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

[boxbot]

Originally Posted by Philly Fan

Presumably, only if they can't get the site rezoned from CMX-4 to CMX-5. They show both a 599-ft tower and a 549-ft tower in the latest proposal, and intend to seek rezoning to CMX-5.

Anyone with more knowledge feel free to correct me but to my knowledge CMX-4 would not allow anything close to a 549 foot tower on this site. Both proposals would require a zoning variance and the 549 foot tower was only mocked up due to NIMBY concerns about shadows, wind impact and all the reasons.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by boxbot

Anyone with more knowledge feel free to correct me but to my knowledge CMX-4 would not allow anything close to a 549 foot tower on this site. Both proposals would require a zoning variance and the 549 foot tower was only mocked up due to NIMBY concerns about shadows, wind impact and all the reasons.

The CCRA placed an arbitrary height limit of 550' on the site and they do not want to see anything higher than that. That's where the 549' rendering came from.

Southern Land is choosing to ignore that, and hopefully get the approvals and permission to build to 599'9" or higher.

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by boxbot

Anyone with more knowledge feel free to correct me but to my knowledge CMX-4 would not allow anything close to a 549 foot tower on this site. Both proposals would require a zoning variance and the 549 foot tower was only mocked up due to NIMBY concerns about shadows, wind impact and all the reasons.

Yep, my mistake. I jumped to that conclusion based on this statement in the article:

First, the group authorized its architects, Solomon Cordwell Buenz, to design a 599-foot tower with a floor-area ratio (FAR) that wouldn’t fit into the site’s CMX-4 zoning.

http://planphilly.com/articles/2016/01/2...wer-design-assumes-a-number-of-approvals

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by Justin7

This is such a mess. Build the tower on Walnut and drop the rest.

Yeah this is my initial concern with, now, even more red-tape to clear in order to get this thing moving forward. The building is a co-op next door, so I'm assuming there's going to have to be some % of the owners and/or Co-Op board who will have to agree to this in order to go through. In other words, it's not as simple as going directly to a sole owner.

Plus the preservation concerns on Sansom, continuing discussions with neighborhood groups, as well as a request for re-zoning to CMX-5 - I just hope these guys aren't waging wars on too many fronts.

This really is a wonderfully designed building.

[summersm343]

Great article from Curbed Philly

With comparison images that allow you to slide between the the red/yellow brick images and the 599'/549' images to compare. The 549 does seem stumpier and broader/wider than the 599' design.

http://philly.curbed.com/archives/2016/01/21/1911-walnut-street-alternate-renderings.php

[McBane]

Yes, definitely the yellow brick facade looks much better. It's unique and interesting whereas the red brick is boring and, in this city, so overdone.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by McBane

Yes, definitely the yellow brick facade looks much better. It's unique and interesting whereas the red brick is boring and, in this city, so overdone.

Disagree. Too each their own.

[Philly-Drew]

Originally Posted by McBane

Yes, definitely the yellow brick facade looks much better. It's unique and interesting whereas the red brick is boring and, in this city, so overdone.

Personally, I like red brick a lot. I can't get enough of it. My house is all red brick. I wouldn't buy a house in Philadelphia without red brick. Thankfully there is a large collection of houses with red brick in our fine city.

But like us jsbrook says, to each their own.

[Philly Fan]

Personally, I'd like to see what it looks like with red brick combined with the window configuration and details of the yellow-brick version. I DEFINITELY prefer the window layout and details of the yellow-brick version, but if done in red brick, that might be the best combination--at least for me.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by Philly Fan

Personally, I'd like to see what it looks like with red brick combined with the window configuration and details of the yellow-brick version. I DEFINITELY prefer the window layout and details of the yellow-brick version, but if done in red brick, that might be the best combination--at least for me.

Completely agree. I much prefer the red brick but also much prefer the details and configuration of the yellow brick version. Red brick is popular in Philly (particularly for houses) but I can't think offhand of many significant, sizable structures in the Rittenhouse area that incorporate it other than 10 Rittenhouse. There, I agree it wasn't done that well and generally am not a huge fan of the building. But there are MANY red brick options as far as shade and texture. There are yellow brick buildings (or something that looks like it) in Rittenhouse. One is the Claridge, which I don't think looks that good.

[wanderer34]

Originally Posted by Philly Fan

Presumably, only if they can't get the site rezoned from CMX-4 to CMX-5. They show both a 599-ft tower and a 549-ft tower in the latest proposal, and intend to seek rezoning to CMX-5.

