PHILADELPHIA | THE LAUREL @ 1911 Walnut | 604 FT | 48 FLOORS

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

I'll never understand this kind of thinking. Just preserve the facade, so we can *pretend* the building is there?
Either keep the building or don't.

The concept makes sense to me when the rest of the historic structure doesn't really meet the configuration needs of the rest of the development. It would be a reasonable compromise in my opinion. The main value of the cafe or the Warwick is how they create an intimate feel on the street. The interiors may be nice, but are private spaces most people have never seen and will never see. They are not cherished public spaces that will be missed, although they may be wonderful, and perhaps we would miss them if ever actually got see them. I imagine the Warwick lobby is really nice, and it would be nice if it could be used. But the actual apartnents? Probably no big deal to lose them.

[boxbot]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

I'll never understand this kind of thinking. Just preserve the facade, so we can *pretend* the building is there?
Either keep the building or don't.

I get it but it obviously isn't the same as preserving the structure. Here is a shot of the aforementioned Legacy at Millennium Park project in Chicago by the same architect group. You offer a more "human" scale at street level and preserve character if not in function than at least in form.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

I'll never understand this kind of thinking. Just preserve the facade, so we can *pretend* the building is there?
Either keep the building or don't.

I see what you are saying. But, in a sense, these buildings haven't been 'there' in a long time. If they were in active use, we'd be having a different conversation. The external architecture and facades and what they do or could do for the streetscape and intimacy is all that's been present or accessible for a long time.

[SJPhillyBoy]

Inga is right.

http://mobile.philly.com/beta?wss=/philly/home&id=351814901

[1487]

They are withdrawing their demo application for the coffeehouse building. They still want to tear down the other two.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Agreed. If I was the historical commission/planning commission, I would say to keep and re-purpose the coffee shop and preserve the facade of the Warwick, and we'll allow you to demolish the funeral home and grant you the height/zoning variance.

I would say the same exact thing.

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

The concept makes sense to me when the rest of the historic structure doesn't really meet the configuration needs of the rest of the development. It would be a reasonable compromise in my opinion. The main value of the cafe or the Warwick is how they create an intimate feel on the street. The interiors may be nice, but are private spaces most people have never seen and will never see. They are not cherished public spaces that will be missed, although they may be wonderful, and perhaps we would miss them if ever actually got see them. I imagine the Warwick lobby is really nice, and it would be nice if it could be used. But the actual apartnents? Probably no big deal to lose them.

Agreed 100%.

Also just want to add that the "facadectomy" looks best when the new component is in stark contrast with the existing historical structure. The difference in materials and styles accentuates the historical facade the best. The example on Millennium Park in Chicago is excellent.

[skyscraper]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

I see what you are saying. But, in a sense, these buildings haven't been 'there' in a long time. If they were in active use, we'd be having a different conversation. The external architecture and facades and what they do or could do for the streetscape and intimacy is all that's been present or accessible for a long time.

The buildings are there, in active use or not. (We still consider the pyramids to be buildings, don't we?) If the character of the buildings is what we want, then stipulate that they must be replaced with something of a similar character, don't just say that the facades have to stay and everything else can go. Buildings are more than just their facades. What they "impart" to the public can be replaced with other buildings or parts of larger buildings. It's just another limitation the architect will have to contend with, we do it all the time. The integrity of the new construction has to be considered also; it has a right to exist without having to be subservient to the old building.

[Arch+Eng]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

The buildings are there, in active use or not. (We still consider the pyramids to be buildings, don't we?) If the character of the buildings is what we want, then stipulate that they must be replaced with something of a similar character, don't just say that the facades have to stay and everything else can go. Buildings are more than just their facades. What they "impart" to the public can be replaced with other buildings or parts of larger buildings. It's just another limitation the architect will have to contend with, we do it all the time. The integrity of the new construction has to be considered also; it has a right to exist without having to be subservient to the old building.

You do realize they are essentially demolishing these buildings for a drive way up to their new tower right? They won't be replacing these with structures or building anything that remotely meets the street.

[jjv007]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

The buildings are there, in active use or not. (We still consider the pyramids to be buildings, don't we?) If the character of the buildings is what we want, then stipulate that they must be replaced with something of a similar character, don't just say that the facades have to stay and everything else can go. Buildings are more than just their facades. What they "impart" to the public can be replaced with other buildings or parts of larger buildings. It's just another limitation the architect will have to contend with, we do it all the time. The integrity of the new construction has to be considered also; it has a right to exist without having to be subservient to the old building.

