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

[cafeguy]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

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.

Im not sure what "game" they are playing...but its definitely weird that these AWESOME renderings get leaked around the same time that they say they want to destroy the buildings they once said they would restore...then they say they will restore the cafe but destroy the other buildings...then we hear that this initial rendering is not what they plan and that the "new secret" plan is smaller and likely not as impressive. I mean... with this back and forth, there is a game they are playing. Especially with this guy coming to the forum to speak directly to us which never ever ever happens. It all seems suspiciously like a game to get approvals to demolish historic buildings for a driving lane in a glassy building that will be a let down.

I mean...on top of that... they say they are reducing the height of the building due to neighborhood stakeholders? uhhhh.... what stakeholder NIMBYs have you spoken to already? Wouldn't that have been the public meeting? How can a private meeting lead to a height reduction? Leave that for the Kennedy house public meeting.

None of this makes sense.

[boxbot]

Originally Posted by cafeguy

uhhhh.... what stakeholder NIMBYs have you spoken to already?

I'm guessing the kind that live on Rittenhouse Square who have a lot of money, political connections and can make or break this project. It is impressive how they've managed to squander so much good will so quickly, though.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by boxbot

I'm guessing the kind that live on Rittenhouse Square who have a lot of money, political connections and can make or break this project. It is impressive how they've managed to squander so much good will so quickly, though.

Yeah...I am reserving judgment. But if the new renderings don't generate adequate support on THESE forums, good luck with rest of the city and other constituencies....Looking forward to seeing the revised project.

[summersm343]

Let me ask you guys a question. Do any of you posting on here who are against these buildings being demolished actually live in Rittenhouse Square? Because I do, right at 18th and Walnut. I am all for preserving the city's history, but I am also all for new development.

If you are so against these buildings being demolished, where were you the past 25 years while these buildings sat vacant and fell into a state of disrepair? Why weren't you advocating to renovate these buildings the entire time they sat vacant?

That empty lot AND the parking lot are a total eyesore for Rittenhouse, which should be Philadelphia's PREMIERE neighborhood. Finally a credible developer comes along and wants to built something gorgeous here and we throw a hissy fit over these structures? If the facades can be preserved, will that be enough for you guys? I honestly would rather these buildings be demolished if it means this lot FINALLY gets developed. I'm not sure why you guys have such an attachment to these buildings.

"Philadelphia will become Dallas if we let these two insignificant buildings be demolished." Come on guys. Let's stop being dramatic, and actually offer some productive conversation. I think allowing the developers to demolish the structures but preserve the facade for the Warwick is the right way to go.

[Frontst17]

Summers sums it up perfectly. The amount of beautiful churches and architecture being torn down the last few months, years, decades in pockets all around the city and no one bats an eye... they're replaced with parking lots or simply left empty because the citizens didn't care enough to keep up with them. Those are the neighborhoods and structures and unique architecture that define us as a city. Now someone comes forward with a genuine game changer for our premier neighborhood and everyone is up in arms. Its an empty lot in RITTENHOUSE SQUARE. We can be picky but wow I really hope this moves forward

[TempleGuy1000]

Originally Posted by summersm343

"Philadelphia will become Dallas if we let these two insignificant buildings be demolished." Come on guys. Let's stop being dramatic, and actually offer some productive conversation. I think allowing the developers to demolish the structures but preserve the facade for the Warwick is the right way to go.

Yep. Sorry, but the Dallas comment was the silliest thing I have seen anyone write on here yet. We have an entire city full of 19th century churches that are falling over and we are ready to fight a developer who wants to build something iconic on a top 5 lot in the city. Nobody remembers the PPA's plan for a parking garage and movie theater on this lot do they? 11 years ago that was the plan. The coffeehouse is the most ornate of the buildings and they have agreed to keep it.

Obviously we all want to see the new renderings before making judgement but come on. Can't people be happy that two of Willis Hale's most iconic buildings are under construction and being renovated into apartments? There are so many more buildings that can be redone that aren't on lots in the middle of our best neighborhood. After seeing Rocky this weekend, I would rather see them save the Blue Horizon than the Warwick in a heartbeat. I have never saw anyone write one thing about the Blue Horizon on here even with it's impending doom. Nobody on here would probably say a thing if they tore down the uptown theater, the national bank of north philly, all the huge hulking industrial factories. Buildings that have more history and architectural value.

