PHILADELPHIA | River Walk | Two Towers | 363 FT & 315 FT | 32 FLOORS & 28 FLOORS

[iheartphilly]

Originally Posted by TallCoolOne

Well I guess the One Water Street's and Riverwalk's is all we will get. I really get annoyed with the Philly mindset -- well we aren't Chicago or NYC (or SF, or Toronto, or Boston) excuse. Let's see a developer have some balls... PMC has the money to do something cool, they own damn near every other apt building in Center City. They don't care about design, hell they didn't even show up at the second CDR meeting. but hey-- it's not my money.

TCO-I agree with you. They are a big landlord in the city and have the means to up their game. I guess they shit where they make money (eat).

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by TallCoolOne

Well I guess the One Water Street's and Riverwalk's is all we will get. I really get annoyed with the Philly mindset -- well we aren't Chicago or NYC (or SF, or Toronto, or Boston) excuse. Let's see a developer have some balls... PMC has the money to do something cool, they own damn near every other apt building in Center City. They don't care about design, hell they didn't even show up at the second CDR meeting. but hey-- it's not my money.

I don't like the "excuse" mindset either. The economics are what they are. The rest is a matter of taste, and PMC doesn't have that. One might as well lament that the world is round. If I had the money, I'd like to think I'd do better - but I don't. Besides more local developers with better taste (we seem to be lacking there, except for Brandywine - and maybe Liberty - with Pearl being so-so), let's hope for more out-of-town investment, like Market East and the Mormons. A larger and broader group of players will likely net us more interesting architecture.

[jjv007]

As awesome as great architecture is, projects generally have a bottom line and can't all be masterpieces. That's not to say that PMC can't do better, just a fact. Also, NYC and the surrounding areas literally have hundreds upon hundreds of highrises and projects under construction, and a lot of those aren't works of beauty. Philly's max number of highrises u.c. at a given time even in this "boom" was like 13 I believe. Odds are against everything being visually stunning and that's fine. More demand across the board will create the need for more projects which can ensure higher standards on at least a certain quantity of developments.

[City Wide]

It seems like this most recent discussion came about because of the recent CDRC results/non-results and the general lack of any enthusiasm for the present plans. I have often dismissed the CDRC process as useless and have wondered how the City could ever constitute a meaningful design oversight process, but this discussion got me thinking-----maybe a even less then perfect process might be able to raise the design bar by even a couple points, maybe it could help create an environment where good design was regularly talked about and bad design or just a lack of even caring (such as PMC) would be harder to just ignore. (I agree that the idea that a small panel can decide what is good design for the whole City seems like an impossible dream. But I would guess that other large cities have tried to deal with this)

By the way, I don't agree that good design always has to costs more, no more then I believe that any building that costs more then average means its a good design. Friends I have who are architects have told me in the past that having a client who cares and is active is the design process and having a reasonable time to come up with different concepts is just as important as the budget.

Personally, I'd take the existing parking lot over what PMC is going to build. Once its built its going to be there for a long time and there's very little that can ever be done to improve it (think 2400 Chestnut St.). But as long as it remains a undeveloped site, its got potential to be something very good. For some, any really tall building is going to be a plus, for others its just any building is better then no building, where I'm the opposite, no building is usually better then just any building, whatever its height.

[Brandywine Rocks]

I had Kinfolk around 100 years ago when the suburbs were just being developed. The story they told was that Drexel Hill area was actually on par or ahead of the Main Line towns in wealth and prestige but a two bit developer went crazy buying up much of the land that was left in Drexel Hill. He Started propping up cheap blah rowhomes while top notch towns like Bryn Mawr,Haverford, Narberth etc etc had very strict zoning.

100 years later PMC appears to be to Philadelphia what that slouch developer was to Drexel Hill.

[Nova08]

There is some great modern and art deco architecture along the Chicago river, but there are also some uninspiring boxes. I'm not suggesting to accept mediocrity but this isn't just a Philly issue. Not every building along the Chicago river or Jersey City is a home run.

[jjv007]

Originally Posted by Nova08

There is some great modern and art deco architecture along the Chicago river, but there are also some uninspiring boxes. I'm not suggesting to accept mediocrity but this isn't just a Philly issue. Not every building along the Chicago river or Jersey City is a home run.

