PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread IX

[mcgrath618]

Originally Posted by McBane

Looking back at that intersection, seems like a shame that the beautiful Nelson building is facing demolition (but more likely facadectomy) while the ho-hum Ritz building will remain untouched. I really thought it was the Ritz that was to be demolished.

But I'm not too concerned. 1706 Rittenhouse was okay, 500 Walnut is nicer and I have no doubt the new tower will be another step up.

This is a great location, and his designs have gotten consistently better.
I am excited for this announcement.

[summersm343]

Developers pin their hopes on new Market East luxury digs and a lot more

Read more here:
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/re...-a-lot-more-save-East-Market-Street.html

[Mr Saturn64]

I don't know if this is the right place for this, but Billy Penn has been covered in scaffolding again.

[skyscraper]

Originally Posted by Mr Saturn64

I don't know if this is the right place for this, but Billy Penn has been covered in scaffolding again.

I can remember back in the 1980s, Billy had been covered in scaffolding for so long that when it was becoming time for the renovation to end, someone was selling buttons that read "Save our historic scaffolding!"

[summersm343]

Philly is robotics hub of the East Coast

Read more here: http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/201...ics_hub_of_the_East_Coast.html?mobi=true

[EastSideHBG]

Bill would break Delaware River height limits for S. Philly high-rise project
Updated: MAY 15, 2017 — 11:43 AM EDT

Councilman Mark Squilla has proposed legislation that would boost the permitted height of buildings along the Delaware River as part of a plan for a new cluster of residential towers and townhouses on the South Philadelphia waterfront.

The ordinance Squilla introduced at Thursday’s City Council session would tweak the Central Delaware Overlay zoning district to include new “height bonuses” for projects that integrate stormwater-management features and throughways between major streets.

While the legislation would apply to the entire waterfront-area overlay bounded by Oregon and Allegheny Avenues, it was motivated by K4 Associates LLC’s “Liberty on the River” proposal, which includes 10 high-rises on a waterside parcel between Washington Avenue and Reed Street.

K4 attorney Stephen Pollock, who worked with city planning officials to devise the proposed zoning change, said it will help “allow a new neighborhood to be developed that will continue to attract people down to the waterfront.”

But critics are already attacking the legislation, saying it disregards compromises among neighborhood groups, property owners and open-space advocates that yielded the existing four-year-old overlay, which aims to keep waterfront building heights in line with those of surrounding neighborhoods while evenly spreading population density along the river.

“Each of the points of the overlay that’s currently in place was hard fought,” said Joe Schiavo, vice-chair of the Central Delaware Advocacy Group, a coalition of river-adjacent neighborhood associations. “There was a logic behind every decision made.”

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/re...s-philly-high-rise-project-20170515.html

[Larry King]

Good move by squilla. Now let's get out of the way and see if they can make it happen. Maybe one tower at a time

[Boku]

A crazy proposal by a developer with little experience, whose attorney likens the zoning change to civil rights legislation...

[1487]

Originally Posted by Boku

A crazy proposal by a developer with little experience, whose attorney likens the zoning change to civil rights legislation...

yeah it's hard to believe this has any shot at becoming reality for a # of reasons.

[Urbanthusiat]

This is a bait and switch. The developer will have made a huge gain just by getting this site rezoned. I mean, good for them, but this doesn't seem like a realistic proposal.

[jjv007]

Originally Posted by EastSideHBG

Bill would break Delaware River height limits for S. Philly high-rise project
Updated: MAY 15, 2017 — 11:43 AM EDT

Councilman Mark Squilla has proposed legislation that would boost the permitted height of buildings along the Delaware River as part of a plan for a new cluster of residential towers and townhouses on the South Philadelphia waterfront.

The ordinance Squilla introduced at Thursday’s City Council session would tweak the Central Delaware Overlay zoning district to include new “height bonuses” for projects that integrate stormwater-management features and throughways between major streets.

While the legislation would apply to the entire waterfront-area overlay bounded by Oregon and Allegheny Avenues, it was motivated by K4 Associates LLC’s “Liberty on the River” proposal, which includes 10 high-rises on a waterside parcel between Washington Avenue and Reed Street.

K4 attorney Stephen Pollock, who worked with city planning officials to devise the proposed zoning change, said it will help “allow a new neighborhood to be developed that will continue to attract people down to the waterfront.”

But critics are already attacking the legislation, saying it disregards compromises among neighborhood groups, property owners and open-space advocates that yielded the existing four-year-old overlay, which aims to keep waterfront building heights in line with those of surrounding neighborhoods while evenly spreading population density along the river.

“Each of the points of the overlay that’s currently in place was hard fought,” said Joe Schiavo, vice-chair of the Central Delaware Advocacy Group, a coalition of river-adjacent neighborhood associations. “There was a logic behind every decision made.”

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/re...s-philly-high-rise-project-20170515.html

Yes please! "Spreading density." Smh such BS. Just a way to prevent development. Stop trying to prevent organic growth. And this neighborhood 🞵🞵🞵🞵 is retarded. Absolute NIMBY speak. This is a city, of course it fits in the environment lmao.

[City Wide]

Originally Posted by Boku

A crazy proposal by a developer with little experience, whose attorney likens the zoning change to civil rights legislation...

