PHILADELPHIA | Lowrise/General Developments Thread

[1487]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

Hands down, upper Germantown (particularly streets like Tulpehocken, Walnut Lane, Washington Lane, and Johnson Street west of Germantown Avenue) has some of the top architecture, park and transit infrastructure, and natural environmental beauty anywhere in the region. Closer in to Center City it would obviously be hot hot hot. Historically, its proximity to ever-crappy Lower Germantown (on the other side of Chelten east of Wayne Avenue) and affiliated criminal element has dampened its appeal, I think, but perhaps that is changing. Hopefully. Germantown's fall over the last 50 years is one of the great tragedies of Philadelphia in the 20th Century in my opinion.

Germantown falls a bit short in terms of mainstream retail amenities and services, perhaps because of its lower density and its being kind of below-the-radar. But hopefully that may change as well as if the neighborhood gains popularity. As it should: it really is unique and in many places gorgeous.

Germantown isn't even one of the highest crime areas in the city. Not sure about the "affiliated criminal element" or whatever, but crime isn't the primary problem there. One issue with Germantown is the older homes are very high maintenance and lower income people can't keep them up and there has been a lot of population loss so there is a decent amount of vacancy. There are also many abandoned industrial properties that have not be repurposed which has contributed to the blight and disinvestment. Mt. Airy has not been depopulated to the same degree and has maintained consistency (for the most part) so it's a much easier sell to people who aren't looking for a work in progress neighborhood.

[1487]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

That's my point. I always thought the dividing line was Chelten. But it's not that simple. Last night, I drove up and down School House, Coulter, Penn, Winona...all are east of Chelten. I drove by some top dollar renovations on School House last night that looked like they belonged in Bryn Mawr, not Germantown. I was so dumbfounded by one house I drove by on the block of School House between Wissahickon and Morris that I had to circle the block to see it again. The whole area sort of feels like Pelham Road in West Mount Airy from 7 or 8 years ago. I remember driving down Pelham and thinking it was one of the most idyllic streets in the city, and literally, 80% of the houses looked like they were falling down. Now, it's untouchable.

Anyways...Germantown has other curiosities as well, as I'm learning. Chelten itself has actually improved immensely, especially between Wissahickon and Wayne. From there, it's only a few more blocks to Germantown. And ironically, you would think Germantown Avenue east of Chelten would be worse than Germantown Avenue west of Chelten, but weirdly, the blocks east of Chelten are almost idyllic. As for businesses, the new upscale pizza place (Pizzeria Nonna) opened east of Chelten on Germantown Saturday night. They had to close early because demand was so high they ran out of dough half way through the first night. Hopefully that's a good sign of things to come for the area.

You really can't make many generalizations about that part of the city. The quality of the streets is all over the map and there is no such thing as a clear dividing line. There are many nice streets north (or is that west?) of Chelten and Wissahickon. When you drive up Wayne Ave beyond Chelten towards Lincoln drive there are numerous older apt buildings that are well kept and almost all the adjacent blocks (if you head to your right) are nice. Then there are nice streets parallel to Wayne Ave such as Greene Street, MaCallum, Cherokee, etc. all west of Germantown Ave. A renovated house is going to sell for $200k-$250k in those areas. A flip on Johnson street recently went under agreement and this house is near Chew. Many homes have been or are undergoing renovation on Johnson Street near the Cliveden historic site.

[CentralGrad258]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

I just bought a house as well. It's my second...but I'm not trading up per se as my original is rented out and I don't want to sell it. Thus, was looking for a fixer with good bones that was/is livable but had upside. Think in the sub-$125K range in places like East Kensington, South Kensington, Norris Square, Point Breeze, West Philly, etc.

I got outbid on the first 3 houses I put an offer on. 1 was at 56th & Baltimore, 1 was on the 2200 block of North Howard, and 1 was on S 26th Street in Grays Ferry. In my price range, I was being outbid by cash buyers who were planning to flip, I think. Though I've been watching all price points in a number of neighborhoods and I can tell you there are random hot pockets all over the city. Ex: If something is on the market for more than 20 days in East Falls, it's the exception, not the rule. A lot there is going under contract in a week. Anything under $125K south of Norris Square in South Kensington last days. All of a sudden, Port Richmond is on fire. Etc.

