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

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by Arch+Eng

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.

It doesn't seem like blocking Moravian adds anything except more floorspace for the motor court, so they should keep the street open. If they did block Moravian, I get the need for the second drive aisle (which basically diverts Moravian through traffic onto Sansom. Maybe I'm missing something, but if they go for option 2 and keep Moravian open, what's the need for that second drive aisle? Why would the waste square footage on nothing? It seems to me that, if they went through with demolishing the historic buildings, they could widen the motor court in that direction. Eliminate that and shift the motor court entrance to the west by a fraction and you probably can at least preserve both the Warwick and Bair facades. The coffee shop is sort of an orphan parcel with both of these options.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by 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.

They are preserving the coffee shop though. They already pulled pack their request for demolition. This fight is over the Warwick and the Funeral Home. I say they at least preserve the Warwick facade or the front section of the building but the back half can certainly go... and I see absolutely no reason to preserve the Funeral home at all. It seems others completely disagree and believe it should all be preserved.

Also, the cost to preserve these buildings will come back into the rental costs for space which will likely be too high for the typical mom and pop stores you are saying could locate here.

[Zoot]

Originally Posted by 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.

AMEN!! Thank you.

I'd like to add that while combining the two towers into one makes it more efficient and taller, it does risk devaluing the price per square foot of the condos. Snooty rittenhouse buyers do not want to live in/above a rental building. It hurts the "prestige" of their building.

And I am actually surprised that the building is so flat along Walnut Street. I was expecting an angled building that maximizes views of the Square. Instead any south facing unit that isn't at the SE corner will have a direct view of the Rittenhouse Hotel's blank party wall. Those residents will strain their necks to get a view of the "prize."

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by 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.

Indeed (except the coffee shop has already been taken out of the mix and will be preserved, so we needn't argue for that). In the alternate ground floor layout, It doesn't seem that a slightly relocated motor court entrance (plus elimination of an unnecessary passage between Moravian and Sansom) would require demolition of the facades at all. Maybe even more could be salvaged by reworking the layout of the ground level and/or restricting vehicle access to Moravian. I'm quite pleased with this and defer to the experts on the merits of one tall vs. two medium towers, but it is very irksome to see the ENTIRE footprint of the historic structures reduced to vehicle related activities.

[ePlanningPhila]

WOW. Now that is beautiful. Great scale too!

[Zoot]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

Indeed (except the coffee shop has already been taken out of the mix and will be preserved, so we needn't argue for that). In the alternate ground floor layout, It doesn't seem that a slightly relocated motor court entrance (plus elimination of an unnecessary passage between Moravian and Sansom) would require demolition of the facades at all. Maybe even more could be salvaged by reworking the layout of the ground level and/or restricting vehicle access to Moravian. I'm quite pleased with this and defer to the experts on the merits of one tall vs. two medium towers, but it is very irksome to see the ENTIRE footprint of the historic structures reduced to vehicle related activities.

Let's not give them credit for withdrawing their request for the coffee shop. SLC wants it to look like a compromise - but they never needed it in the first place. The only reason they want to demo the other properties is because they don't fit into their poorly thought out plans. You are quite right that they can be incorporated as described. This draws more skepticism to their supposed hardship.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by Zoot

AMEN!! Thank you.

I'd like to add that while combining the two towers into one makes it more efficient and taller, it does risk devaluing the price per square foot of the condos. Snooty rittenhouse buyers do not want to live in/above a rental building. It hurts the "prestige" of their building.

And I am actually surprised that the building is so flat along Walnut Street. I was expecting an angled building that maximizes views of the Square. Instead any south facing unit that isn't at the SE corner will have a direct view of the Rittenhouse Hotel's blank party wall. Those residents will strain their necks to get a view of the "prize."

That's probably why they have two separate entrances and two separate lobbies. If the lobbies, entrances and amenities were shared, I would agree. In this case, I do not. It's the same with SLS Interntional - condos built atop a hotel. Plus, being 500 feet in the air will have better views and fetch a higher price per square foot than being 200-300 foot in the air.

Lastly, the residents facing the Rittenhouse Hotel will be an non-issue at all. Certainly far enough away to preserve a view-line. Also, the condos are the top portion of the tower. The rentals are the lower half. You can see the divide between the rentals and condos in the rendering.

The breakdown is as such: Condo's are from floors 35 - 50. Apartments are from 05 - 33. 34th floor is amenities for the condo. By the 35th floor, you will have a clear site line over the Rittenhouse Hotel.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by Zoot

Let's not give them credit for withdrawing their request for the coffee shop. SLC wants it to look like a compromise - but they never needed it in the first place. The only reason they want to demo the other properties is because they don't fit into their poorly thought out plans. You are quite right that they can be incorporated as described. This draws more skepticism to their supposed hardship.

Honestly, it sounds like you're a bit cynical towards developers from the get-go. It seems like you have a "developers are evil and out to get us" mentality. I don't think SLC is trying to pull off anything shady at all. It seems to me like they have an interest in developing a great urban tower that will meet the street but also be profitable and make sense for their profit margin.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by Zoot

Let's not give them credit for withdrawing their request for the coffee shop. SLC wants it to look like a compromise - but they never needed it in the first place. The only reason they want to demo the other properties is because they don't fit into their poorly thought out plans. You are quite right that they can be incorporated as described. This draws more skepticism to their supposed hardship.