I can't see why the City would even consider this. Its so oblivious that this is just a request to make the property worth more money. My feeling is the more the property sells for the less interesting whatever ends up getting built will probably be-------more $$$ for land equals less $$$$ for actual building. What's wrong with getting a variance like most projects? With a variance a time limit can be attached. There was a lot of time and energy spent on coming up wit the existing zoning overlay, why change it now? Just to line some hole in the wall, fake developers pockets.

[OslPhlWasChi]

Originally Posted by jjv007

Yes please! "Spreading density." Smh such BS. Just a way to prevent development. Stop trying to prevent organic growth. And this neighborhood 🞵🞵🞵🞵 is retarded. Absolute NIMBY speak. This is a city, of course it fits in the environment lmao.

Hypothetical:
In one scenario, 1000 units are developed over 10 square blocks.
In another scenario, 1000 units are developed over 1 square block.
In both scenarios, 1000 units of demand are developed.

Yes there is such concepts of NIMBYism and being anti-development. But 'spreading density' in itself is not either of those things.

[1487]

Originally Posted by jjv007

Yes please! "Spreading density." Smh such BS. Just a way to prevent development. Stop trying to prevent organic growth. And this neighborhood 🞵🞵🞵🞵 is retarded. Absolute NIMBY speak. This is a city, of course it fits in the environment lmao.

well I think there is some logic to what they are saying about the height limits. It's an attempt to avoid ending up with more buildings like Waterfront square- isolated high rises that do nothing to add to the urban feel of the waterfront.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by jjv007

Yes please! "Spreading density." Smh such BS. Just a way to prevent development. Stop trying to prevent organic growth. And this neighborhood 🞵🞵🞵🞵 is retarded. Absolute NIMBY speak. This is a city, of course it fits in the environment lmao.

No. The notion of spreading density is not inherently NIMBY and can actually be good city planning in some circumstances. I haven't assessed the situation in enough depth to know if I agree with the existing zoning scheme for the riverfront, but the rationale as applied here isn't crazy. That said I'd be perfectly ok with a variance for a developer who is willing and able to do this. I'm very skeptical of this particular no-track-record company. Seems likely to simply up the value of the land, allowing them to sell it to a speculator. Who then sits on the parcel for decades without doing anything (exactly what has happened time and time again on the Delaware waterfront).

[McBane]

Originally Posted by City Wide

I can't see why the City would even consider this. Its so oblivious that this is just a request to make the property worth more money. My feeling is the more the property sells for the less interesting whatever ends up getting built will probably be-------more $$$ for land equals less $$$$ for actual building. What's wrong with getting a variance like most projects? With a variance a time limit can be attached. There was a lot of time and energy spent on coming up wit the existing zoning overlay, why change it now? Just to line some hole in the wall, fake developers pockets.

That was my first thought. That this is a BS bid from a nobody developer to try to increase the value of their holdings. It would be great if the variance could be granted in a way that it became null and void after the property changed hands.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by McBane

That was my first thought. That this is a BS bid from a nobody developer to try to increase the value of their holdings. It would be great if the variance could be granted in a way that it became null and void after the property changed hands.

Why can't it? Couldn't a zoning amendment be temporary? The property is rezoned but reverts to original zoning if the specified project isn't commenced by X date? I'm not a zoning expert. But property uses, authorized by permits, can be temporary. Like the 21st and Market planned property can only be used as a parking lot for 4 years.

[jjv007]

Originally Posted by OslPhlWasChi

Hypothetical:
In one scenario, 1000 units are developed over 10 square blocks.
In another scenario, 1000 units are developed over 1 square block.
In both scenarios, 1000 units of demand are developed.

Yes there is such concepts of NIMBYism and being anti-development. But 'spreading density' in itself is not either of those things.

Oh I agree with you, but you could also have 10,000 units in 10 square blocks by your example. Sure, that's far-fetched, but it's not like it can't fill out over time. And it's different if the city had been successful at developing the waterfront in general. Part of my issue is due to the fact that there has literally been failure after failure here for so many years.

[jjv007]

Originally Posted by 1487

well I think there is some logic to what they are saying about the height limits. It's an attempt to avoid ending up with more buildings like Waterfront square- isolated high rises that do nothing to add to the urban feel of the waterfront.

I know what you're saying, but nothing the city has proposed to "spread density" has worked out remotely. The waterfront is an area on which they've mostly failed. There's no harm imo in letting a developer run or attempt a somewhat isolated project if they can at least bring some development. If the circumstances were different, I would be more inclined to understand the city's mentality.
If we have enough Waterfront Square-esque projects that tie together cohesively, then that can create a greater urban environment than any artificially induced height restrictions could imo.

[OslPhlWasChi]

Originally Posted by jjv007

Oh I agree with you, but you could also have 10,000 units in 10 square blocks by your example. Sure, that's far-fetched, but it's not like it can't fill out over time. And it's different if the city had been successful at developing the waterfront in general. Part of my issue is due to the fact that there has literally been failure after failure here for so many years.

Well not exactly because there is a market demand piece. If the goal is occupied units as opposed to vacant units, and you only have 1000 units of demand, than you have 9000 vacant units. To the city that is a failure and the developer would agree too. So therefore there is no scenario (within the relatively near term) where you can have 10,000 units in10 blocks.