PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread IX

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by summersm343

RFP has gone out from the city to developers for the building (and parking lot) at Broad and Lombard. They are requesting high density, mixed-use proposals. They will decide on finalists in September, and the winner by the end of the year.

More on this.

http://www.ocfrealty.com/naked-philly/rittenhouse/health-center-no-1-is-for-sale

I hope they preserve and incorporate the existing facade but seems doubtful.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by 1487

People should probably read the planphilly article before commenting. I know that's a lot of work, but it would make the comments more relevant. There is probably no shot that what he proposed will be enacted as presented. And this is not a major issue in most of the city regardless of what Clarke or his opponents claim. I will say that the charging for street parking idea proposed by the anti-car people quoted in the PlanPhilly article is a nonstarter. You talk about starting a revolt and mass exodus to the burbs....

People were not speculating on whether or not it will happen but rather stating that it is a terrible idea. Also... we should lay of Darrell Clark because he does not have the political skill to enact the terrible thing he proposed? Makes sense.

[SEFTA]

Originally Posted by cafeguy

How tall does zoning let them go...and how tall does the market likely let them go?

It's right at a transit station and, I would think it gets a height variance for that also.

[wally]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

More on this.

http://www.ocfrealty.com/naked-philly/rittenhouse/health-center-no-1-is-for-sale

I hope they preserve and incorporate the existing facade but seems doubtful.

FYI, this building is implicated in the Police Headquarters kerfuffle. The 4601 Market Campus included the police (currently in the roundhouse), the Medical Examiner's Office (currently right next to the Penn/CHOP health megaplex), and the city's public health laboratory (in the building noted in this article). All three sites represent lucrative development opportunities and could fetch a premium for the city. After 4601 fell through, I'm sure they were scrambling to find another location for the lab. Not sure where they'll end up or if it will be as good of a space as they would have had at 4601.

[Mark in Mount Airy]

Article in today's Washington Post about companies relocating from the suburbs to cities. Examples given are mostly Midwestern.

"As companies relocate to big cities, suburban towns are left scrambling"
By Jonathan O'Connell July 16

OAK BROOK, Ill. — Visitors to the McDonald’s wooded corporate campus enter on a driveway named for the late chief executive Ray Kroc, then turn onto Ronald Lane before reaching Hamburger University, where more than 80,000 people have been trained as fast-food managers.

Surrounded by quiet neighborhoods and easy highway connections, this 86-acre suburban compound adorned with walking paths and duck ponds was for four decades considered the ideal place to attract top executives as the company rose to global dominance.

Now its leafy environs are considered a liability. Locked in a battle with companies of all stripes to woo top tech workers and young professionals, McDonald’s executives announced last year that they were putting the property up for sale and moving to the West Loop of Chicago where “L” trains arrive every few minutes and construction cranes dot the skyline....

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/...Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.03d65f0835d5

[1487]

Originally Posted by allovertown

People were not speculating on whether or not it will happen but rather stating that it is a terrible idea. Also... we should lay of Darrell Clark because he does not have the political skill to enact the terrible thing he proposed? Makes sense.

again, people should've actually read the article. He was quoted as saying this is a starting point and he wants hearings with all sides represented to find some sort of solution to this issue. I'm not really a Clarke fan, but those are the facts in regards to the article. And as I've said before, when an elected official takes a position that is supported by people who actually voted for them they are sort of doing their job- even if you or others don't respect the views of those constituents. In case you haven't figured this out not every philadelphian has the same views on all issues related to planning, parking, density, development, etc.

[Milksteak]

Originally Posted by Mark in Mount Airy

Article in today's Washington Post about companies relocating from the suburbs to cities. Examples given are mostly Midwestern.

"As companies relocate to big cities, suburban towns are left scrambling"
By Jonathan O'Connell July 16

OAK BROOK, Ill. — Visitors to the McDonald’s wooded corporate campus enter on a driveway named for the late chief executive Ray Kroc, then turn onto Ronald Lane before reaching Hamburger University, where more than 80,000 people have been trained as fast-food managers.

Surrounded by quiet neighborhoods and easy highway connections, this 86-acre suburban compound adorned with walking paths and duck ponds was for four decades considered the ideal place to attract top executives as the company rose to global dominance.

