PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread IX

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by summersm343

I think if they build out the small parking lot facing 5th Street with more office/industrial space, retail, and/or green space, and put in a street in between the building and the parking lot to the south of the property (for the parking lot to eventually be developed in the future), then I think they have a winning design here.

http://kirkfromm.com/featured-architectural-illustrations

Agreed.

To my eye it looks like they're retaining the southern 1/3-2/3 of the DM warehouse (and repurposing into idk a warehouse club?), while redeveloping the northernmost part of the property into something that actually properly faces Spring Garden.

The south side of the warehouse is actually the former Noble Street easement. The active plan for the area proposes replatting it, possibly paired with Willow.

[summersm343]

A.C. Moore to open its first downtown store in Philly

As yet another testament of how hot the retail real estate market has become in Center City, consider the evolution of the Land Title Building.

That's where A.C. Moore - the arts and crafts retail chain with 141 stores in the eastern United States - will open its first urban location in the country. The company and landlord to the Land Title Building signed a lease on 5:15 pm Thursday.

The new, prototypical store will occupy 30,000 square feet at 100 S. Broad Street, considered the city's largest office space building and on one of Center City's busiest intersections.

A.C. Moore has plans to make the Philly store its new flagship and a showpiece given its prime location.

Read more here:
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/re...ens_its_first_urban_store_in_Philly.html

[Mikieman]

20161013_092721_HDR by , on Flickr

20161013_092726_HDR by , on Flickr

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by summersm343

A.C. Moore to open its first downtown store in Philly



Read more here:
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/re...ens_its_first_urban_store_in_Philly.html

Saw this the other day. It's great news. I was worried this storefront would sit vacant for awhile.

[jsbrook]

Just curious, do people think Philadelphia can command condo prices that enable a non-church backed developer to build a beautiful limestone building like some of the buildings that are going up in New York? I am growing weary of all the glass and am far from wowed by most of the residential-only buildings going up. We're doing better with our commercial, mixed use, and hotel/partial hotel buildings.

[1487]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Just curious, do people think Philadelphia can command condo prices that enable a non-church backed developer to build a beautiful limestone building like some of the buildings that are going up in New York? I am growing weary of all the glass and am far from wowed by most of the residential-only buildings going up. We're doing better with our commercial, mixed use, and hotel/partial hotel buildings.

a better question might be how many modern residential buildings going up in the US are clad in stone or faux masonry materials. My guess would be very few. The buildings you see going up in Philly very much resemble what is being built in higher growth cities in the south and west. It's sort of way things generally work unless its a very upscale or special project.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by 1487

a better question might be how many modern residential buildings going up in the US are clad in stone or faux masonry materials. My guess would be very few. The buildings you see going up in Philly very much resemble what is being built in higher growth cities in the south and west. It's sort of way things generally work unless its a very upscale or special project.

I know. That is what I'm saying. Do we have the market to support a very upscale or special project? Obviously 500 Walnut is ultra luxury, but I don't think the exterior design is particularly impressive. How much would the cost be elevated had it been a legit Stern limestone building? What is the real cost of these buildings and I suppose the faux imitations too like 30 Park Place in New York? Perhaps it is largely a matter of taste as well and not purely a cost issue. But I would certainly like to see more new construction buildings like these in Philly. Also, I thing stone can be modern or at least timeless and classic. A building doesn't have to emulate past architectural styles because it is not glass.

[rduffy5]

Anybody know what happened to the Society Hill Playhouse lot that Toll Bros ended up deciding to not build on?

http://www.phillymag.com/property/2016/06/01/toll-drops-plans-for-society-hill-playhouse-site/


Also, does anyone know what's being built at the old Suit Corner building at 3rd and Market?

[Hrytsyu]

I perceive the popularity of glass cladding to be a function of expense, but also of market demand. Many prospective occupants are interested in "sweeping views". That type of amenity is more readily achieved in a glass-clad fascia.

[McBane]

Passing by 1601 Vine this weekend, I was also thinking about building styles and materials. I prefer buildings that are designed according to current styles. In 2016, architects should be designing modern buildings, not trying to replicate what was popular in the 19th century. 99 out of 100 times, traditional buildings don't work. Those buildings were crafted when limestone and brick were cheap and put together on-site by skilled craftsman (paid peanuts), not pre-assembled in China or wherever.

Further, I like architectural diversity. Philadelphia has so many wonderful pre-war buildings. But we should be expanding our building stock and moving forward, not stuck in the olden days.

