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

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by Human Scale

It would be cool to see 1911 Walnut and 1910 Chestnut together. They compliment each other.

If it didn't know that this was the work of the Chicago firm, as a layman I'd have guessed that it was by Cecil Baker.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by boxbot

That is a shockingly short-sighted position. We're all here because we love height, but you're conflating a vacant lot on Rittenhouse Square with intact completely rehabbable buildings that are adjacent. They don't want to build the tower where these buildings are. There's no support for the position that preservation will kill this deal and lead to a vacant lot for 10 years. The developer isn't even arguing that. They haven't given any reason to demo other than the cost savings. We can have excellent design and preservation.

Look at the renderings. The base is an L shape and includes both the empty lot and the parking lot on Sansom. Now look at an aerial of the site:
https://goo.gl/maps/oCXqTZCCW5A2

Where they want to build the tower DEFINITELY overlaps with these buildings. Not only that, but preserving these buildings will take away retail square footage from the podium just for more apartments after a costly rehab and abatement. Sounds like a lot to ask honestly. You wouldn't be okay with a preservation of the coffee shop, and preservation of the Warwick facade, and a demolition of the Funeral Home entirely? You want all or nothing? You ask the developer to compromise but you will not?

[ILovePhilly]

How is moravian street handled in this proposal? it runs right through the proposed base.

[Tlphila]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Look at the renderings. The base is an L shape and includes both the empty lot and the parking lot on Sansom. Now look at an aerial of the site:
https://goo.gl/maps/oCXqTZCCW5A2

Where they want to build the tower DEFINITELY overlaps with these buildings. Not only that, but preserving these buildings will take away retail square footage from the podium just for more apartments after a costly rehab and abatement. Sounds like a lot to ask honestly. You wouldn't be okay with a preservation of the coffee shop, and preservation of the Warwick facade, and a demolition of the Funeral Home entirely? You want all or nothing? You ask the developer to compromise but you will not?

I can see the value in both arguments, but the best compromise is to save the coffee shop (check) and the Warwick (we shall see). The funeral home is pretty forgettable. I mean yes it's attractive, but this city / region has literally hundreds of similar buildings. 1911 will be such an amazing addition to our city

PS, I wanted to thank you for all of your contributions to this forum Summers!!!

[RonnieStevens]

Out of all the historical buildings to preserve are these really the ones we are fighting for??? This is a huge development that is a "game changer". We arent demolishing to build a 22 floor box with a parking garage attached. I am all for preservation but sometimes you just have to move on especially if they are saying they will preserve the Warwick and the coffee shop. That block of Samson is dead... and based on the rendering it will be very different.
And I agree with Summers, we cant have this lot sit for another 10 years... at some point its time to move on and keep pushing out to grow the city. What is an example of amazing and interesting design?

[Arch+Eng]

Originally Posted by ILovePhilly

How is moravian street handled in this proposal? it runs right through the proposed base.

Moravian Street becomes a dead end alley way leading to a loading dock.
The two Demolished buildings become a drive aisle & a motor court with what looks like Car elevators leading down into the below ground parking lot. The motor court will also have OH door access to moravian.



In an alternate design, Moravian Street Stays. I vote to keep Moravian.

[ILovePhilly]

If they want to demo historic buildings because of a need for a base for a tower, that's one conversation about preservation vs progress. IF they want to demolish historic buildings just to put in a parking drive aisle for a parking garage, that's regressive, ridiculous, and infuriating. While it might be fair to debate preservation vs progress it should be a non starter to talk about letting parking "requirements" be the reason we destroy our history. This development can certainly move forward without parking in the literal most accessible neighborhood in the city. Plus there's plenty of parking nearby and the development envelopes Moravian street, where parking access could also be supplied.

I have general positive feelings about the rest of the design, although i hate the gym overlook that's so popular now. I like the height and the orientation and the general orientation on Walnut street.

[Zoot]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Look at the renderings. The base is an L shape and includes both the empty lot and the parking lot on Sansom. Now look at an aerial of the site:
https://goo.gl/maps/oCXqTZCCW5A2

Where they want to build the tower DEFINITELY overlaps with these buildings. Not only that, but preserving these buildings will take away retail square footage from the podium just for more apartments after a costly rehab and abatement. Sounds like a lot to ask honestly. You wouldn't be okay with a preservation of the coffee shop, and preservation of the Warwick facade, and a demolition of the Funeral Home entirely? You want all or nothing? You ask the developer to compromise but you will not?

