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

[summersm343]

Renderings Emerge For 1911 Walnut

Some of those plans have been close to becoming a reality, but we're pretty sure none have come as close as the current proposal from Southern Land Company. We told you about this project at the beginning of the year when the details of the project were still up in the air. Back then, we showed you an image of the massing of three buildings with a small building on Walnut Street and two huge buildings on Sansom Street. Now, thanks to Skyscraperpage, we see that a totally different plan is now in the works. The developers are cooking up a plan for a 51 floor, 600' building that would include a mix of rental apartments, condos, and retail. Solomon Cordwell Buenz did the design work.

Nice shout out to us

http://www.ocfrealty.com/naked-philly/rittenhouse/renderings-emerge-for-1911-walnut

[williamphilapa]

Thoughts:
Great height and design. Very nice, great success!

Question:
Why do 8 out of every 10 new glass curtain buildings seem to all have silver tinted glass?
Is it 'in style'?
Something to do with leed certification?

I would love to see reflective red tint or yellow tint....something unique or different from the typical silver we see or late 80' / 90's blue.

Request:
Any of the tremendous photoshoppers on here able to provide some renderings of how 1911 will impact the skyline? From the n,s,e,w... and every direction in between

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Renderings Emerge For 1911 Walnut



Nice shout out to us

http://www.ocfrealty.com/naked-philly/rittenhouse/renderings-emerge-for-1911-walnut

And it wasn't even me doing the shout-out. Also the last one they ran they totally clipped my humor, grumble grumble. I has a sad now...

But I have projects on both 1900 Chestnut and 1911 Walnut in the pipeline right now, so stay tuned, folks! And to keep you busy, here's a side project I'm working on.

[summersm343]

Early Renderings for 1911 Walnut Leaked; Developer Says They’re Outdated

From Philly Mag - another shout out to us:

If a popular development forum is to be believed, it looks like Southern Land Company has gigantic plans for 1911 Walnut–like, 600-foot high glass castle-type plans. But as the old saying goes, you can’t necessarily believe everything you see on the Internet.

Representatives from Southern Land Company have long said they envision an iconic development for the site, and according conceptual renderings posted to a thread on the Philadelphia forum (and subsequently on Facebook) of Skyscraper Page, a tower consisting of apartments and condos (as well as many balconies and a large, tree-lined terrace) will rise to 51 floors and top 600 feet. Multiple site plans show a large, multi-story retail and amenity podium fronting Walnut Street, and another on 20th Street that wraps around the corner and onto Sansom Street.

Yes, the renderings are indeed legitimate, or at least they were, a spokesperson for Southern Land Company confirmed with Property. However, they are no longer accurate and are out of date.

"We have been meeting with neighborhood stakeholders over the last several months to obtain their input and are updating the renderings accordingly," wrote Rebecca Divine in a follow up email. "We will release the latest and greatest within the next two weeks. We are excited be a part of Rittenhouse Square and Philadelphia and look forward to sharing our plans with the community."

Read more at http://www.phillymag.com/property/2015/11/27/1911-walnut-renderings/#bc5TeGVEMsigvIMV.99

[McBane]

I agree that the most likely scenario is a slight tweak. The most controversial aspects of this project are its height and its footprint, e.g., demolition of historic structures, the fate of Moravian Street. And while I like the tower's presence along Walnut Street, I bet neighbor's want a setback.

[dustin.downey]

[QUOTE=boxbot;7248937]Thanks for posting, Dustin. As you can tell, there are some high expectations for this development. The renders were dated 10.30.15 and showed a cantilever out over the existing Warwick Apartment building.
1) Should we assume the current project ditches the cantilever and does away with the Warwick in its entirety?
2) Is SLC claiming that the hardship of renovation for the Warwick and funeral home is so great that if demolition is not permitted, the project cannot move forward?
3) Are the new renders tweaks to the prior sketches or is the new design radically different than what we have here?
4) What do you mean by neighborhood stakeholders? Were there public meetings on the design and planned demolition?

Thank you for the questions.
1- None of the schemes actually cantilever over the Warwick. One scheme demolishes only the back Tee and one scheme gets rid of it entirely.
2. The project would be irreparably harmed and the City of Philadelphia would loose out on a great project to be replaced with a less than iconic project if either building was required to be saved in its entirety. These buildings are in terrible shape. Much worse than our entitle due diligence reported. We understand the communities sensitivity to these buildings, and we have already promised to restore the coffee shop and retain the original use.
3. After working with the neighborhood groups (CCRA), we have decided to retain the same look of the building (everyone seems to like it), however we have reduced the overall height of the tower and the building along Sanson street.
4. Rittenhouse Plaza, CCRA, Friends of Rittenhouse Square, Sister Mary and a few other neighbors that we have not yet reached out to. None of our meetings have been public yet, just small groups. We will be moving forward with public meetings later in the year.

Thank you.

[boxbot]

Originally Posted by dustin.downey

we have reduced the overall height of the tower

Ooof. That's disappointing. I think a 600 footer at this location would go a long way towards making it the iconic property that SLC desires. What are the current plans as far as (approximate) height and floors? Is the reduction in response to local stakeholders opposition and/or due to the CMX-4 designation?

[TempleGuy1000]

Dustin, your the man, thanks for sharing.


Nobody is even going to notice or care once the other two buildings are gone.

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by boxbot

Ooof. That's disappointing. I think a 600 footer at this location would go a long way towards making it the iconic property that SLC desires. What are the current plans as far as (approximate) height and floors? Is the reduction in response to local stakeholders opposition and/or due to the CMX-4 designation?