[Justin7]

Originally Posted by summersm343

"Philadelphia will become Dallas if we let these two insignificant buildings be demolished." Come on guys. Let's stop being dramatic, and actually offer some productive conversation. I think allowing the developers to demolish the structures but preserve the facade for the Warwick is the right way to go.

If you're going to quote me, please do so accurately. You're twisting my words to create a straw man.

You may think these buildings are insignificant, but many would obviously disagree. If you live so close take a short walk and have a look. Even in their current states of disrepair the quality here is quickly apparent. Allowing a developer to tear down a pair of beautiful pre-war buildings in Rittenhouse Square and replace them with a motor court just wreaks of desperation. Philadelphia is booming and can do much better.

There are two highly valuable vacant lots that can each hold a 700ft+ tower while still allowing the preservation of Philadelphia's character by preserving the currently protected buildings. Any developer would make a killing by just building on the Walnut St lot, which may be the most valuable vacant lot in the city.

I know a new tower is exciting, and I hope to see one, but let's not sell out in order to get it. Recognize this for what it is: a developer with no ties to the region trying to maximize profit at any cost.

[cafeguy]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Let me ask you guys a question. Do any of you posting on here who are against these buildings being demolished actually live in Rittenhouse Square? Because I do, right at 18th and Walnut. I am all for preserving the city's history, but I am also all for new development.

If you are so against these buildings being demolished, where were you the past 25 years while these buildings sat vacant and fell into a state of disrepair? Why weren't you advocating to renovate these buildings the entire time they sat vacant?

That empty lot AND the parking lot are a total eyesore for Rittenhouse, which should be Philadelphia's PREMIERE neighborhood. Finally a credible developer comes along and wants to built something gorgeous here and we throw a hissy fit over these structures? If the facades can be preserved, will that be enough for you guys? I honestly would rather these buildings be demolished if it means this lot FINALLY gets developed. I'm not sure why you guys have such an attachment to these buildings.

"Philadelphia will become Dallas if we let these two insignificant buildings be demolished." Come on guys. Let's stop being dramatic, and actually offer some productive conversation. I think allowing the developers to demolish the structures but preserve the facade for the Warwick is the right way to go.

Its because we don't know if this project is a "game changer" yet. We saw preemptive designs that are not set in stone. I think everyone would rather have the buildings preserved if possible but understand if its not possible. As for debating preservation or development... I think most everyone fights where they can fight or discussing outrage when they can. As for these buildings...this developer has a 🞵🞵🞵🞵 ton of money in on this. I think we have a lot of leverage to demand either a great tall project (a true game changer) and restoration of all, or some, or at least facades of these buildings. whereas other projects, we dont have as much leverage.

As far as outrage for the past 25 years. Everyone complains about unused buildings downtown all the time on here! Maybe this one isn't pointed out specifically...but there is most certainly outrage for abandoned buildings and parking lots.

I lived in that area 10 years ago for a couple of years. Now I'm a bit further northeast in old kensington. Regardless of where people live, they will demand preservation when there is a potential for leverage.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by Justin7

If you're going to quote me, please do so accurately. You're twisting my words to create a straw man.

You may think these buildings are insignificant, but many would obviously disagree. If you live so close take a short walk and have a look. Even in their current states of disrepair the quality here is quickly apparent. Allowing a developer to tear down a pair of beautiful pre-war buildings in Rittenhouse Square and replace them with a motor court just wreaks of desperation. Philadelphia is booming and can do much better.

There are two highly valuable vacant lots that can each hold a 700ft+ tower while still allowing the preservation of Philadelphia's character by preserving the currently protected buildings. Any developer would make a killing by just building on the Walnut St lot, which may be the most valuable vacant lot in the city.

I know a new tower is exciting, and I hope to see one, but let's not sell out in order to get it. Recognize this for what it is: a developer with no ties to the region trying to maximize profit at any cost.