Now its leafy environs are considered a liability. Locked in a battle with companies of all stripes to woo top tech workers and young professionals, McDonald’s executives announced last year that they were putting the property up for sale and moving to the West Loop of Chicago where “L” trains arrive every few minutes and construction cranes dot the skyline....

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/...Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.03d65f0835d5

While I agree that companies are shifting to a more urban environment, the Caterpillar situation brought up in the article (moving from Peoria to Deerfield, Ill) is a pretty bad example. Deerfield is a straight up car-centric, wealthy suburb. It's like saying a major company is moving from Scranton to King of Prussia. Urban metro maybe, but definitely not urban.

[br323206]

Originally Posted by Milksteak

While I agree that companies are shifting to a more urban environment, the Caterpillar situation brought up in the article (moving from Peoria to Deerfield, Ill) is a pretty bad example. Deerfield is a straight up car-centric, wealthy suburb. It's like saying a major company is moving from Scranton to King of Prussia. Urban metro maybe, but definitely not urban.

I think the point is that there is train service so people can live in the urban core. It's more like moving from Scranton to Jenkintown or Ardmore.

[mcgrath618]

DISCLAIMER: I am not comparing the two cities in the following statement.
I've been walking around NYC a all day and have been noticing a lot of new Art Deco buildings going up. With the completion of Mormon Tower looming, does anyone think our city is going to hop on that train? I personally hope it does, as the glass buildings we have are starting to get old.
I'd call Mormon Tower and both East Market towers (but moreso the west tower) steps in the right direction.

[Milksteak]

Originally Posted by br323206

I think the point is that there is train service so people can live in the urban core. It's more like moving from Scranton to Jenkintown or Ardmore.

Fair enough, but the article is called 'As companies relocate to big cities, suburban towns are left scrambling'...which to me implies just that; suburban office parks are being deserted while the city centers are flourishing. Peoria is a city in and of itself (albeit a small one), Deerfield is about as suburban as it gets. I'm just nitpicking, really.

[summersm343]

RFQ issued for midcentury modern health center on Broad Street

Health Center No. 1, a midcentury modern building that dates back to 1959 is up for grabs.

The Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation (PIDC) has issued an RFQ for the 55,880-square-foot building at the corner of Broad and Lombard streets, asking developers to pitch their plans for a “dynamic and sustainable mixed-use development” on the site, Naked Philly first reported.

The RFP, which was issued on Friday, July 17, states that plans are already underway for Health Center No. 1 to be relocated to another location by mid-2018.

That leaves this property at 500-10 S. Broad Street marked for development potential along the Avenue of the Arts, which “has become a hotbed of investment for the city of Philadelphia,” the RFP notes. The health center is located just a stone’s throw away from already-established residential developments as well as future projects like the 45-story SLS International Hotel & Residences at Broad and Spruce streets.

The health center itself was designed by Montgomery & Bishop in 1959 as one of 10 neighborhood health centers built in the city after World War II. The curvy building has long been a standout on the corner of Broad and Lombard, thanks to its teal-tiled facade—the bright colors were meant to lift the spirits of patients.

The RFP says it’s looking for a proposal that brings active uses to the ground floor level (think retail and restaurants), while the upper stories could be residential, hotel, or more commercial space. It continues, “The City and PIDC are open to proposals that reuse the existing building, redevelop the site or some combination of the two. The City is willing to consider proposals that incorporate or relocate the existing City uses.”

Currently, the site is zoned CMX-4 for Center City Commercial Mixed-Use. Proposals are due by September 22, 2017. The PIDC will then short-list interested developers, who will then submit their proposals for the site. A finalist will then be chosen and will enter into an Agreement of Sale with Philadelphia Authority For Industrial Development (PAID).

https://philly.curbed.com/2017/7/17/15981592/health-center-no-1-philadelphia-for-sale-rfq

[1487]

Originally Posted by mcgrath618

DISCLAIMER: I am not comparing the two cities in the following statement.
I've been walking around NYC a all day and have been noticing a lot of new Art Deco buildings going up. With the completion of Mormon Tower looming, does anyone think our city is going to hop on that train? I personally hope it does, as the glass buildings we have are starting to get old.
I'd call Mormon Tower and both East Market towers (but moreso the west tower) steps in the right direction.

This is not a city vs city thread!