Plus - in my book at least - nothing beats an ultra modern building standing right next to a traditional one. That's why the view of the Cira Center complex standing against the Post Office and 30th Street Station looks so great and why, when complete, the Bridge will look so cool standing against a sea of 19th century buildings. Conversely, when you have a faux traditional building next to the real thing, it makes the impostor look all the more obvious. Exhibit A: Symphony House. No one is mistaking that for a true 1920's tower, not with the PNB Building, the Bellevue, etc. as its neighbors.

All that said, 1601 Vine is a very, very rare exception, in that it the developer took the expense to actually make it look like something from the early 20th century. But, given the choice between a stellar traditional building vs something like Mandeville Place (RIP), I personally would always chose the latter. The reason being that we already have numerous handsome limestone buildings but very few truly striking modern ones.

As far as modern buildings today, I agree that too many of them are unimaginative glass boxes (and may times sprinkled with too much cheap paneling). But I think with a limited budget, the plain glass box will usually look better than the pre-cast brick/stone faux traditional building. One thing that could help the modern glass box might be to mix up the colors a bit. Is the steel blue glass as prevalent in other cities or is that a Philly thing? That's one reason I really like RATC and the PNC Building and looking forward to the reddish hued Schuylkill Yards buildings.

[McBane]

Did anyone catch this?

Kimmel purchasing Merriam Theater from University of the Arts, will likely spur more real estate deals

For the University of the Arts, selling the building is key to a series of anticipated real estate deals and partnerships that the school hopes will eventually result in a new mixed-use building with a smaller performance venue and student dorms.

The university owns several buildings on and just off Broad Street, and landing a new site might involve a series of transactions, Yager said. The university is not leaving its John Haviland-designed classical-façade building at Broad and Pine Streets, and any new facility would be in the same general area.

Yager said most of the proceeds from the sale will go toward a comprehensive campaign to construct a new building for the University of the Arts. The size, program, and location of that new facility are not set, he said, but he would like to see it include "a proper performance space of about 450 seats for dance, theater, and music for teaching and performing," plus dorms.

[Justin7]

Originally Posted by MetaldDeth81

What I could glean from the HTML source....

** USEFUL TIP FOR PBJ:
1. open/ivew HTML source (CTRL-U in both Chrome/Firefox.. I'm not sure about Safari or IE)
2. Search for "content__segment"..
3. You will find the full article content hidden ;-) !!!

I'm just going to post this and leave it up to others to decide whether or not it is moral to use (and to figure out what it is if you don't already know):

@namespace url(http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml);
@-moz-document domain("www.bizjournals.com") {
  .js .fade{opacity:1 !important; display:block !important;}
  .paywall--premium{display:none !important;}
}

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by McBane

Passing by 1601 Vine this weekend, I was also thinking about building styles and materials. I prefer buildings that are designed according to current styles. In 2016, architects should be designing modern buildings, not trying to replicate what was popular in the 19th century. 99 out of 100 times, traditional buildings don't work. Those buildings were crafted when limestone and brick were cheap and put together on-site by skilled craftsman (paid peanuts), not pre-assembled in China or wherever.

Further, I like architectural diversity. Philadelphia has so many wonderful pre-war buildings. But we should be expanding our building stock and moving forward, not stuck in the olden days.

Plus - in my book at least - nothing beats an ultra modern building standing right next to a traditional one. That's why the view of the Cira Center complex standing against the Post Office and 30th Street Station looks so great and why, when complete, the Bridge will look so cool standing against a sea of 19th century buildings. Conversely, when you have a faux traditional building next to the real thing, it makes the impostor look all the more obvious. Exhibit A: Symphony House. No one is mistaking that for a true 1920's tower, not with the PNB Building, the Bellevue, etc. as its neighbors.

All that said, 1601 Vine is a very, very rare exception, in that it the developer took the expense to actually make it look like something from the early 20th century. But, given the choice between a stellar traditional building vs something like Mandeville Place (RIP), I personally would always chose the latter. The reason being that we already have numerous handsome limestone buildings but very few truly striking modern ones.

As far as modern buildings today, I agree that too many of them are unimaginative glass boxes (and may times sprinkled with too much cheap paneling). But I think with a limited budget, the plain glass box will usually look better than the pre-cast brick/stone faux traditional building. One thing that could help the modern glass box might be to mix up the colors a bit. Is the steel blue glass as prevalent in other cities or is that a Philly thing? That's one reason I really like RATC and the PNC Building and looking forward to the reddish hued Schuylkill Yards buildings.

"Modern" is a rather vague term (cf. "The Other Modern"), and is not the same as "Contemporary." Personally, I prefer evolution to revolution. We shouldn't be stuck in the past, but neither should we dismiss it. Standing on our forebears achievements is preferable to turning our backs on them or relegating them to "DWEM" status. It think that 1601 Vine resonates with people because it is a true evolutionary building, not a museum piece or cheap imitation, nor some non-contextual "statement" building.