I do walk by these buildings quite often lately. Sure they're ornate and old and nice, but they're also in disrepair, and at night, the alley is quite foreboding to walk down. It's dark, and there is no life. The empty lot and the large parking lot are even worse. I cringe every-time I walk by that empty lot and cringe even harder when a tourist or visitor walks by it.

Philadelphia would not become Dallas over demolishing two structures. That's ridiculous. We would have to go through decades of demolishing entire blocks of buildings and replacing it with retail strip malls and parking garages and buildings with grass set backs to become Dallas.

This is not the Divine Lorraine, a structure that sat in a declining and crime ridden neighborhood for decades where no one wanted to move and is only now drawing in residents due to the recent revitalization of the surrounding neighborhoods. This is RITTENHOUSE SQUARE, Philadelphia's premiere neighborhood since, well, forever. There is no excuse for these buildings sitting vacant for 25+ years and this empty lot and parking lot being there for decades. It is our fault as a city for allowing these buildings to fall into disrepair, not the developers fault for buying these plots of land with the intentions of building something great for this city. We cannot ask these developers to pay for the city's mistakes. We also have to stop treating developers as enemies, and working with them professionally to build the best city Philadelphia can be. We have to welcome outside developers to continue to inject capital into the city and keep moving it forward. This thought that the developers are up to something sneaky and they're our enemy is truly ridiculous and conspiracy theorist.

A new building here would inject life into the block, onto Sansom, and onto the square. New retail, and a TON of it. ~150 condos and ~350 apartments... HIGH END apartments mind you that will draw in wealthy residents. This is exactly the type of thing Rittenhouse needs.

The attitude of "you are not welcome here, this is our city" is exactly what held Philadelphia back for so long. We need to do away with that attitude, and work with developers in a constructive and productive manner. We need to welcome residents and developers and businesses from all over the country and world, not turn them away with our provincial attitude.

[skyscraper]

Originally Posted by summersm343

I think allowing the developers to demolish the structures but preserve the facade for the Warwick is the right way to go.

Yes, because a Potemkin Village is what makes a city.

[BenKatzPhillytoParis]

Originally Posted by summersm343

I do walk by these buildings quite often lately. Sure they're ornate and old and nice, but they're also in disrepair, and at night, the alley is quite foreboding to walk down. It's dark, and there is no life. The empty lot and the large parking lot are even worse. I cringe every-time I walk by that empty lot and cringe even harder when a tourist or visitor walks by it.

Philadelphia would not become Dallas over demolishing two structures. That's ridiculous. We would have to go through decades of demolishing entire blocks of buildings and replacing it with retail strip malls and parking garages and buildings with grass set backs to become Dallas.

A new building here would inject life into the block, onto Sansom, and onto the square. New retail, and a TON of it. ~150 condos and ~350 apartments... HIGH END apartments mind you that will draw in wealthy residents. This is exactly the type of thing Rittenhouse needs.

The attitude of "you are not welcome here, this is our city" is exactly what held Philadelphia back for so long. We need to do away with that attitude, and work with developers in a constructive and productive manner. We need to welcome residents and developers and businesses from all over the country and world, not turn them away with our provincial attitude.

Summers, most of the people on here who care about preservation haven't only about this one project. Unfortunately, we've been on the losing side of most fights and that's partly why people are passionate about this. We're all also for development—at least generally if one's posting on here. But Philadelphia can have its cake and eat it too at this point. It's just a question of not rolling over for every developer which, by the way, is how a lot of 🞵🞵🞵🞵 in this city got built. Hardship does not mean making less money than one would by keeping the buildings. Hardship means not being able to afford keeping them. As I've alluded to before, bending that rule and making historical designations arbitrary and subjective, endangers not only the structures themselves but creates a level of uncertainty about regulations and their enforcement that is a burden on developers, too. This is not an instance at all of someone buying something and then their property rights being abrogated. If you buy a property that is historically certified, you should have to abide by what that entails.

[Justin7]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Philadelphia would not become Dallas over demolishing two structures. That's ridiculous.

So you're doubling down on your misquote? That's brazen, man.

Here is what I actually wrote

Originally Posted by Justin7

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.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by Justin7

So you're doubling down on your misquote? That's brazen, man.