I wanted to be the first to get that out.

[1487]

Originally Posted by Milksteak

Fair enough, but the article is called 'As companies relocate to big cities, suburban towns are left scrambling'...which to me implies just that; suburban office parks are being deserted while the city centers are flourishing. Peoria is a city in and of itself (albeit a small one), Deerfield is about as suburban as it gets. I'm just nitpicking, really.

your point is valid and I don't know much about Deerfield, but I thought it was an odd example to use in the story as representative of the "back to the city" movement.

[Philly-Drew]

Originally Posted by 1487

And as I've said before, when an elected official takes a position that is supported by people who actually voted for them they are sort of doing their job- even if you or others don't respect the views of those constituents. In case you haven't figured this out not every Philadelphian has the same views on all issues related to planning, parking, density, development, etc.

And the same could be said about Donald Trump. Just change "Philadelphian" with "American".

Doesn't mean it's a good thing.

[1487]

Originally Posted by Philly-Drew

And the same could be said about Donald Trump. Just change "Philadelphian" with "American".

Doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Well thats democracy. Bottom line is enlightened people (here and elsewhere) basically believe the views and desires of residents of certain areas are worthless and thus any politician who actually tries to address their concerns is an "f**king idiot" or whatever was said a few posts back. I'll tell you what, the people in that article saying Philly needs to properly value parking and consider charging for on street parking for residents is more out of touch than Clarke. Now THAT proposal is truly dead on arrival and likely to cause mass outrage in rowhouse neighborhoods citywide.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by 1487

Well thats democracy. Bottom line is enlightened people (here and elsewhere) basically believe the views and desires of residents of certain areas are worthless and thus any politician who actually tries to address their concerns is an "f**king idiot" or whatever was said a few posts back. I'll tell you what, the people in that article saying Philly needs to properly value parking and consider charging for on street parking for residents is more out of touch than Clarke. Now THAT proposal is truly dead on arrival and likely to cause mass outrage in rowhouse neighborhoods citywide.

Out of touch with what the majority people want, yes. But it is not out of touch with reality. In a densely populated city like Philadelphia space is at a premium and just because history has established an expectation that residents should expect free street parking, doesn't necessarily mean it is good for the city as a whole. It is actually an incredibly inefficient use of space and Philadelphia is filled with cars that sit on the street that residents rarely use, I know some singe family households that have 4-5 cars parked on the street, with most of them rarely moving. Some type of yearly permit that involves relatively modest fees for the household's first car and then increasingly exorbitant fees for every additional car you add would actually make it easier for most citizens to find a parking space at a relatively modest cost. Some neighborhoods already have permit parking.

Darrell Clark's proposal that builders be forced to incorporate more parking into their developments is incredibly idiotic and terrible for Philadelphia. Even as a starting point, the direction for parking requirements that he wants to take is the wrong direction. The fact that his constituents support him, does not make his stance any less idiotic, it just demonstrates that his constituents don't know anything about city planning. Fortunately those people aren't in City Council... but Darrell Clark is and he needs to do better. Something being politically popular is hardly a measure of its value. If Darrell Clark abolished the city sales tax, I imagine more than half of Philadelphia would support him... but in a couple of years when all city services are being drastically cut it would be clear that despite its political popularity, abolishing the city sales tax would be a terrible idea.

You seem to not grasp a fundamental concept of democracy, i.e. the ability for the people to rightfully criticize elected members of government even on policies for which the majority of citizens support them on. Darrell Clark is an idiot. His parking proposal is idiotic.

[summersm343]

Study: Philly metro must add 38K apartments by 2030 to meet rising demand

Read more here: https://philly.curbed.com/2017/7/18/1598...partment-construction-affordable-housing

[1487]

Originally Posted by allovertown

Out of touch with what the majority people want, yes. But it is not out of touch with reality. In a densely populated city like Philadelphia space is at a premium and just because history has established an expectation that residents should expect free street parking, doesn't necessarily mean it is good for the city as a whole. It is actually an incredibly inefficient use of space and Philadelphia is filled with cars that sit on the street that residents rarely use, I know some singe family households that have 4-5 cars parked on the street, with most of them rarely moving. Some type of yearly permit that involves relatively modest fees for the household's first car and then increasingly exorbitant fees for every additional car you add would actually make it easier for most citizens to find a parking space at a relatively modest cost. Some neighborhoods already have permit parking.

