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

[Jawnadelphia]

What a welcomed surprised, I like this a lot.

2017 is beginning to look better--for the bigger projects, 400ft+:

CTC will be virtually completed.
W Hotel will rise.
1911 Walnut and 1910 Chestnut should begin.
Hopefully, we hear something on SLS.
Also, maybe an announcement re: Comcast's plans for future development.
And... 2100 Market as well??

Not bad at all.

[1487]

wow, it's more different that I first thought.

[Human Scale]

I like the old design better. More distinctive on the skyline, and matched 1910 Chestnut which made like a big brother little brother dynamic.

[1487]

^well that is ironic when you consider C Baker designed 1910 Chestnut and was brought in to help revise the design of 1911 Walnut. So the new design is the post Baker version of the tower.

[McBane]

I like the old design better as well, but overall, the change is not very dramatic. It's a bit more restrained and conservative but thankfully, hasn't morphed into a red brick throw-back tower. We're still getting a modern, Chicago-esque building that is the architect's (Solomon Cordwell Buenz and Associates) signature style The extensive use of concrete is similar to the St. James (same architects), though 1911 still retains a nice amount of glass. The base does seem to be improved BUT it appears that the retail component fronting Walnut has been reduced or eliminated.

The one thing I find curious is how the NIMBY's managed to get Southern Land to preserve the historic buildings on Sansom AND reduce the tower's height. Who was SLC's negotiator and what did SLC get in return? I know we all thought the no-brainer compromise was allow the originally proposed height and preserve the Sansom Street buildings.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by McBane

I like the old design better as well, but overall, the change is not very dramatic. It's a bit more restrained and conservative but thankfully, hasn't morphed into a red brick throw-back tower. We're still getting a modern, Chicago-esque building that is the architect's (Solomon Cordwell Buenz and Associates) signature style The extensive use of concrete is similar to the St. James (same architects), though 1911 still retains a nice amount of glass. The base does seem to be improved BUT it appears that the retail component fronting Walnut has been reduced or eliminated.

The one thing I find curious is how the NIMBY's managed to get Southern Land to preserve the historic buildings on Sansom AND reduce the tower's height. Who was SLC's negotiator and what did SLC get in return? I know we all thought the no-brainer compromise was allow the originally proposed height and preserve the Sansom Street buildings.

I think the retail portion has been reduced. In the original building, the little bumpout extension of Rittenhouse Plaza was razed and the space taken over by the new building. Now it remains as it, but it is shown as occupied, so I'm not sure if it was part of the purchase and will be integrated into the building/project (albeit the existing facade maintained).

As to your latter point, you have to recognize that SLC was negotiating with both the Resident's Association and the City. I don't believe either the original plan or this tower could have proceeded by right. The plan requires a zoning ordinance that allows more permissive zoning, and pursuant to the agreement, the Resident's Association has pledged to support this rather than oppose it. So, the concessions brokered support that will probably allow this tower to succeed. That said, it's hard to know what happened behind the scenes. There is not a dramatic difference in height, and it's hard to fathom that the original height was unacceptable to residents, but the new -- still quite tall height, which is much taller than anything else on the Square -- is somehow acceptable. Could be that SLC was for the height reduction on its own based on the anticipated market. Who knows.

[Mr Saturn64]

Honestly, I know I'm in the minority on this, but I don't mind the "red brick throwback tower" that McBane talks about. I don't think Ten Rittenhouse Square and the Symphony House are bad buildings. But for here, I'd take the glass tower we're hopefully getting any day of the week.

I also find it curious that the NIMBYs prevented the buildings on Sansom from being demolished, and yet the Boyd Theater still got knocked down. Priorities, NIMBYs!

[1487]

Originally Posted by Mr Saturn64

Honestly, I know I'm in the minority on this, but I don't mind the "red brick throwback tower" that McBane talks about. I don't think Ten Rittenhouse Square and the Symphony House are bad buildings. But for here, I'd take the glass tower we're hopefully getting any day of the week.

I also find it curious that the NIMBYs prevented the buildings on Sansom from being demolished, and yet the Boyd Theater still got knocked down. Priorities, NIMBYs!

I think what happened with the Boyd likely drummed up more opposition here. But the Boyd saga went on for years and the reality is was there was no operator looking to invest in that property as a theater. Economic reality isn't always pretty. The building would still be sitting there rotting.

[Jayfar]

Originally Posted by 1487

I think what happened with the Boyd likely drummed up more opposition here. But the Boyd saga went on for years and the reality is was there was no operator looking to invest in that property as a theater. Economic reality isn't always pretty. The building would still be sitting there rotting.

Not really accurate. That 11th hour $4.5 million pledge from a local foundation (which insisted on remaining anonymous until the deal was consumated) to buy the Boyd was quite real and and a very credible live theater operator was lined up. True facts. I'm sorry that I am precluded from offering more detail, but it's moot at this point anyway.

edit: corrected amount of foundation pledge

[1487]

Originally Posted by Jayfar

Not really accurate. That 11th hour $4 million pledge from a local foundation (which insisted on remaining anonymous until the deal was consumated) to buy the Boyd was quite real and and a very credible live theater operator was lined up. True facts. I'm sorry that I am precluded from offering more detail, but it's moot at this point anyway.

very possible, but $4M wouldn't have began to rehab the building in a proper way so what you would've ended up with was a project that would've been competing for subsidy dollars (along with so many others in Philly) to make the numbers work and thus a multi-year fund raising effort that may or may not not have panned out. There were no easy solutions to making that place work, especially when there is already a lot of competition amongst the numerous live performance venues in Center city. Let's not forget the Prince went under several years ago and that facility remains vacant. The majoriy of the old movie houses in Philly that are still standing are now low rent stores, churches or vacant. There just aren't many profitable uses for those buildings these days unless they can be used as a theater again. And that is questionable in many cases. I'm thinking it would've taken $10M+ to bring that interior back into form. Probably $15m+ to rehab entire facility including exterior and make it look decent.