Anyways...to make a long story short, I ended up buying in West Germantown. I was reluctant at first but I've been at the house a lot cleaning it out and doing demo and have met a bunch of the neighbors. In short, Germantown is a lot cooler than it gets credit for being. Add to that, the neighbors I've met are far friendlier than anywhere else I've lived in Philadelphia. I've been driving around a lot in Germantown since I went into contract on the house and I am stunned by some of what I'm seeing, in terms of the quality of the renovations going on and the amount of investment in the neighborhood. It's just not as obvious as in other places closer to CC because the neighborhood is not as densely populated.

Our realtor lives in West Germantown and is very high on the area. We looked around a little bit, definitely feels on the way up, just wanted something a bit more established an walkable, so Mt Airy fits the bill a little better.

As far as the other areas you mentioned, my current place is in Fishtown, so no surprise that East and South Kenzo are blowing up, that's just natural spillover (especially East Kenzo since it has pretty much identical amenities). Port Richmond getting hot has been speculated for years, my big issue with the hood (which is lovely btw) is the El access is lacking so I don't ever see it getting to the same point. But spillover will happen.

Funny you should mention East Falls. That was definitely one of the areas we targeted in the beginning, but whenever we went out there it felt off. There are some really nice blocks with well maintained tudors, but it felt isolated, hard to get around (super steep) and not a lot of stuff to walk to. Too bad, because there's some nice housing stock and the prices were generally lower than Mt Airy. We liked the Wissahickon micro-hood a little better actually, but nothing that worked really came up.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by Urbanthusiat

It's sick that the old please touch museum doesn't have historic designation, it was one of Philly's most unique museums and a beautiful building to boot. I'd certainly say that that is "historic." I mean, I usually lean pro-development, but to knock this down for townhomes is criminal. It's buildings like these that have a cool story behind them that make Philly unique and not Anywhere U.S.A.

This is a beautiful building yes but is everyone pissed because this building is getting demolished or because it is being demolished to make way for townhomes? In other words, if this building was making way for a 10 story high rise would that be okay? What about a 20 story or 30 story building? It seems that the NIMBYs we hate so much oppose demolition no matter what. But in this instance, I get the feeling that people are annoyed not because of the demolition but because of what we're getting in place.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by McBane

I get the feeling that people are annoyed not because of the demolition but because of what we're getting in place.

Great point. I agree completely. It's a good building. Not indispensable in my opinion, potentially worth demo'ing for a substantial, well designed replacement; but certainly not worth demolishing for ticky-tacky wood-frame townhouses that most likely won't even be around in another 50 years.

You'd think the builders would explore cost effective ways to incorporate that tremendous masonry base into their housing development plan. It's nine bays wide, which would appear to easily accommodate 3 side-by-side townhouses, and the masonry frame would seem to be able to support a one story modern overbuild easily.

Many (I'd bet a majority) of these townhouse developers are tasteless suburban quick-buck artist builders with zero interest or awareness about sound urban development or historic adaptive reuse (which can, in certain instances, be far more cost effective than the kind of wholesale demo and replacement that seems to be envisioned here).

I don't understand a building code that enables easy demo of structures like this while permitting slapping up of insanely hideous super cheap stucco-and-siding-over-2x4 lean-to sheds in their place, all while managing to make it very difficult for real quality developers to do more substantial higher quality stuff (think how long it took to get 205 Race started, eg).

By making developers of quality large projects jump through endless hoops to get to the finish line, it seems like the code by default channels most developers to pursue the path of least resistance and put up small-scale provisional crap like this. Pretty backward.

[McBane]

I agree. It's a handsome building and townhomes on this site is definitely a downgrade. But let's not fall into that knee-jerk NIMBY reaction in which every old building needs to be protected. To be sure, railing against demolition of an old building because you don't like what's being built in its place is straight out of the NIMBY playbook.

I don't like that strategy when historic preservation is used as a cover against high rise development (like in the case of Rindlaub's Row a decade ago) and so I'd be a hypocrite if I came out against the demolition of this building because its being replaced by townhomes.