[Knight Hospitaller]

"'Franklintown' Dream Renewed"
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/re..._dream_renewed_north_of_Center_City.html

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by McBane

Did anyone catch this?

Kimmel purchasing Merriam Theater from University of the Arts, will likely spur more real estate deals

Yeah, I saw that - sounds interesting. I wonder where they're looking to put a new building, and what the height will be.

[summersm343]

Financial-software firm Asset Map moves to Old City from suburbs

Read more here:
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/re...-Map-moves-to-Old-City-from-suburbs.html

[1487]

ZBA schedule shows a hearing on 11/2 for a 17 or 18 floor building at 1324 N. Broad

PERMIT FOR THE ERECTION OF AN ATTACHED STRUCTURE ( MAXIMUM HEIGHT 190' 1 ½ " ); FOR THE ERECTION OF A MARQUEE AT FRONT ( NO SIGN) FOR A VACANT COMMERCIAL SPACE AT FIRST FLOOR AND MULTI-FAMILY HOUSEHOLD LIVING ( 180 DWELLING UNITS ) FROM SECOND FLOOR THROUGH EVENTH ( 17TH ) FLOORS WITH FOURTEEN INTERIOR PARKING SPACES ( 14 SPACS) INCLUDING WITH ONE(1) ACCESSIBLE SPACE AT FIRST FLOOR REAR WITH SIXTY (60 ) BICYCLE SPACES IN AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE AND WITH TWO (2) LOADING SPACES IN AN UNCLOSED SPACES .NO SIGN ON THIS APPLICATION. SIZE AND LOCATION AS SHOWN IN THE APPLICATION

[summersm343]

^^ Sounds awesome

[jsbrook]

Agree that it's easier to do modern cheap and have it look reasonably decent. Modern architecture gets into trouble when it tries to add too many bells and whistles, haphazard paneling, etc... that makes no sense where it is placed. But a modern building can be done pretty cheaply, and it may be bland and uninspired but doesn't look bad. Traditional architecture, on the other hand, can look really terrible when skimping on materials and if not executed perfectly. Agree with much of the rest of this too.

Originally Posted by McBane

Passing by 1601 Vine this weekend, I was also thinking about building styles and materials. I prefer buildings that are designed according to current styles. In 2016, architects should be designing modern buildings, not trying to replicate what was popular in the 19th century. 99 out of 100 times, traditional buildings don't work. Those buildings were crafted when limestone and brick were cheap and put together on-site by skilled craftsman (paid peanuts), not pre-assembled in China or wherever.

Further, I like architectural diversity. Philadelphia has so many wonderful pre-war buildings. But we should be expanding our building stock and moving forward, not stuck in the olden days.

Plus - in my book at least - nothing beats an ultra modern building standing right next to a traditional one. That's why the view of the Cira Center complex standing against the Post Office and 30th Street Station looks so great and why, when complete, the Bridge will look so cool standing against a sea of 19th century buildings. Conversely, when you have a faux traditional building next to the real thing, it makes the impostor look all the more obvious. Exhibit A: Symphony House. No one is mistaking that for a true 1920's tower, not with the PNB Building, the Bellevue, etc. as its neighbors.

All that said, 1601 Vine is a very, very rare exception, in that it the developer took the expense to actually make it look like something from the early 20th century. But, given the choice between a stellar traditional building vs something like Mandeville Place (RIP), I personally would always chose the latter. The reason being that we already have numerous handsome limestone buildings but very few truly striking modern ones.

As far as modern buildings today, I agree that too many of them are unimaginative glass boxes (and may times sprinkled with too much cheap paneling). But I think with a limited budget, the plain glass box will usually look better than the pre-cast brick/stone faux traditional building. One thing that could help the modern glass box might be to mix up the colors a bit. Is the steel blue glass as prevalent in other cities or is that a Philly thing? That's one reason I really like RATC and the PNC Building and looking forward to the reddish hued Schuylkill Yards buildings.

[Mr Saturn64]

1601 Vine is definitely understandable, given its proximity to the Mormon Temple, also built in traditional style. Plus, I like that the tallest building north of the Vine Street Expressway (assuming it's taller than Morgan Hall at Temple) would be built in that style. I find it likely that taller buildings will be built around Logan Square and 1601 Vine in the coming years, making it a pioneer of sorts. I don't know how tall they will get, but I like a traditional building making the move and being the first. Maybe it's just me.

But regardless of style, the bland glass boxes are generally good for a skyline, as they can glorify the better buildings, and make the skyline as a whole easier to look at. For instance, 1818 Market. It's a 500-foot box, but yet it still fits into the skyline as a whole. Plus, the older boxy buildings show the evolution of a skyline over time.