[Jayfar]

Originally Posted by 1487

Let's not forget the Prince went under several years ago and that facility remains vacant.

NOT!

http://www.playbill.com/article/philadel...l-be-new-home-to-film-society-com-343720

http://princetheater.org/calendar/

[1487]

Originally Posted by Jayfar

NOT!

http://www.playbill.com/article/philadel...l-be-new-home-to-film-society-com-343720

http://princetheater.org/calendar/

was it closed at one point? Or did it change operators? It's always closed when I walk by but my mistake. Just one more reason the Boyd was going to face uphill battle to become a theater again.

[Jayfar]

Originally Posted by 1487

was it closed at one point? Or did it change operators? It's always closed when I walk by but my mistake. Just one more reason the Boyd was going to face uphill battle to become a theater again.

Yes and yes. The Wyncote Foundation put up $8 million for the Philadelphia Film Society to acquire the Prince.

Prince Music Theater bought by Philadelphia Film Society | Philly.com

[SJPhillyBoy]

More or less retail? I do not think it should have been reduced, but it does look like it has. What would be the logic to that? I hope it has not. Retail on the square is good.
It has to do with the little 3 story building to the right. It is included in the new rendering, but not the old.
The old version is also pushed back more off of the street. The outdoor seating on the old version would also be nice for that side of the square. There is no outdoor seating/dining on that side of the square. The new version is flush with the existing buildings.

Old


New

[summersm343]

New Renderings for 1911 Walnut Street

Article from Naked Philly:
http://www.ocfrealty.com/naked-philly/rittenhouse/new-renderings-for-1911-walnut-street

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by SJPhillyBoy

More or less retail? I do not think it should have been reduced, but it does look like it has. What would be the logic to that? I hope it has not. Retail on the square is good.
It has to do with the little 3 story building to the right. It is included in the new rendering, but not the old.
The old version is also pushed back more off of the street. The outdoor seating on the old version would also be nice for that side of the square. There is no outdoor seating/dining on that side of the square. The new version is flush with the existing buildings.

That 3-story building to the right is part of the Rittenhouse Plaza and not the 1911 Walnut site. IIRC a store called "Born Yesterday" inhabits it.

https://goo.gl/maps/QoDXm9E2htF2

[PhilliesPhan]

Originally Posted by TallCoolOne

What a welcomed surprised, I like this a lot.

2017 is beginning to look better--for the bigger projects, 400ft+:

CTC will be virtually completed.
W Hotel will rise.
1911 Walnut and 1910 Chestnut should begin.
Hopefully, we hear something on SLS.
Also, maybe an announcement re: Comcast's plans for future development.
And... 2100 Market as well??

Not bad at all.

Not to also mention that we should (hopefully) be hearing something about the huge surface parking lot bounded by 8th, 9th, Race, and Vine Streets. RFPs were due by December 14th, and the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority should be in the process of selecting a developer for that site.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

That 3-story building to the right is part of the Rittenhouse Plaza and not the 1911 Walnut site. IIRC a store called "Born Yesterday" inhabits it.

https://goo.gl/maps/QoDXm9E2htF2

No. It is a (presently) vacant 2 or 3 story bumpout connected to the main building/tower portion of Rittenhouse Plaza. Born Yesterday is next to it on the ground floor of the tower structure (was there last week). In the original rendering, the bumpout is razed and first floors of 1911 Walnut are flush with the tower of Rittenhouse Plaza. In the new renderings, the bumpout remains and is shown as filled, but isn't part of the new construction. I think it may be part of the acquisition, though, and part of the forthcoming 1911 Walnut.

[NYC2ATX]

This is truly an improvement IMO. I'm one of those that is really starting to tire of blue glass curtain walls; while FMC and CTC are wonderful and distinctive additions to a distinctive skyline (FMC with its unique form and CTC for its structural expressionism), the old design of this tower was really boring. It looked like something that could have been built anywhere, and might be more suited to a less dynamic and iconic city. Now for me, it incorporates just the right amount of non-glass facade elements and also borrows some architectural influences from the Rittenhouse Hotel, which I think we can agree is the quintessential Ritt Square high-rise.

I'd say aside from the loss of height (which is much less noticeable than I was expecting), it's a marked improvement.

[1487]

Originally Posted by NYC2ATX

This is truly an improvement IMO. I'm one of those that is really starting to tire of blue glass curtain walls; while FMC and CTC are wonderful and distinctive additions to a distinctive skyline (FMC with its unique form and CTC for its structural expressionism), the old design of this tower was really boring. It looked like something that could have been built anywhere, and might be more suited to a less dynamic and iconic city. Now for me, it incorporates just the right amount of non-glass facade elements and also borrows some architectural influences from the Rittenhouse Hotel, which I think we can agree is the quintessential Ritt Square high-rise.

I'd say aside from the loss of height (which is much less noticeable than I was expecting), it's a marked improvement.

It's more impressive than most of the recent residential buildings that have gone up. The only thing I really like better is the Alexander and perhaps Bridge. Of course the fact that it's much taller than either is a big plus.