I mean it's literally what you said:

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.

That fact that demolishing these two structures will send us down the path to becoming Dallas is literally THE MOST ridiculous and NIMBY thing I have ever heard. It's worse than the "shadows" and "wind-study" 🞵🞵🞵🞵.

Where are you when all of these beautiful and ornate churches are being leveled all across the city to make way for cookie-cutter townhomes being built by Philadelphia based developers. This has nothing to do with where the developer is from. This is an extremely urban and beautiful development.

[iheartphilly]

If your an urbanist, ask yourself these questions?

Will your quality of life improve if the historic buildings stay? If so, how?

Will your qualify of life diminish if the historic buildings are torn down? If so, how?

I would assume all those who live in this proposed 600ft. building or enjoy the retail/commercial components of the building will have an improved quality of life.

[Justin7]

As for the rest of your post:

Originally Posted by summersm343

I do walk by these buildings quite often lately. Sure they're ornate and old and nice, but they're also in disrepair, and at night, the alley is quite foreboding to walk down. It's dark, and there is no life. The empty lot and the large parking lot are even worse. I cringe every-time I walk by that empty lot and cringe even harder when a tourist or visitor walks by it.

Yes, the empty lots are bad. Also extremely valuable. So build on them. Please. If this is your argument for tearing down unrelated buildings you're missing the point. I'm not a NIMBY. I'm in favor a building tall here. Density is good. Destroying prewar buildings for a "motor court" is anti-urban and frankly disgusting.

Originally Posted by summersm343

Philadelphia would not become Dallas over demolishing two structures. That's ridiculous. We would have to go through decades of demolishing entire blocks of buildings and replacing it with retail strip malls and parking garages and buildings with grass set backs to become Dallas.

See above.

Originally Posted by summersm343

This is not the Divine Lorraine, a structure that sat in a declining and crime ridden neighborhood for decades where no one wanted to move and is only now drawing in residents due to the recent revitalization of the surrounding neighborhoods. This is RITTENHOUSE SQUARE, Philadelphia's premiere neighborhood since, well, forever.

You're making my point for me. This is RITTENHOUSE SQUARE. So why are we letting developers hold these buildings hostage? This isn't a declining crime ridden neighborhood where the developer is taking a risk in order to improve the city. This is RITTENHOUSE SQUARE where my grandmother could put together a proposal for a development that could make money. If Southern Land Company isn't willing to build without destroying protected buildings someone else will.

Originally Posted by summersm343

There is no excuse for these buildings sitting vacant for 25+ years and this empty lot and parking lot being there for decades. It is our fault as a city for allowing these buildings to fall into disrepair, not the developers fault for buying these plots of land with the intentions of building something great for this city. We cannot ask these developers to pay for the city's mistakes.

Wait, what? Were these buildings not protected when they were bought? Maybe I'm missing something, but I was under the impression that Southern Land Company purchased these legally protected buildings. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Otherwise, it absolutely IS their fault for buying them if they did not intend to fix them. They are asking the city to make an exception. They are asking to change the status quo. They are not entitled to come in and tear down protected buildings in order to increase profits.

Originally Posted by summersm343

We also have to stop treating developers as enemies, and working with them professionally to build the best city Philadelphia can be. We have to welcome outside developers to continue to inject capital into the city and keep moving it forward. This thought that the developers are up to something sneaky and they're our enemy is truly ridiculous and conspiracy theorist.

A new building here would inject life into the block, onto Sansom, and onto the square. New retail, and a TON of it. ~150 condos and ~350 apartments... HIGH END apartments mind you that will draw in wealthy residents. This is exactly the type of thing Rittenhouse needs.

The attitude of "you are not welcome here, this is our city" is exactly what held Philadelphia back for so long. We need to do away with that attitude, and work with developers in a constructive and productive manner. We need to welcome residents and developers and businesses from all over the country and world, not turn them away with our provincial attitude.

Again, any developer would create high end towers on these vacant/parking lots. Why do you want to bend over backwards for this particular developer?

