then of course, there is north broad...but I believe cecil b moore could be the main street that brings multiple neighborhoods together.

[ePlanningPhila]

Temple does not have a comprehensive plan for North Philadelphia and the surrounding neighborhoods. And this is a FAIL on their part. While I merit the current President's interest in building and establishing a stronger football presence with the University, and I can see long term benefits to having a more connected team to the University, I agree Temple should also be focusing on how to develop a plan that encourages growth and investment in the surrounding areas. I think this will have a MUCH LARGER return, in terms of building enrollment and raising the stature of the University than its football team.

Lower North Philadelphia (areas surrounding and just south of Temple) historically were VERY WEALTHY. It was where all the nouveau rich resided during the later parts of the industrial revolution. I have been inside some of these homes (all turned into apartments) and wow. Some of the most stately architecture and interiors I have seen in the entire city. One bedroom had a 20ft domed stained glass ceiling. It was insane. This wealth remained there until the 1920s/1930s. So to say that these neighborhoods have 'no bones' is absurd. North Philadelphia is in my mind, far nicer than South Philadelphia from an architectural vantage point and even large swaths of West Philadelphia. It really could be the cities next 'society hill' story, with a comprehensive preservation plan. But to many in city politics that would be political suicide, as gentrification is a MAJOR TOPIC. Look at Le Bok Fin, and you can see why politicians do not want to touch this issue, even though economically it makes good sense for the city.

Also once the Reading Viaduct is complete, the areas from Spring Garden to Girard are going to be BUSTLING with development, which means Girard to Cecil B. will literally be touching upon some of the most desirable real estate in the city. Think of Graduate Hospital and the development there and then within 5/10 years it all started to be pushed into Point Breeze. Expect something similar from the density and desirability the viaduct will bring, expect for north of Girard. The city needs to institute design standards though, because if we continue to build rowhomes with front facing garages to the street I think I am going to loose it. Graduate hospital has been ruined by this type of development, and once you build it, it is hard to do anything about it. This is why I am for neighborhood revitalization tax credits for those projects which meet 'design' standards.

[cafeguy]

Originally Posted by ePlanningPhila

Temple does not have a comprehensive plan for North Philadelphia and the surrounding neighborhoods. And this is a FAIL on their part. While I merit the current President's interest in building and establishing a stronger football presence with the University, and I can see long term benefits to having a more connected team to the University, I agree Temple should also be focusing on how to develop a plan that encourages growth and investment in the surrounding areas. I think this will have a MUCH LARGER return, in terms of building enrollment and raising the stature of the University than its football team.

Lower North Philadelphia (areas surrounding and just south of Temple) historically were VERY WEALTHY. It was where all the nouveau rich resided during the later parts of the industrial revolution. I have been inside some of these homes (all turned into apartments) and wow. Some of the most stately architecture and interiors I have seen in the entire city. One bedroom had a 20ft domed stained glass ceiling. It was insane. This wealth remained there until the 1920s/1930s. So to say that these neighborhoods have 'no bones' is absurd. North Philadelphia is in my mind, far nicer than South Philadelphia from an architectural vantage point and even large swaths of West Philadelphia. It really could be the cities next 'society hill' story, with a comprehensive preservation plan. But to many in city politics that would be political suicide, as gentrification is a MAJOR TOPIC. Look at Le Bok Fin, and you can see why politicians do not want to touch this issue, even though economically it makes good sense for the city.

Also once the Reading Viaduct is complete, the areas from Spring Garden to Girard are going to be BUSTLING with development, which means Girard to Cecil B. will literally be touching upon some of the most desirable real estate in the city. Think of Graduate Hospital and the development there and then within 5/10 years it all started to be pushed into Point Breeze. Expect something similar from the density and desirability the viaduct will bring, expect for north of Girard. The city needs to institute design standards though, because if we continue to build rowhomes with front facing garages to the street I think I am going to loose it. Graduate hospital has been ruined by this type of development, and once you build it, it is hard to do anything about it. This is why I am for neighborhood revitalization tax credits for those projects which meet 'design' standards.