Darrell Clark's proposal that builders be forced to incorporate more parking into their developments is incredibly idiotic and terrible for Philadelphia. Even as a starting point, the direction for parking requirements that he wants to take is the wrong direction. The fact that his constituents support him, does not make his stance any less idiotic, it just demonstrates that his constituents don't know anything about city planning. Fortunately those people aren't in City Council... but Darrell Clark is and he needs to do better. Something being politically popular is hardly a measure of its value. If Darrell Clark abolished the city sales tax, I imagine more than half of Philadelphia would support him... but in a couple of years when all city services are being drastically cut it would be clear that despite its political popularity, abolishing the city sales tax would be a terrible idea.

You seem to not grasp a fundamental concept of democracy, i.e. the ability for the people to rightfully criticize elected members of government even on policies for which the majority of citizens support them on. Darrell Clark is an idiot. His parking proposal is idiotic.

No civics lesson needed. I don't give a damn what you call him or any other politician. I am informing you that there are all types of viewpoints on the same issue. I don't live near Temple but obviously people there have a complaint. Clarke is paid to at least attempt to address their complaints as taxpayers- that's how the system is supposed to work. If you honestly think calling certain people or ideas "idiotic" is anything more than a subjective call then you are clueless. Your OPINION is that people shouldn't have more than 1 car and that the people near Temple are stupid. Those aren't facts. Their OPINION is that the existing zoning rules have caused a parking crunch in that area because far more of the new residents have cars than the developers projected. It's all subjective.


You lost me with the argument that suggests supporting ideas or rules that your constituents actually support is actually a problem. So what exactly do you expect a local politician to do? Support ideas that are wholeheartedly opposed by those they represent? Not seeing how that is a winning formula.

Most of philly does not have a parking problem. Huge swaths of Philly have rear driveway parking and in parts of NW and NE you have houses with front driveways. The areas where significant development has put major pressure on the parking situation are geographically small relative to the entire city.

I think it's safe bet to assume very few Philadelphia households have 4-5 cars. Also a safe bet that of those that do, very few are in rowhouse areas.

Also, Philly isn't all that dense outside of CC Philly.

[Human Scale]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Study: Philly metro must add 38K apartments by 2030 to meet rising demand

Read more here: https://philly.curbed.com/2017/7/18/1598...partment-construction-affordable-housing

Someone call Mr. Stern. We need another dozen of his buildings.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by 1487

No civics lesson needed. I don't give a damn what you call him or any other politician. I am informing you that there are all types of viewpoints on the same issue. I don't live near Temple but obviously people there have a complaint. Clarke is paid to at least attempt to address their complaints as taxpayers- that's how the system is supposed to work. If you honestly think calling certain people or ideas "idiotic" is anything more than a subjective call then you are clueless. Your OPINION is that people shouldn't have more than 1 car and that the people near Temple are stupid. Those aren't facts. Their OPINION is that the existing zoning rules have caused a parking crunch in that area because far more of the new residents have cars than the developers projected. It's all subjective.


You lost me with the argument that suggests supporting ideas or rules that your constituents actually support is actually a problem. So what exactly do you expect a local politician to do? Support ideas that are wholeheartedly opposed by those they represent? Not seeing how that is a winning formula.

Most of philly does not have a parking problem. Huge swaths of Philly have rear driveway parking and in parts of NW and NE you have houses with front driveways. The areas where significant development has put major pressure on the parking situation are geographically small relative to the entire city.

I think it's safe bet to assume very few Philadelphia households have 4-5 cars. Also a safe bet that of those that do, very few are in rowhouse areas.

Also, Philly isn't all that dense outside of CC Philly.

And where do these constituent views come from? Are they organic and intrinsic? Sometimes. And some are. But politicians stay in office, locally and on a national scale, by obfuscating and trying to influence constituent views in ways that make it easy to seem as it they are delivering something. There is plenty of evidence that the parking and housing policies Clarke and others are not actually favorable to his constituents in the longterm. He does not not acknowledge many of the costs and drawbacks and won't discuss them when confronted. It is the job of citizen and neighborhood groups informed on the issues to educate citizens. It's not a problem unique to him either. It's common.