I'm just observing that it's no longer an issue. I'm not giving them credit for it, and I doubt the Commission will either. Demolition of it was never necessary, judging from the renderings (even the one with the Warrick depicted) and these alternate floor plans. I have to wonder why it was included in the first place. They might as well sell it to somebody else. It doesn't integrate with the property at all.

I really have to wonder whether there was some other floor plan initially. That one rendering of the Sansom Street side shows a continuous facade from the coffee shop (which still was only an appendage), clearly including at least the Warwick, all the way to the corner of 20th Street. Did they just pull that out of a hat or did they have a alternate plan for the motor court entrance at the time? It'd be nice if there were some street level renderings of that side.

[iheartphilly]

FYI, some more photos are up on page 1 of this thread. I thought we were going to see a lot more.

[Zoot]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Honestly, it sounds like you're a bit cynical towards developers from the get-go. It seems like you have a "developers are evil and out to get us" mentality. I don't think SLC is trying to pull off anything shady at all. It seems to me like they have an interest in developing a great urban tower that will meet the street but also be profitable and make sense for their profit margin.

I am absolutely not at all cynical towards developers. I am a developer. I do this kind of work for a living. Their story behind the hardship simply does not make sense - except to maximize their value and efficiency. They are pretending to "give" by withdrawing the coffee house from the mix.

[Zoot]

Originally Posted by summersm343

That's probably why they have two separate entrances and two separate lobbies. If the lobbies, entrances and amenities were shared, I would agree. In this case, I do not. It's the same with SLS Interntional - condos built atop a hotel. Plus, being 500 feet in the air will have better views and fetch a higher price per square foot than being 200-300 foot in the air.

Lastly, the residents facing the Rittenhouse Hotel will be an non-issue at all. Certainly far enough away to preserve a view-line. Also, the condos are the top portion of the tower. The rentals are the lower half. You can see the divide between the rentals and condos in the rendering.

The breakdown is as such: Condo's are from floors 35 - 50. Apartments are from 05 - 33. 34th floor is amenities for the condo. By the 35th floor, you will have a clear site line over the Rittenhouse Hotel.

I was well aware of all of the facts you mentioned when I stated that. Combining hotel and condo uses typically adds to the condo values. That's not always the case in apartment/condo combinations. It takes a lot more than a discreet entrance to seperate the two mentally. But these are nitty gritty points that we need not argue. We can have our opinions and SLC can decide what makes sense for their product.

I will continue to argue you on the preservation topic though

[iheartphilly]

Originally Posted by Zoot

I was well aware of all of the facts you mentioned when I stated that.

But these are nitty gritty points that we need not argue. We can have our opinions and SLC can decide what makes sense for their product.

I will continue to argue you on the preservation topic though

This will be a high-end building. Win-Win for everyone!

[Larry King]

They knew they were buying historic buildings and AFAIK already closed

If we don't enforce this sort of thing, what's the point of even having it. Design the tower around the buildings

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by Zoot

I was well aware of all of the facts you mentioned when I stated that. Combining hotel and condo uses typically adds to the condo values. That's not always the case in apartment/condo combinations. It takes a lot more than a discreet entrance to seperate the two mentally. But these are nitty gritty points that we need not argue. We can have our opinions and SLC can decide what makes sense for their product.

I will continue to argue you on the preservation topic though

Fair enough

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for preservation that makes sense, and I certainly don't think demolishing these structures for a drive isle makes sense. But, as another poster said, sometimes it's just time to move on, let go, and not let preservation get in the way of progress.

[Human Scale]

Just went back and forth between pics of 1911 Walnut and 1910 Chestnut. It may even look like (at the right angle) that it's one big building.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by BenKatzPhillytoParis

I actually think Inga will not dislike the design. But will probably say it could be more interesting. I mean, I certainly like it. But I wouldn't say it's phenomenal by any measure. It has a few interesting aspects to it, but it's basically just a glass tower. There's nothing THAT distinct about it. And with that in mind, there's really no legit reason to demo all of the historic buildings. As others have said, none of the tower is near the façades at all. Of course it will cost somewhat more to keep them. But the whole idea it's a hardship is nonsense. A hardship does not mean you will make slightly less money for shareholders by retaining something. It means development is impossible. All this is is a game of chicken. And if we don't call their bluff on this, it sets a horrible precedent, and developers in the future similarly will make no effort to preserve and integrate older significant structures into new development. It may actually delay development in the future because developers will hold out thinking the city will cave.

This. This 100%. Any argument that the 1.6 million needed to remedy these buildings is an impossible burden to this project is absurd. They'll make that money selling one condo. The buildings are designated historic for a reason, as long as it's possible to preserve them, these buildings should be preserved. This isn't a situation like the Boyd where restoration costs were astronomical and there was no use for the restored theater that would have made restoring it financially viable. Restoring these buildings is clearly no impediment for the construction of this tower as currently designed and the financial burden is a drop in the bucket with a project of this scope.

Overall I think it looks great and if they do end up preserving the buildings this project will be amazing.

[summersm343]

I feel after all the paragraphs of response that have been posted, that the renderings deserve to be posted again:

[Plokoon11]

OMG! What a great addition! Almost a bell Atlantic / FMC size in a location where it can stand out just a bit! Love the design, I mean I knew we were getting this, and the type of building, but its great to see it come to fruition.

[FlyersFan118]

I support this.