I hope the City Council can rezone the lot so that the tower can be built. It's a great proposal, and one that is currently needed for Center City!!! We do need some height, especially in Rittenhouse Square. It's very similar to the Mandeville Place in terms of design. The only thing about 1911 Walnut is that it has retail, which will help Rittenhouse Row a lot in terms of amenities, and it's practically in the city core, whereas Mandeville Place was on the fringes of Center City.

Both of them are great proposals and while Mandeville Place was cutting edge in it's design, it's architecture, it's location on the riverfront and it's utilization of stacking residences one atop another, 1911 Walnut is an even better proposal since it's on the most dynamic part of Center City!!!

[Zoot]

Originally Posted by wanderer34

...... It's very similar to the mandeville place in terms of design......

blasphemy!

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by Philly-Drew

Personally, I like red brick a lot. I can't get enough of it. My house is all red brick. I wouldn't buy a house in Philadelphia without red brick. Thankfully there is a large collection of houses with red brick in our fine city.

But like us jsbrook says, to each their own.

I'm with you.
I think there's actually a strange aversion from designers and architects to red brick due to the fact that it's so prevalent in the city, it's not new or interesting to them - especially when it comes to landscape design.

Personally, I love brick as a landscape element - there's nothing more quaint and cozy than a brick-paved park with small brick walls topped by black wrought iron - Boston/Cambridge features dozens and dozens of versions of the park i just described and it really adds to its quaint, colonial urban charm. Many of Philly's (and like Beacon Hill in Boston) most expensive and charming streets feature red brick as the sidewalk-paver.

But in Philly, we've eschewed red brick in landscape design - especially recently. Perhaps it's Olin's interest but if you consider some of the recent park construction of the last 10 years: Dilworth, Parkway Reno, Love Park Redesign, 23rd and South pocket park design, anything on the SRT, Comcast Plaza - there's not a single red brick. In fact most of these parks feature some type of grayish stone - which frankly I find only slightly more aesthetically interesting than drab concrete. Not saying I don't like these parks, because I do, just lamenting the fact that the pendulum has swung so far away from colonial red brick that i wish we'd actually see a lot more of it!

[Cro Burnham]

Soooo tired of red brick. Give me white brick, yellow brick, grey brick, black brick, glazed brick, almost anything but red brick. I am desperate never to see another attempt at recreating colonial charm in a 21st century building or open space.

[shakman]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

Soooo tired of red brick. Give me white brick, yellow brick, grey brick, black brick, glazed brick, almost anything but red brick.

I agree. At this point I would rather see any color brick except red brick.

[Knight Hospitaller]

How about glass block?

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by shakman

I agree. At this point I would rather see any color brick except red brick.

Just the idea that red brick should somehow evoke or reference "the colonial past" makes my stomach gurgle in ominous and unpleasant ways.

It's kind of like, in Philly at least, the use of red brick is axiomatically assumed to be the de rigueur deferential nod to our colonial heritage. Soooo cliche. If someone can find a way to use red brick that completely and irreversibly obliterates the cliche or the perceived need for such deference, I'm all for it . . . . otherwise, enough already, please!!!!!

Anyway, why is it taken as pre-ordained, unquestioned truth by many (even people like Inga) that architecture ought to make "nods" to this or that historic thingamajiggy?

"Making nods" to history is not axiomatic to architecture or urban design.

Doing so may be effective in certain settings, sometimes, but it is never necessary and, as is the case in Philadelphia with the use of red brick, doing so quickly descends into simplistic, rote cliche - i.e., the worst kind of architecture. Of which we see red brick examples all over this city. It's the design equivalent of someone sticking a banjo riff into a pop song to invoke a fake sense of rustic folksiness.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

Just the idea that red brick should somehow evoke or reference "the colonial past" makes my stomach gurgle in ominous and unpleasant ways.

It's kind of like, in Philly at least, the use of red brick is axiomatically assumed to be the de rigueur deferential nod to our colonial heritage. Soooo cliche. If someone can find a way to use red brick that completely and irreversibly obliterates the cliche or the perceived need for such deference, I'm all for it . . . . otherwise, enough already, please!!!!!

Anyway, why is it taken as pre-ordained, unquestioned truth by many (even people like Inga) that architecture ought to make "nods" to this or that historic thingamajiggy?

"Making nods" to history is not axiomatic to architecture or urban design.

Doing so may be effective in certain settings, sometimes, but it is never necessary and, as is the case in Philadelphia with the use of red brick, doing so quickly descends into simplistic, rote cliche - i.e., the worst kind of architecture. Of which we see red brick examples all over this city. It's the design equivalent of someone sticking a banjo riff into a pop song to invoke a fake sense of rustic folksiness.