I'm hoping that he means they're reducing the height of just the shorter portion of the tower--with the park-like terrace on top--and the podium that directly abuts Sansom:



I could understand if the neighbors and others wanted to maintain a shorter, more intimate scale along Sansom (without necessarily reducing the height and scale along Walnut). Maybe just wishful thinking, but hopefully Dustin can clarify.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by boxbot

Ooof. That's disappointing. I think a 600 footer at this location would go a long way towards making it the iconic property that SLC desires. What are the current plans as far as (approximate) height and floors? Is the reduction in response to local stakeholders opposition and/or due to the CMX-4 designation?

Agree. Disappointing. Figured people would complain about height. Hope it's still over 500 feet.

[Arch+Eng]

Originally Posted by dustin.downey

we have reduced the overall height of the tower and the building along Sanson street.

1919 Market 2.0

Philly Fan, you are delusional. He CLEARLY said they are reducing the height of the TOWER. I know we all want it to be 600+ feet, but doesn't look like thats happening.

I say we filibuster any meeting with people that want to reduce the height of this tower.

[kingtut]

This whole thing with the leak of the renderings then a few days later announce that the rendering that were leaked will be revised . this seems suspect of some kind of game being played . If true it could be very costly on their behalf to the tune of 35 million $$ . Maybe I'm a little paranoid ?

[boxbot]

Originally Posted by kingtut

This whole thing with the leak of the renderings then a few days later announce that the rendering that were leaked will be revised . this seems suspect of some kind of game being played . If true it could be very costly on their behalf to the tune of 35 million $$ . Maybe I'm a little paranoid ?

You lost me.

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by Arch+Eng

1919 Market 2.0

Philly Fan, you are delusional. He CLEARLY said they are reducing the height of the TOWER.

Well, that depends on what the phrase "along Sansom Street" is intended to modify. He also said earlier that the tower will NOT be cantilevered over the Sansom Street buildings, unlike what's shown in the renderings. So it's possible that he meant that only the height of the deeper, lower portion of the tower that extends closer to Sansom Street, and of the pedestal that faces Sansom, will be reduced. Not likely, but still possible (since the height concern is at least partially focused on Sansom). And not delusional given that possible interpretation of his words, combined with the shape and configuration of the tower vis-a-vis Sansom as shown in the renderings (with the lower portion of the tower extending much closer to Sansom than the upper portion). But as I said, not likely.

[TempleGuy1000]

I'm calling it now, it is going to be 595' feet

[Justin7]

Originally Posted by dustin.downey

The project would be irreparably harmed and the City of Philadelphia would loose out on a great project to be replaced with a less than iconic project if either building was required to be saved in its entirety.

So you bought protected historic buildings with the full intention to tear them down and are now threatening to pull out if you're not allowed to do so. I understand this isn't your city. I understand its historic character means little to you, especially when there is a dollar on the line, but each time one of these buildings is torn down Philadelphia takes one step closer to becoming Anycity, USA. Not that that makes any difference to you, of course.

You have two large open lots on which to build. Show some character and clean up the historic buildings or sell them to someone who actually cares about this city.

As for those of you on this board praising this project, I hope you like Dallas, because that's the direction we're heading in if we continue to let southern developers come in and destroy the architecture that makes Philadelphia Philadelphia. Do yourself a favor and go see these buildings in person while you still have the chance. Look at the masonry and the character and ask yourself if it's worth trading for a motor court.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by Justin7

So you bought protected historic buildings with the full intention to tear them down and are now threatening to pull out if you're not allowed to do so. I understand this isn't your city. I understand its historic character means little to you, especially when there is a dollar on the line, but each time one of these buildings is torn down Philadelphia takes one step closer to becoming Anycity, USA. Not that that makes any difference to you, of course.

You have two large open lots on which to build. Show some character and clean up the historic buildings or sell them to someone who actually cares about this city.

As for those of you on this board praising this project, I hope you like Dallas, because that's the direction we're heading in if we continue to let southern developers come in and destroy the architecture that makes Philadelphia Philadelphia. Do yourself a favor and go see these buildings in person while you still have the chance. Look at the masonry and the character and ask yourself if it's worth trading for a motor court.

They should be required to maintain and restore (and/or incorporate) the facades of the 2 buildings they are not restoring in the entirety. In a manner that doesn't totally butcher the look and feel. I'm for preservation, but if there is no viable use for buildings that have not been entered in 25 years, I don't see why landmark designation should stymie new viable uses or dictate development plans with respect to building interiors.

But I sure hope the revised project remains 'iconic'. If not, there should be less or no leeway on the preservation front.

[Arch+Eng]

I need to see new renderings to determine if I am still for this project. For all we know they reduced the height to 400' and still plan on demolishing the historic buildings.

[BenKatzPhillytoParis]

Originally Posted by Arch+Eng

I need to see new renderings to determine if I am still for this project. For all we know they reduced the height to 400' and still plan on demolishing the historic buildings.

Yeah. All good points last few posts. I really don't think a UNESCO world heritage city should approach preservation so lightly.

[McBane]

The news about the height is extremely disappointing. Either SLC is totally clueless about NIMBYs (who always complain about height) OR they never intended to build 600 feet. If that was truly their intention, they should have proposed 700 feet. Complaining about height for what? I was driving down 76 this weekend and could see how great a 600 footer would look just west of the Rittenhouse. As long as the design stays relatively the same and the height is above 500 feet, I'll be okay.