It overlaps, yes (except for the coffee house)...but they are proposing something with a similar massing to the existing. Hence it will not take away a significant amount of square footage from the retail podium - but it will make it less efficient. A sacrifice that they should be willing to make in order to gain height in their tower. The scale and diversity will add value to the retail corridor they are trying to create. Plus, those quirky inefficient spaces often make unique spaces that appeal certain tenants. You rarely see Starr moving into new construction...

[Zoot]

Originally Posted by RonnieStevens

Out of all the historical buildings to preserve are these really the ones we are fighting for??? This is a huge development that is a "game changer". We arent demolishing to build a 22 floor box with a parking garage attached. I am all for preservation but sometimes you just have to move on especially if they are saying they will preserve the Warwick and the coffee shop. That block of Samson is dead... and based on the rendering it will be very different.
And I agree with Summers, we cant have this lot sit for another 10 years... at some point its time to move on and keep pushing out to grow the city. What is an example of amazing and interesting design?

I understand your thought process and won't argue that these properties are not as important as others in the city - but using that method only undermines the preservation laws and puts our city at risk. What makes Philadelphia (and any city with a historic district) unique is its collection of buildings. Together they serve as pieces of a larger puzzle that makes the city so appealing. If we continue to pick away at that puzzle whenever a developer comes in and proposes something shiny, then we will eventually lose that special fabric. Here we are not getting anything special. It's a generic design that CAN be accomodated with the existing buildings. There is no excuse for demolition - including SLC's bogus hardship claim.


And then there is the fact that they want to put a parking ramp here...

[ILovePhilly]

Okay, here's a thought. Why didn't they go for two towers: one on Walnut Street and one on the corner of 20th and Sansom?

[ConstructStudent]

Originally Posted by ILovePhilly

Okay, here's a thought. Why didn't they go for two towers: one on Walnut Street and one on the corner of 20th and Sansom?

Probably because they knew that everyone on this thread would complain about two short towers and not one tall one.

[Arch+Eng]

Originally Posted by ILovePhilly

Okay, here's a thought. Why didn't they go for two towers: one on Walnut Street and one on the corner of 20th and Sansom?

I wish they would have as well. My guess:

1.) F.A.R. So they can build taller.
2.) Its a southern company that started in TN. They are likely used to large lots. They like consolidation of lots. They may not be used to the smaller lot sizes of the NE.

[boxbot]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Look at the renderings. The base is an L shape and includes both the empty lot and the parking lot on Sansom. Now look at an aerial of the site:
https://goo.gl/maps/oCXqTZCCW5A2

Where they want to build the tower DEFINITELY overlaps with these buildings. Not only that, but preserving these buildings will take away retail square footage from the podium just for more apartments after a costly rehab and abatement. Sounds like a lot to ask honestly. You wouldn't be okay with a preservation of the coffee shop, and preservation of the Warwick facade, and a demolition of the Funeral Home entirely? You want all or nothing? You ask the developer to compromise but you will not?

I'm quite familiar with the lot and understand it's L shaped, but look at the render. The tower is not where the Warwick is. In fact, it may be cantilevered. They incorporate the Warwick into the Sansom side. If they can demo the buildings, maybe they won't even bother with that detail.

If all we can do is preserve the Coffee Shop and the Warwick facade, then I guess that would be better than nothing, but SLC's opening position is full demo of the funeral home and the Warwick. Buildings are repurposed all the time. I never said all-or nothing, but there should at least be some give and take. Again, $1.6m is not a hardship for SLC on this project.

[boxbot]

Originally Posted by ILovePhilly

Okay, here's a thought. Why didn't they go for two towers: one on Walnut Street and one on the corner of 20th and Sansom?

Nah.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by ILovePhilly

Okay, here's a thought. Why didn't they go for two towers: one on Walnut Street and one on the corner of 20th and Sansom?

As I stated before, that would likely mean two shorter towers. Probably two towers in the ~300-350 ft range. Yeah, no thank you. Philly has enough 300 footers. I'll take one 600 foot tower.

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

I love the height. Design not bad.

But i thinkvwe are in for a long fight witb CCRA, who will likely have a less charitable opinion than yours.

My guess is that Inga will pan this too.

Really? Without seeing how it interacts at street level (garage placement, garage/loading entrances, what does it do to Sansom Street) - I can't say with certainty - but based on the design alone - which is solid, if not good - I think she'll like it.