[Larry King]

Originally Posted by BenKatzPhillytoParis

Summers, most of the people on here who care about preservation haven't only about this one project. Unfortunately, we've been on the losing side of most fights and that's partly why people are passionate about this. We're all also for development—at least generally if one's posting on here. But Philadelphia can have its cake and eat it too at this point. It's just a question of not rolling over for every developer which, by the way, is how a lot of 🞵🞵🞵🞵 in this city got built. Hardship does not mean making less money than one would by keeping the buildings. Hardship means not being able to afford keeping them. As I've alluded to before, bending that rule and making historical designations arbitrary and subjective, endangers not only the structures themselves but creates a level of uncertainty about regulations and their enforcement that is a burden on developers, too. This is not an instance at all of someone buying something and then their property rights being abrogated. If you buy a property that is historically certified, you should have to abide by what that entails.

Exactly, the law is the law. As a city, we can't just let people buy historic buildings and then immediately be permitted to tear them down because they showed us some nice renderings.

[BenKatzPhillytoParis]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

If your an urbanist, ask yourself these questions?

Will your quality of life improve if the historic buildings stay? If so, how?

Will your qualify of life diminish if the historic buildings are torn down? If so, how?

I would assume all those who live in this proposed 600ft. building or enjoy the retail/commercial components of the building will have an improved quality of life.

It's kind of like asking, will your life improve if you vote? It's sort of an incremental, incalculable thing. It's just one vote, but it's still important. If we said this about every historical building, we'd continue not caring and eventually it would just be a scattered patchwork instead of really giving the city a unique texture. Letting certain developers demolish without meeting the hardship criterion is also unfair to other developers, particularly those who have adhered to historical designations and helped restore buildings. These buildings are a big factor giving Philly its character and desirability. So if you arbitrarily let one developer demolish while forcing others to adhere to the regulations, you're actually facilitating a completely unfair transfer of wealth from the one who preserves to the one who doesn't, since the latter's property value is benefiting from its proximity to historical structures that others spent money on restoring.

[Justin7]

Originally Posted by summersm343

I mean it's literally what you said:



That fact that demolishing these two structures will send us down the path to becoming Dallas is literally THE MOST ridiculous and NIMBY thing I have ever heard. It's worse than the "shadows" and "wind-study" 🞵🞵🞵🞵.

Where are you when all of these beautiful and ornate churches are being leveled all across the city to make way for cookie-cutter townhomes being built by Philadelphia based developers. This has nothing to do with where the developer is from. This is an extremely urban and beautiful development.

Wow, you are out on a limb. You misquoted me, doubled down on it, then changed your argument. Tearing down Philadelphia's pre-war buildings would take away what makes the city special. Will two buildings instantly turn the city into Dallas? Of course not. No one is making that argument. What it will do, however, is take a step in the wrong direction. After these are torn down, for the next development we can tear down a couple more. Step by step the city loses it's character. These are two buildings in a large city, yes, but the city is better with them, and again, they are legally protected.

It's obvious that this forum contains both urbanists and height fetishists. I guess it's natural that there would be disagreements over this kind of thing. I just find it amazing that some people have still missed the lessons of the last urban renewal period.

[br323206]

Originally Posted by Justin7

Wow, you are out on a limb. You misquoted me, doubled down on it, then changed your argument. Tearing down Philadelphia's pre-war buildings would take away what makes the city special. Will two buildings instantly turn the city into Dallas? Of course not. No one is making that argument. What it will do, however, is take a step in the wrong direction. After these are torn down, for the next development we can tear down a couple more. Step by step the city loses it's character. These are two buildings in a large city, yes, but the city is better with them, and again, they are legally protected.

It's obvious that this forum contains both urbanists and height fetishists. I guess it's natural that there would be disagreements over this kind of thing. I just find it amazing that some people have still missed the lessons of the last urban renewal period.

I'm an urbanist, but even I think you are stretching by saying that this would even be a step toward becoming Dallas. The building that they intend to replace them with meets the street very well. I would love to see them preserved, but tearing them down is not going to get us any closer to becoming Dallas. Not even a little bit. It'd be different if they were going to be replaced by a five story parking garage, or worse--a surface lot. That's not what is being proposed here.

[Cro Burnham]

Boxbot, can you start a new thread or something, please?