I agree. And with Inga's new article... I feel like Philly NEEDS NEEDS NEEDS some sort of way to stop horrible design plans. I know its a free country, but she is right that a city is great because it feels inclusive.

http://www.philly.com/philly/living/2015...M88PUKtcPM1jE9c.99?&betaPreview=redesign

[1487]

Originally Posted by cafeguy

I agree. And with Inga's new article... I feel like Philly NEEDS NEEDS NEEDS some sort of way to stop horrible design plans. I know its a free country, but she is right that a city is great because it feels inclusive.

http://www.philly.com/philly/living/2015...M88PUKtcPM1jE9c.99?&betaPreview=redesign

I dont think there is general agreement on what is a "horrible" design. Much of the stuff she claims will be the end of Philadelphia as we know it is barely notable to me............

Design is largely subjective. Its like saying we should ban ugly cars- who is the arbiter of what's ugly and what is attractive?

[McBane]

Originally Posted by ePlanningPhila

Lower North Philadelphia (areas surrounding and just south of Temple) historically were VERY WEALTHY. It was where all the nouveau rich resided during the later parts of the industrial revolution. I have been inside some of these homes (all turned into apartments) and wow. Some of the most stately architecture and interiors I have seen in the entire city. One bedroom had a 20ft domed stained glass ceiling. It was insane. This wealth remained there until the 1920s/1930s. So to say that these neighborhoods have 'no bones' is absurd.

I'm aware of the history and know that there are some once-beautiful homes in the area that are in need of repair. But by and large the housing venacular in North Philly are small two-three story rowhomes, same as you find in Manayunk, Fishtown, South Philly, and other areas. Lots of narrow streets and minimal tree coverage. University City area has loads of large victorian twins and their rowhomes are larger, too. They're set on tree lined streets, many of which are wide and two-way. I didn't say that North Philly had no bones - I just said that Univ City's residential neighborhoods had more potential and I stand by that statement 100%.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by 1487

I dont think there is general agreement on what is a "horrible" design. Much of the stuff she claims will be the end of Philadelphia as we know it is barely notable to me............

Design is largely subjective. Its like saying we should ban ugly cars- who is the arbiter of what's ugly and what is attractive?

Not to jump into the Inga Wars, but I think her article is hardly a giant mass of subjectivity. She clearly articulates what she finds bland and anti-urban. One needn't agree, but you can't accuse her opinion of lacking substance.

[Outta here]

Ok , here's my latest jig-saw , waste of time puzzle that I find both amusing and confusing at
the same time .
A few months back , I found a Pittsburgh " proposal " that looked so much like Cira Center , I
wondered if it was an innocent copy or a rip off of another architect's great design . :roll eyes:

Now , ( while trolling other neighborhoods ) I found another almost astonishing comparison
between the " Now it's here , now it's gone " World Industrial Center of Philadelphia and a sky
scraper in Frankfort Germany titled , Messe Turm . The over all height and structural skin is
so close , it begs me to ask . What came first , the chicken or the egg .

[Knight Hospitaller]

Info graphic on potential Temple Stadium site:

http://www.philly.com/philly/infographics/336278291.html

PS-Go Irish!

[1487]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

Not to jump into the Inga Wars, but I think her article is hardly a giant mass of subjectivity. She clearly articulates what she finds bland and anti-urban. One needn't agree, but you can't accuse her opinion of lacking substance.

Actually I can. Her opinions are expressed. The notion that her opinions should lead to new City laws and policies is a stretch IMHO. I read the pieces published today. I really didn't see anything meaningful or substantive about her critiques of the 2 projects. she doesnt like the architects or the designs. So what? The apt complex is most definitely not a generic suburban low rise design.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by 1487

Actually I can. Her opinions are expressed. The notion that her opinions should lead to new City laws and policies is a stretch IMHO. I read the pieces published today. I really didn't see anything meaningful or substantive about her critiques of the 2 projects. she doesnt like the architects or the designs. So what? The apt complex is most definitely not a generic suburban low rise design.

I often don't agree with her, but I think you do her a disservice by reducing her rationale to "she doesn't like the architects or the designs." She was much more specific concerning site plan, materials and what meets the street. One can disagree without being dismissive.