And it's actually that very logic in which LSNA is allowing the demolition to proceed. I'm sure that LSNA would be in a tizzy about losing this "historic" structure if the developer had proposed something tall. It's bullshit.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by McBane

This is a beautiful building yes but is everyone pissed because this building is getting demolished or because it is being demolished to make way for townhomes? In other words, if this building was making way for a 10 story high rise would that be okay? What about a 20 story or 30 story building? It seems that the NIMBYs we hate so much oppose demolition no matter what. But in this instance, I get the feeling that people are annoyed not because of the demolition but because of what we're getting in place.

A bit of both, I think. As Summers pointed out, townhomes (so many of which are generic crap, even if billed as "luxury") more than likely foreclose the possibility of incorporating this beautiful facade into the project. Some sort of multi-unit building could probably make use of the existing structure. When the main value of a building is its presence on the street, I'm not at all opposed to facadectomies. I doubt there's much of interest on the inside, since it was configured as a children's museum (my kids didn't come along until after it moved to Memorial Hall). Exteriors like this aren't going to come along again until craftsmanship weighs a bit more in the balance.

[Arch+Eng]

I would just convert the building into townhouses.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by Arch+Eng

I would just convert the building into townhouses.

If that's doable, it's fine with me. Willy-nilly demo of beautiful, quality buildings is what bothers me.

[VikingDutchman]

What's the zoning here... What else but town-homes would be possible by right?

Far too many townhomes are going up in core areas like this where something more would be a better choice, but often the existing zoning means the choice is 8 Million dollar townhomes OR 3 story apartment building.

Perhaps the City could jump in, supercharge the zoning in exchange that anyone looking to take advantage of it would have to retain the facade?

Oh, silly me... there I go suggesting the Council do something useful... Perhaps if the zoning also required a statue of Clarke holding a giant sword while riding a dragon be built?

[1487]

Originally Posted by VikingDutchman

What's the zoning here... What else but town-homes would be possible by right?

Far too many townhomes are going up in core areas like this where something more would be a better choice, but often the existing zoning means the choice is 8 Million dollar townhomes OR 3 story apartment building.

Perhaps the City could jump in, supercharge the zoning in exchange that anyone looking to take advantage of it would have to retain the facade?

Oh, silly me... there I go suggesting the Council do something useful... Perhaps if the zoning also required a statue of Clarke holding a giant sword while riding a dragon be built?

If this area was surrounded by townhouses your complaints would be more valid. You act as if this area is dominated by midrise apt buildings. The area to the west of this is primarily 3 story townhomes. Philadelphia has many instances of townhomes being only blocks from high rise districts- this area is one of them. I also think its interesting that people are in favor of council meddling in how private development is done (or not done) when it fits their agenda. I'm not sure its a good idea for Council to be intervening on projects like this just because some people lament the loss of an older building. The market is largely dictating what you get here. This isn't really a big rental neighborhood and it's also one of the few areas in Philly where you can sell a rowhouse for over $1M dollars- that's a very big factor in what a developer would be interested in at this site.

[wondertwinalpha]

I combed through the LSNA minutes going back to September of 2014 when the building was to be sold. Apparently the building was sold to Toll Bros. in the February 2015 time frame after some legal issues with the owner of the building. They wanted to put condos there, 5 stories, retail, underground parking. Near neighbors said no (Feb. 2015). They modified the plan and near neighbors said no again (May 2015). Months pass, this eight townhome idea was presented(Sept. 2015), new developer it seems: US Construction Homes and JKRP Architects (Dec. 2015), and near neighbors approved it (Nov. 2015) but NDA needed (April 2016). As far as I can tell, demolition was part of the Toll plan all along. The height limit here is apparently 38 feet so a taller project would have needed variances.

http://www.lsnaphilly.org/about-lsna/board-minutes

[VikingDutchman]

Originally Posted by 1487

If this area was surrounded by townhouses your complaints would be more valid. You act as if this area is dominated by midrise apt buildings. The area to the west of this is primarily 3 story townhomes. Philadelphia has many instances of townhomes being only blocks from high rise districts- this area is one of them. I also think its interesting that people are in favor of council meddling in how private development is done (or not done) when it fits their agenda. I'm not sure its a good idea for Council to be intervening on projects like this just because some people lament the loss of an older building. The market is largely dictating what you get here. This isn't really a big rental neighborhood and it's also one of the few areas in Philly where you can sell a rowhouse for over $1M dollars- that's a very big factor in what a developer would be interested in at this site.

