PHILADELPHIA | THE LAUREL @ 1911 Walnut | 604 FT | 48 FLOORS - Page 41

RonnieStevens · #**801** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 2:59 PM**

Just spent 15 min on the streets of Dallas via street view... We are definitely not Dallas. Definitely

hammersklavier · #**802** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 3:42 PM**

New article on Hidden City this morning:

http://hiddencityphila.org/2015/12/prese...eases-preliminary-plans-for-1911-walnut/

summersm343 · #**803** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 3:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

New article on Hidden City this morning:

http://hiddencityphila.org/2015/12/prese...eases-preliminary-plans-for-1911-walnut/

Hahaha, love the self advertising

summersm343 · #**804** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 3:49 PM**

From the article:

Quote:

Currently, the firm is considering two major development scenarios: a short project and a tall one. The short plan would still be 559 feet wide and 49 stories high. The tall project would sprawl out with 618 feet and 57 stories. Like Pearl Property’s Boyd development across Sansom Street, 1911 Walnut is zoned CMX-4 Center City commercial mixed-use. Both of Southern Land’s scenarios assume an upzoning to CMX-5. In both shadow studies and renderings, the two are effectively indistinguishable, but the shorter building carries the price of forcing mechanicals down into the retail space, making the Sansom Street façade far less interesting.

Read the rest:
http://hiddencityphila.org/2015/12/prese...eases-preliminary-plans-for-1911-walnut/

boxbot · #**805** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 3:52 PM**

Currently, the firm is considering two major development scenarios: a short project and a tall one. The short plan would still be 559 feet wide and 49 stories high. The tall project would sprawl out with 618 feet and 57 stories.

Is the article talking about height? How/where would it be wider?

Knight Hospitaller · #**806** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 4:00 PM**

“The reason we can’t solely use Moravian is because it’s too narrow,” was the answer given by a Southern Land representative. He added that the road was barely six feet wide and would barely fit the firm’s own cars, which appeared to contradict an earlier statement that the firm would raise Moravian’s passage anyway, bringing it flush with the curb for trucks using the building’s loading docks along the street.

I have to question this as well. If you plan to have semis accessing loading docks on Moravian, you can squeeze a 7-series Beemer through there. Removing the sidewalks rather than closing the street altogether sounds like a good compromise.

I also agree that, if there's a willingness to tear down and rebuild the coffee shop "brick by brick," if necessary, then pasting the bricks of the Warwick and Bair buildings to the Sansom Street facade is not a stretch. If this isn't ultimately a bargaining chip to get the taller tower, I'll eat my hat.

summersm343 · #**807** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 4:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by boxbot

Currently, the firm is considering two major development scenarios: a short project and a tall one. The short plan would still be 559 feet wide and 49 stories high. The tall project would sprawl out with 618 feet and 57 stories.

Is the article talking about height? How/where would it be wider?

Probably just a typo. They're talking about height.

Knight Hospitaller · #**808** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 4:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by summersm343

Probably just a typo. They're talking about height.

I don't know. "Sprawl" suggests something horizontal. Taller-slimmer and shorter-chunkier are the options. However, is there even 500 to 600 feet width anywhere on the lot(s)? I don't see the point in measuring height by stories in these articles, since ceiling heights vary depending upon the nature of the project (and even within the same project).

Cro Burnham · #**809** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 4:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

I don't know. "Sprawl" suggests something horizontal. Taller-slimmer and shorter-chunkier are the options. However, is there even 500 to 600 feet width anywhere on the lot(s)?

The entire block from 19th to 20th is less than 500 feet long, and this site is only a portion of the block. Widths of 500'-600' would be impossible, even applying the Pythagorean theorem. I'm 99.9999% sure they're talking about height and that the author is confused.

Knight Hospitaller · #**810** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 4:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

The entire block from 19th to 20th is less than 500 feet long, and this site is only a portion of the block. Widths of 500'-600' would be impossible, even applying the Pythagorean theorem. I'm 99.9999% sure they're talking about height and that the author is confused.

Must be. That's the first time that I've heard 618 feet. That sure beats 599.5 feet. Even option two at 559 feet is nothing to sneeze at for the location.

Cro Burnham · #**811** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 4:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin7

I didn't expect the Dallas comment to hit such a nerve (typical Philadelphia insecurity?).

It's got nothing to do with our insecurities - substantial though they may be - rather the absurd hyperbole of your comment. Yes, the the old buildings aren't bad and it'd be nice to keep them, a la Jane Jacobs. But you'd have to rip out 3/4 of Center City for your Dallas comparison to have meaning in any real sense.

Most people on this board do recognize how awful downtown Dallas is, how lucky we have it by comparison, and how preserving most of our historic architectural heritage is essential to keeping Philly a great downtown. I don't think your comment really added anything.

Knight Hospitaller · #**812** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 4:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

It's got nothing to do with our insecurities - substantial though they may be - rather the absurd hyperbole of your comment. Yes, the the old buildings aren't bad and it'd be nice to keep them, a la Jane Jacobs. But you'd have to rip out 3/4 of Center City for your Dallas comparison to have meaning in any real sense.

Most people on this board do recognize how awful downtown Dallas is, how lucky we have it by comparison, and how preserving most of our historic architectural heritage is essential to keeping Philly a great downtown. I don't think your comment really added anything.

It was a classic "slippery slope" argument. I actually happen to agree with the premise that we can't just cast aside historically certified properties when new, tall and shiny projects are dangled before our eyes, or that we'll soon find ourselves on the slow road to blandness. But the Dallas hyperbole didn't strike a nerve as much as our funny bones, and thus took on a life of its own.

boxbot · #**813** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 4:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

The entire block from 19th to 20th is less than 500 feet long, and this site is only a portion of the block. Widths of 500'-600' would be impossible, even applying the Pythagorean theorem. I'm 99.9999% sure they're talking about height and that the author is confused.

Off topic. Take it to the geometry thread.

1487 · #**814** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 5:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by boxbot

Off topic. Take it to the geometry thread.

exactly.

Knight Hospitaller · #**815** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 5:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1487

exactly.

Wendy's

Cro Burnham · #**816** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 6:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

Wendy's

Can you imagine if they put a 600' long Wendy's on the block that ran diagonal from one corner to the opposite? That's alot of Baconators.

summersm343 · #**817** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 6:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

Can you imagine if they put a 600' long Wendy's on the block that ran diagonal from one corner to the opposite? That's alot of Baconators.

It has to be a suburban style Wendey's with a drive-through and a surface park lot. The drive-through has to be in the place of the Warwick and funeral home though. We'll rename our city "New Dallas" afterwards.

Cro Burnham · #**818** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 6:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by summersm343

It has to be a suburban style Wendey's with a drive-through and a surface park lot. The drive-through has to be in the place of the Warwick and funeral home though. We'll rename our city "New Dallas" afterwards.

You jest. But you can never have enough Wendy's and parking in a top tier downtown.

Knight Hospitaller · #**819** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 6:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

You jest. But you can never have enough Wendy's and parking in a top tier downtown.

And we have ZERO drive-thrus. Compared to a city like Dallas, I'm so ashamed.

1487 · #**820** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 7:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

Wendy's

Thats different. Wendy's is always relevant. Surely you agree.