Precisely.

[iheartphilly]

^
Well, Philly has a lot of turds and not a lot of great designs. We should be trying to shift that balance with every chance we get of a new build. Chicago's number of high-rises are at least double that of Philadelphia. For the ones that impact the skyline, we should not expect mediocrity.

[jjv007]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

^
Well, Philly has a lot of turds and not a lot of great designs. We should be trying to shift that balance with every chance we get of a new build. Chicago's number of high-rises are at least double that of Philadelphia. For the ones that impact the skyline, we should not expect mediocrity.

Perhaps but design shouldn't be the priority and is honestly very subjective anyway. Obviously for major projects, a solid design should be a big deal but that doesn't apply to every single high rise. We don't have a whole lot of highrise construction here in Philly so anything 10 floors and up has people hyper-analyzing minute design elements. In reality, these shouldn't always be overly scrutinized as most projects are way more concerned with function over form. Interaction at ground level is obviously important for buildings, but I don't think that's really what you meant by turd designs.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by Nova08

There is some great modern and art deco architecture along the Chicago river, but there are also some uninspiring boxes. I'm not suggesting to accept mediocrity but this isn't just a Philly issue. Not every building along the Chicago river or Jersey City is a home run.

That's true. But in Philly I can't think of ANY new construction residential in recent years that's more beyond mediocre except for The Bridge and The Alexander. Perhaps the second tower in East Market will be. There may be a few others but none spring to mind. Most stuff that goes up is DRECK or mediocre. Very, very little good or great. We do a bit better with commercial highrises/towers and mixed use buildings. Some of those are quite good, I think.

[jjv007]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

That's true. But in Philly I can't think of ANY new construction residential in recent years that's more beyond mediocre except for The Bridge and The Alexander. Perhaps the second tower in East Market will be. There may be a few others but none spring to mind. Most stuff that goes up is DRECK or mediocre. Very, very little good or great. We do a bit better with commercial highrises/towers and mixed use buildings. Some of those are quite good, I think.

Residential buildings often try to pinch pennies as much as possible so it's not surprising that their design quality is lower than most mixed use or commercial buildings. Also, NY and to a lesser extent Chicago have exponentially more buildings going up than Philly so they're gonna have more hits too. The quantity difference is too vast to make a realistic comparison.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by jjv007

Residential buildings often try to pinch pennies as much as possible so it's not surprising that their design quality is lower than most mixed use or commercial buildings. Also, NY and to a lesser extent Chicago have exponentially more buildings going up than Philly so they're gonna have more hits too. The quantity difference is too vast to make a realistic comparison.

Right. I know what the causes are. But I don't have to like it. If Philly gets wealthy enough some of this will be mitigated as condos will sell at high enough prices for better exteriors. I would have thought 500 Walnut could have achieved this, though. It was a hard site to work with, so that's probably part of it, but I can't say I'm too impressed with any Cecil Baker projects...

[McBane]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

That's true. But in Philly I can't think of ANY new construction residential in recent years that's more beyond mediocre except for The Bridge and The Alexander. Perhaps the second tower in East Market will be. There may be a few others but none spring to mind. Most stuff that goes up is DRECK or mediocre. Very, very little good or great. We do a bit better with commercial highrises/towers and mixed use buildings. Some of those are quite good, I think.

I like also 500 Walnut and Evo but I agree, the Bridge and the Alexander are the best residential towers that have gone up in recent years (best of the last boom - Murano, St. James, and RATR). Most of everything else (residential) ranges between blah and meh.

[1487]

Originally Posted by City Wide

It seems like this most recent discussion came about because of the recent CDRC results/non-results and the general lack of any enthusiasm for the present plans. I have often dismissed the CDRC process as useless and have wondered how the City could ever constitute a meaningful design oversight process, but this discussion got me thinking-----maybe a even less then perfect process might be able to raise the design bar by even a couple points, maybe it could help create an environment where good design was regularly talked about and bad design or just a lack of even caring (such as PMC) would be harder to just ignore. (I agree that the idea that a small panel can decide what is good design for the whole City seems like an impossible dream. But I would guess that other large cities have tried to deal with this)

By the way, I don't agree that good design always has to costs more, no more then I believe that any building that costs more then average means its a good design. Friends I have who are architects have told me in the past that having a client who cares and is active is the design process and having a reasonable time to come up with different concepts is just as important as the budget.