I have no problem with the presence of existing homes in the area. They're there, built, it's done.

But this is extremely valuable real estate, very convenience to downtown office, retail and transportation options. And a beautiful old building that would be a great basis for denser building is being destroyed in what is basically a downscaling of the lot. This is the same stuff we see in DC, Brooklyn, Chicago's Northside, etc... where people build townhouses in place of old mixed use buildings (or, sometimes, 2 old smaller rowhouses). My preference would of course be for no spot-zoning in situations like this. Instead the whole area (and area's like it all across Center City) should be rezoned.

You know what it tells you when rowhouses can be sold for $1M? That the land is valuable enough for denser zoning, and we're shortchanging the city and it's people by not providing it. We're contributing to housing price appreciation and missing out an opportunity to boost our city's population. If building densely were an option here, some folks might still opt to buy land like this and build single family homes on it. But something tells me that isn't what we're talking about here. Indeed it seems someone TRIED to build densely here, and was prevented from doing so.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by VikingDutchman

You know what it tells you when rowhouses can be sold for $1M? That the land is valuable enough for denser zoning, and we're shortchanging the city and it's people by not providing it. We're contributing to housing price appreciation and missing out an opportunity to boost our city's population.

Basically, all of Center City and much of University City was underzoned to please NIMBYs and to ensure that council people (*ahem* Clarke, Blackwell, Johnson *ahem*) would still be able to extract their pound of flesh from bigger developers

[Arch+Eng]

Any updates on Blatstein Manor?

[Urbanthusiat]

Naked Philly got renderings for the Please Touch townhomes. It's not horrible. Interesting the facade that I showed in the last post about it looks quite similar to the facade of the three townhomes replacing it. I wish they would make the upper windows have arches as a reference to old building. Actually, I'm not sure why they couldn't do a partial facadectomy and carefully take the column capitals and architrave from the current building and put them on the new homes. That might look tacky, however. There's more renderings at the link. http://www.ocfrealty.com/naked-philly/logan-square/we-got-renderings-for-the-please-touch-homes



vs. this

[Knight Hospitaller]

^^ If not cheapo materials, I agree these don't look half bad. However, they do make the demo seem that much more stupid. It sure looks like new construction replaces the old right down to the current dimensions. Unless there's some huge issue with the current building that we don't know about, they don't seem to know a marketing opportunity when they see one. Incorporating the current building - or just the facade - into this design would look pretty amazing, I think.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

However, they do make the demo seem that much more stupid. It sure looks like new construction replaces the old right down to the current dimensions.

Pretty ridiculous. By all appearances, the existing brick facade looks to be in great shape.

[iheartphilly]

Maybe it has something to do with overall costs, including facedectomy. For example, the rendering shows the rectangular windows which can be a non-custom item if they frame for it. To replace the windows in the original configuration will require customization. I know in old city it can cost up to $15k per window to do a customization. That being said, I'm against demoing it. I guess the developer thought it would be much easier to get in and out of the project and profit from it rather than be creative and find a building solution that works with the existing building. In any case, word on the street is that these homes start at $2M.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

Maybe it has something to do with overall costs, including facedectomy. For example, the rendering shows the rectangular windows which can be a non-custom item if they frame for it. To replace the windows in the original configuration will require customization. I know in old city it can cost up to $15k per window to do a customization. That being said, I'm against demoing it. I guess the developer thought it would be much easier to get in and out of the project and profit from it rather than be creative and find a building solution that works with the existing building. In any case, word on the street is that these homes start at $2M.

Trying to shave a few bucks in a project of this scale, at the expense of beauty and quality that could otherwise be saved, is, as I said, barbaric.