[Arch+Eng]

Originally Posted by Londonee

Really? Without seeing how it interacts at street level (garage placement, garage/loading entrances, what does it do to Sansom Street) - I can't say with certainty - but based on the design alone - which is solid, if not good - I think she'll like it.

All of these things are quite visible on the floor plans I posted above

[ILovePhilly]

Originally Posted by summersm343

As I stated before, that would likely mean two shorter towers. Probably two towers in the ~300-350 ft range. Yeah, no thank you. Philly has enough 300 footers. I'll take one 600 foot tower.

But if two 300 foot towers fit better into the city, supply better street frontage, don't disrupt the street grid, and don't require the destruction of historic and charming buildings, wouldn't we all be better off? And why does it have to be 2 300' towers? why not 2 500' towers? This proposal plants one tower on the footprint of what could be two towers; isn't that inefficiency a bad thing for skyscraper fans, consuming two lots for one building? I don't think we should say that the taller the building the better the other external consequences to the city be damned.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by ILovePhilly

But if two 300 foot towers fit better into the city, supply better street frontage, don't disrupt the street grid, and don't require the destruction of historic and charming buildings, wouldn't we all be better off? And why does it have to be 2 300' towers? why not 2 500' towers? This proposal plants one tower on the footprint of what could be two towers; isn't that inefficiency a bad thing for skyscraper fans, consuming two lots for one building? I don't think we should say that the taller the building the better the other external consequences to the city be damned.

Blasphemy!!!

How many of you guys are constantly complaining that buildings aren't tall enough when they're in the 300 foot range. 3601 Market, 1919 Market... all of these towers have constant complaints about height. Now we get a 600 footer and you're saying maybe we'd be better off with two 300 footers?

It's insanity! And I'm not saying you're one of the ones always complaining but are we ever going to be satisfied? Seems not.

There likely isn't enough demand for two 500 footers of pure residential in Philadelphia. I know we don't like to hear that but that's just how it is. The developer has done their homework on the market and know the ratio of condos and apartments they need to be successful and get their money back on investment within a timely manner. A 500 foot apartment tower would be over 500 apartments. That would take years to lease out. A 500 foot condo tower would be over 200 condos and would take years to sell. That's a lot if you ask me. Now we're pushing it into unknown territory and risking apartments and condos sitting vacant through another housing crash. This is a risk no developer or financier is willing to take.

A good ratio for success with new buildings in Philadelphia recently seems to be around 300-350 apartments and 50-125 condos. A 300-350 apartment building would be no taller than 350-400 feet. A 50-125 condo building would be no taller than 250-350 feet. So, how about combine the condo and apartment aspect and stack them on top of each other to achieve more height? Higher up apartments and condos with better views can also achieve a higher dollar which allows for more money to be put into the design and construction. This is part of the reason a lot of the shorter towers (1900 Arch) are nothing special to crumby design wise.

Point is, building in one single, tall tower is better all around. Better design and better for the developer and also more likely to be financed.

[3rd&Brown]

Sheesh. Everyone needs to calm down.

I am as excited by the height as the next guy, but come on y'all, this is hardly a groundbreaking design. It is handsome and generic. In my mind, it is just a bigger version of the Buck building on Chestnut (which I like) but so many have decried as boring.

So because it's big, just demolish away? One of the things that gives Sansom Street so much potential is its charm as a pedestrian scaled street. Remember way back when when Salove demolished half of the 1700 block of Sansom because he claimed it had no potential as a shopping street?

Then he replaced his parking lot with a mid rise building when it indeed proved to be a great shopping street?

I think there is precedent for saving the coffee shop. Not just because of its historic facade, but because it will continue the cadence of Sansom being a small scaled pedestrian street (this block is the only gap west of Broad) with human scale retail. It is also the exact type of block which can accomodate (lower priced) space to attract the types of uses (mom and pop/independents) many have decried as being pushed out of Rittenhouse. We can't surrender this block to function (only) as a drive-aisle.

The blocks east and west of it have shown that we can expect more of the street.

There is no reason why they can't build this 600' building AND preserve the coffee shop (and even Warwick).

Let's be reasonable here. SLC isn't going to abandon the proposal because of a little bit of pushback about a few small historic structures.

We should expect more of ourselves and of our city at this point. We're no longer a place where development has to take place at any cost.