Personally, I'd take the existing parking lot over what PMC is going to build. Once its built its going to be there for a long time and there's very little that can ever be done to improve it (think 2400 Chestnut St.). But as long as it remains a undeveloped site, its got potential to be something very good. For some, any really tall building is going to be a plus, for others its just any building is better then no building, where I'm the opposite, no building is usually better then just any building, whatever its height.

Saying "good design" doesn't cost more is a very generic statement. It all depends on what we are talking about. If' it's simply a matter of changing facade materials or moving things around a bit on a site you may be correct. If we are talking about sinking 3-4 levels of parking underground in a floodplain than I would have to say you are wrong. And the notion that this parking lot is better than the project proposed is a bit nuts.

[1487]

Originally Posted by McBane

I like also 500 Walnut and Evo but I agree, the Bridge and the Alexander are the best residential towers that have gone up in recent years (best of the last boom - Murano, St. James, and RATR). Most of everything else (residential) ranges between blah and meh.

its called modern (profitable) architecture. I was in Northern VA over the summer- nothing I saw that was new or under construction was notable from a design perspective. This is the way it goes in 2017 for the most part.

[McBane]

^ This is true. The days of self-financed tycoons and rapidly growing, wealthy cities building for ego/pride is long gone (the Wannamaker building and City Hall come to mind). Or at least, that practice has shifted to the noveau rich countries, like Dubai. I suppose in a way, America in the early 20th century was considered noveau rich...

[mcgrath618]

Originally Posted by McBane

^ This is true. The days of self-financed tycoons and rapidly growing, wealthy cities building for ego/pride is long gone (the Wannamaker building and City Hall come to mind). Or at least, that practice has shifted to the noveau rich countries, like Dubai. I suppose in a way, America in the early 20th century was considered noveau rich...

It's starting to swing back around with these megacorporations like Amazon moving back into big cities and proudly declaring their presence.
It's also booming on the east coast specifically. In NYC, you have towers like that one on Central Park, and here you have the Mormon Tower, both of which are designed in an old Art Deco fashion. I think it's a combination between funding and pride. New Yorkers and Philadelphians are both very proud of their respective cities, and most of the non-architecturally adept citizens are starting to take note of which buildings they are proud of and which they think are a blemish on their city's nearly spotless record. The opposite end would be some West Coast cities. I don't know many people who live in LA who 1) Aren't into architecture and 2) Are generally proud of their city. It's just not on their minds over there I guess.

[El Duderino]

comparing the design of ultra-luxury nyc condo towers in the most desirable neighborhood in north america to rentals near septa tracks/jfk doesn’t seem like a worthwhile exercise. i’ll gladly take some clean, inoffensive glass towers to add some density to an otherwise relatively desolate area at the expense of one block of non-optimized street wall. hopefully zoning overlays can be put in place moving forward that will necessitate a better connection to the trail.

[jjv007]

Originally Posted by El Duderino

comparing the design of ultra-luxury nyc condo towers in the most desirable neighborhood in north america to rentals near septa tracks/jfk doesn’t seem like a worthwhile exercise. i’ll gladly take some clean, inoffensive glass towers to add some density to an otherwise relatively desolate area at the expense of one block of non-optimized street wall. hopefully zoning overlays can be put in place moving forward that will necessitate a better connection to the trail.

well stated.

[Redddog]

Originally Posted by El Duderino

comparing the design of ultra-luxury nyc condo towers in the most desirable neighborhood in north america to rentals near septa tracks/jfk doesn’t seem like a worthwhile exercise. i’ll gladly take some clean, inoffensive glass towers to add some density to an otherwise relatively desolate area at the expense of one block of non-optimized street wall. hopefully zoning overlays can be put in place moving forward that will necessitate a better connection to the trail.

+2. Let's not get too greedy, here.