[RonnieStevens]

Besides critiquing a design of a project like SOKO lofts you must consider location and the overall state of that neighborhood. SOKO lofts will be one of the first major developments in that area. It must make sense financially for the developer and sometimes that means using less attractive materials and a less innovative design. Once that neighborhood is established and becomes less risky to develop, then we can ask for bigger and pertier... my 2 cents

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by 1487

I dont think there is general agreement on what is a "horrible" design. Much of the stuff she claims will be the end of Philadelphia as we know it is barely notable to me............

I think urban studies experts agree on most occasions on what constitutes poor urban design - there's literally an entire field of academia that studies what type of designs works, what doesn't, what increases density, safety, eyes on the street, what adds value, QOL, etc.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by 1487

Actually I can. Her opinions are expressed. The notion that her opinions should lead to new City laws and policies is a stretch IMHO. I read the pieces published today. I really didn't see anything meaningful or substantive about her critiques of the 2 projects. she doesnt like the architects or the designs. So what? The apt complex is most definitely not a generic suburban low rise design.

If you actually read that article and "she doesnt like the architects or the designs" is what you took away from it then you have serious reading comprehension issues.

The actual architecture of the buildings which in your previous post you mention as an aesthetic choice, comprise literally one single paragraph in the entire piece. How these buildings look has basically NOTHING to do with this piece. What she is talking about is the urbanity of these projects, how they meet the street, how they connect with their neighborhoods, etc. She is not simply saying that these projects look like a suburban design, she's saying they're laid out like them too and absolutely correct.

How a building looks is absolutely an aesthetic choice and intelligent minds can differ on what looks good. But what makes a good urban development? What improves urban neighborhoods? These are not aesthetic choices, intelligent people spend a lot of time studying these matters and there is a right and a wrong way to build urban developments that is shown through data and analysis. You seem to totally miss the entire point of the article, perhaps you should try reading it again.

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

Info graphic on potential Temple Stadium site:

http://www.philly.com/philly/infographics/336278291.html

PS-Go Owls!

ftfy



A 35k stadium makes a lot of sense for Temple. Our closest parallel here is probably Cincinnati: They have Nippert Field, which was recently expanded from 35k to 40k, and they probably host the *really big* games in the Bengals' stadium.

While I don't disagree that getting more faculty to live close to campus à la Penn is a good idea, keep in mind that Temple doesn't exactly have the resources to Penntrify their part of North Philly. That said, Francisville and Templetown are already starting to touch, and redevelopment is creeping from Front and Girard northwest. There's already an example of large new probably-for-profit rowhomes at 7th and Berks. Temple's main campus is feeling less and less like an island in North Philly with every passing year.

Probably the best thing the school can do, now, is simply open itself up to the neighborhood. In some ways, the sports superblock will make that harder -- but more important would be a long-term goal of structuring more parking and building more student housing on the lots. There's a lot to do but Temple's certainly proving itself an ambitious school.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

ftfy



A 35k stadium makes a lot of sense for Temple. Our closest parallel here is probably Cincinnati: They have Nippert Field, which was recently expanded from 35k to 40k, and they probably host the *really big* games in the Bengals' stadium.

While I don't disagree that getting more faculty to live close to campus à la Penn is a good idea, keep in mind that Temple doesn't exactly have the resources to Penntrify their part of North Philly. That said, Francisville and Templetown are already starting to touch, and redevelopment is creeping from Front and Girard northwest. There's already an example of large new rowhomes at 7th and Berks. Temple's main campus is feeling less and less like an island in North Philly with every passing year.

Probably the best thing the school can do, now, is simply open itself up to the neighborhood. In some ways, the sports superblock will make that harder -- but more important would be a long-term goal of structuring more parking and building more student housing on the lots. There's a lot to do but Temple's certainly proving itself an ambitious school.

Thanks for quoting me, but you should not have changed "Go Irish!" to "go owls." I'm an ND alum, so you shouldn't be surprised that I don't share your sentiments.

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

Thanks for quoting me, but you should not have changed "Go Irish!" to "go owls." I'm an ND alum, so you shouldn't be surprised that I don't share your sentiments.