Your points are valid, but are we really comparing these "historic" buildings to the pyramids? Come on now, that's a pretty big stretch.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by Arch+Eng

You do realize they are essentially demolishing these buildings for a drive way up to their new tower right? They won't be replacing these with structures or building anything that remotely meets the street.

Do we know this? Do you? Have you seen the site plan or renderings? Even if, would you prefer the driveway here with active street presence along 20th and Walnut Streets? I think the garage entrance/exit would likely be through Moravian Street which they will be partially striking from the grid.

[boxbot]

Originally Posted by jjv007

Your points are valid, but are we really comparing these "historic" buildings to the pyramids? Come on now, that's a pretty big stretch.

It's especially invalid because the buildings on Sansom were never used to hold grain.*

*Coffee beans maybe

[Arch+Eng]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Do we know this? Do you? Have you seen the site plan or renderings? Even if, would you prefer the driveway here with active street presence along 20th and Walnut Streets? I think the garage entrance/exit would likely be through Moravian Street which they will be partially striking from the grid.

I am quite certain of this.Yes.

They want a Murano-esque drive aisle. I would prefer they save moravian street. Develop 1911 Chestnut supertall, with underground parking. Then develop (retrofit) the three properties (and parking lot?) on sansom street seperately.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by Arch+Eng

I am quite certain of this.Yes.

They want a Murano-esque drive aisle. I would prefer they save moravian street. Develop 1911 Chestnut supertall, with underground parking. Then develop the three properties (and parking lot?) on sansom street.

Are you confusing this development with 1910 Chestnut? This is 1911 Walnut. Different developers and different projects.

[Arch+Eng]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Are you confusing this development with 1910 Chestnut? This is 1911 Walnut. Different developers and different projects.

No, "Chestnut" was a typo. Meant Walnut.
The murano drive aisle was just a perfect example.

We are all entitled to our opinion. I was just stating mine.

No I would not like to see three tight old connected buildings demolished for either a drive aisle or one large monolithic glass structure. You can risk that if you want, let them demo the buildings and hope for the best. I would rather keep whats there, redevelop it, and develop the ..oh idk...HUGE EMPTY PARKING LOT NEXT DOOR.

But maybe I am a crazy Nimbyer

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by Arch+Eng

No, "Chestnut" was a typo. Meant Walnut.
The murano drive aisle was just a perfect example.

We are all entitled to our opinion. I was just stating mine.

No I would not like to see three tight old connected buildings demolished for either a drive aisle or one large monolithic glass structure. You can risk that if you want, let them demo the buildings and hope for the best. I would rather keep whats there, redevelop it, and develop the ..oh idk...HUGE EMPTY PARKING LOT NEXT DOOR.

But maybe I am a crazy Nimbyer

I'm just not going to assume they want to demolish these buildings for a driveway until we've seen renderings and site plans. That's all I'm saying.

[Arch+Eng]

Originally Posted by summersm343

I'm just not going to assume they want to demolish these buildings for a driveway until we've seen renderings and site plans. That's all I'm saying.

I can respect that.

But they seem to be pushing for demo rights before they release a rendering.

e.g. 1527 Walnut.

[skyscraper]

Originally Posted by jjv007

Your points are valid, but are we really comparing these "historic" buildings to the pyramids? Come on now, that's a pretty big stretch.

All I meant was that just because the buildings are no longer occupied or serve their original purpose does not mean that the buildings are "no longer there."

[McBane]

Arch+Eng: I really think that you're confusing this project with the Boyd project on Chestnut. I had actually taken a keen interest in the driveway that appears to run from 20th Street east, past Kate's Place. Check out the last two pages on that thread, there is some back and forth about it.

Plans for 1911 Walnut have not been released yet, just bits and pieces of info. We don't even know if parking is going to be under or above ground. Do you have inside info that we don't have? Personally, what you described - I can't see that happening on this property. It's just too valuable.

The only insider info I've seen on this project came from ConstructStudent - see the last post on page 17 of this thread. Construct, are you able to clear this up?

[Arch+Eng]

Oh my god You guys are going to LOVE 1911 Walnut. I just got sent the Conceptual dwgs.

I take everything I said back. DEMO THE HISTORICAL BUILDINGS

[MikeNigh]

Originally Posted by Arch+Eng

Oh my god You guys are going to LOVE 1911 Walnut. I just got sent the Conceptual dwgs.

I take everything I said back. DEMO THE HISTORICAL BUILDINGS