Yes, yes, yes!!!

[apetrella802]

[QUOTE=Cro Burnham;7313608]Just the idea that red brick should somehow evoke or reference "the colonial past" makes my stomach gurgle in ominous and unpleasant ways.

It's kind of like, in Philly at least, the use of red brick is axiomatically assumed to be the de rigueur deferential nod to our colonial heritage. Soooo cliche. If someone can find a way to use red brick that completely and irreversibly obliterates the cliche or the perceived need for such deference, I'm all for it . . . . otherwise, enough already, please!!!!!

Anyway, why is it taken as pre-ordained, unquestioned truth by many (even people like Inga) that architecture ought to make "nods" to this or that historic thingamajiggy?

"Making nods" to history is not axiomatic to architecture or urban design.

Yes I agree with you.

The architecture of 18th c Phila. is provincial and very derivative of England. That's not to say the history of 18th c. is, no it's associated with a burst of Enlightenment thinking equal to the greatest epochs of human history.

But the architecture of 19th , 20th and 21 st c. Philadelphia is far more unique, and inventive . After all the US becomes the center of building technology in the 19th c.(the use of structural steel to build the world's first skyscraper happens in Chicago 1885) and all type of new building types arise from the Industrial Revolution. All buildings in 18th c. Phila are the same model, i.e., a late medieval brick shell with applied classical ornamentation. If it's a public building you stretch it in a East/West direction, if it's a religious building you stretch it in a North/South direction and if it's a residence you squeeze it down to 3 or 5 bays wide(a little tongue in cheek). The scope of more than three centuries of architecture in Philadelphia create what can be described as a range of architecture which is both Kaleidoscopic and Encyclopedic.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

Just the idea that red brick should somehow evoke or reference "the colonial past" makes my stomach gurgle in ominous and unpleasant ways.

It's kind of like, in Philly at least, the use of red brick is axiomatically assumed to be the de rigueur deferential nod to our colonial heritage. Soooo cliche. If someone can find a way to use red brick that completely and irreversibly obliterates the cliche or the perceived need for such deference, I'm all for it . . . . otherwise, enough already, please!!!!!

Anyway, why is it taken as pre-ordained, unquestioned truth by many (even people like Inga) that architecture ought to make "nods" to this or that historic thingamajiggy?

"Making nods" to history is not axiomatic to architecture or urban design.

Doing so may be effective in certain settings, sometimes, but it is never necessary and, as is the case in Philadelphia with the use of red brick, doing so quickly descends into simplistic, rote cliche - i.e., the worst kind of architecture. Of which we see red brick examples all over this city. It's the design equivalent of someone sticking a banjo riff into a pop song to invoke a fake sense of rustic folksiness.

As someone who loves all the red brick in Philadelphia, I will agree that as much as I love it in theory, I end up really disliking it in most contemporary contexts. There are a few examples when I think red brick looks good in new developments such as the former shirt corner building at 3rd and market and I don't think it is any coincidence that the materials on that building were top notch and every single brick was hand laid. It just looks so different when brick is made in pre-fabricated panels and I think it looks terrible. Even in cases when red brick is hand laid, I still think it looks bad on many modern buildings. Something about the red brick that is used in new buildings is just too perfect and uniform in shape and color, it creates a totally different effect, than the much more human and imperfect brick that was used in actual colonial buildings.

I don't mind "nods" to architecture's past. In fact most architecture in the world dating back 1,000 years or so has been nodding back to something or another, not everything must be modern. Some of the oldest buildings in Philadelphia are nodding back to ancient greek, roman, and even egyptian buildings. The problem with a nod back to Philadelphia's Colonial Past is that so much of that colonial past remains here today and so the modern building is forced to be compared with the authentic article and always comes up short. The Second Bank on Chestnut Street looks great in Philadelphia, but if it was next to an actual still standing Parthenon, it probably wouldn't look very good in comparison.

The other problem with most of these nods back to Philadelphia's Colonial Past, is that they're not really referencing our past as much as trying to create a whole scale recreation of it. If you go to Franklin Court, the layout of the site and the Museum there is clearly inspired by our colonial past but they also created something new and exciting. The Museum of the American Revolution on the other is just a poor replication of colonial style.

In regards to this building, the red brick just doesn't fit. The yellow brick, the design, really everything about that concept seems to fit so naturally with the tower above it. The red brick base just looks so disjointed and separate from the tower and that's one of my pet peeves.