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

[Jawnadelphia]

I dont think of 22nd and Market, when I think of this site. I think of the cozy Logan Sq. neighborhood, and all the giant city mansions I've seen built there, and the great trail along on the river, and my favorite Cherry St. Tavern. Point being, this is a really, really great location.

Bookends a great 'hood.

[Justin7]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

^ Proximity is in the eye of the beholder (and "far away" in Philly tends to be perceived differently than in Manhattan). Don't forget the two failed project development proposals that preceded this. Nobody was happy with the prospects for inspirational architecture when PMC bought it, but we figured it was more likely to get done than the more exciting prior proposals. That's where we are. I would've bought it and hired Duncan Stroik to do his first high rise, but $5 down wasn't enough.

It's one thing to expect inspirational architecture, it's another to expect simple street interaction.

This location only feels "far away" because there is no reason to go here. Throw in 2-3 decent restaurants, simple human scale architecture along 23rd/Cherry, and a connection to the river and that can change very fast. Apologies for the cliche, but PMC is building for the past rather than for the future. It's a big missed opportunity.

[1487]

Originally Posted by Londonee

This point only makes sense if you assume that all owners of properties are operating opportunistically and interested in developing their and to its highest and best use. But that's often rarely the case as we've seen with countless lots around Old City and literally the entire business model of Samuel Rappaport. Good owners, build good stuff. Bad owners, squat on properties indifferently from Boca Raton. Without knowing the specifics, my guess in this properties case is it's the latter.

So who knows what could have been built here. The time line is we've had a shitty owner squatting on it for decades who sold it to a cutrate developer who's now proposing a subpar complex.

And i agree with the folks who are pointing out the absurdity of the notion that this is somehow in the middle of nowhere...

If the locale was all that hot it would've been purchased and redeveloped years ago. It's a great location from the perspective that you get great views from here- but when it comes to being close to restaurants, retail, strong street level activity, subway stops, etc. it's not that great of a location. This is a mostly residential part of CC where there isn't a ton going on from a food/retail perspective. There isn't much ground level activity in the residential buildings near this site.

[1487]

Originally Posted by PHL10

I’m not making the argument that this site is in the middle of nowhere but we do need to see that the area isn’t prime either. Just look to the south at what should be prime real estate at 22nd and Market. It’s a disaster on par with some of the worst intersections in downtown Detroit. We need to fill some lots and then when they become scarce, we’ll see some higher uses.

exactly. If you think about this area in terms of amenities within walking distance there isn't a lot going on. Nothing going on to the south on Market, not much going on to the north where you have a mixture of houses, multifamily buildings with no ground floor retail and then the parkway. There really isn't much to the east either until you get to 18th street.

[Justin7]

Originally Posted by 1487

...when it comes to being close to restaurants, retail, strong street level activity, subway stops, etc. it's not that great of a location. This is a mostly residential part of CC where there isn't a ton going on from a food/retail perspective. There isn't much ground level activity in the residential buildings near this site.

We're saying essentially the same thing, but your solution going forward is to double down on the status quo, rather than make things better. "This area lacks ground level activity so let's build a large dead wall so that this area will continue to lack ground level activity!" World class cities do not have these dead pockets in their urban centers. There are enough people to support more and make this a desirable location. The solution is simple. I understand PMC's reason for reducing risks and maximizing profits, but can't fathom why people here are defending them.

[1487]

Originally Posted by Justin7

We're saying essentially the same thing, but your solution going forward is to double down on the status quo, rather than make things better. "This area lacks ground level activity so let's build a large dead wall so that this area will continue to lack ground level activity!" World class cities do not have these dead pockets in their urban centers. There are enough people to support more and make this a desirable location. The solution is simple. I understand PMC's reason for reducing risks and maximizing profits, but can't fathom why people here are defending them.

Thats not my "solution" at all. Developers have a lot of latitude to determine what their buildings look like- I don't know why this is still shocking news to people here. People keep saying "someone" should "force" or "demand" designs that meet our high standards. Whom? How would that work? In most cases people here suggest the City is so incompetent that it can't do much more than collect trash effectively, but when it comes to this folks are advocating for City veto power over design aesthetics. That seems like a slippery slope to me. I get people dont like PMC and I don't really care about them one way or another. But the idea that since they aren't liked for a variety of reasons justifies using government agencies to beat them up and "force" great projects out of them is a bit much. The reality is people don't really have a solution to this "problem"- not one that would pass legal muster. The people posting here have ZERO authority to determine what is or isn't built. That includes me so accusing me of settling for this or what or the other thing is nonsense. I'm not settling for anything or defending any developer- I am stating the realities of this site and the limits of government when it comes to dictating what a landowner can do with their property.

[El Duderino]

i’ve got a wild, (potentially) easily implemented idea to help on cherry st. since it basically dead ends at the tracks, the end of cherry (past the loading entrances) could be a good location to have pop-up bars/restaurants/food trucks on an on-going basis. this would activate the street, increase trail connectivity and soften the blow of the street wall issue, while helping to deal with the lack of permanent retail here. “spruce street harbor park west” could make a killing here if they (see: whoever has the authority to implement) do it right. get the LSNA and the schuylkill banks people involved and make everyone happy (or at least not so damned pissed).

i’m done complaining about a very average proposal that is about to break ground. thinking that more than 73k sq ft of retail (expensive retail rents for that matter, per hammer’s insurance comment) would be filled here seems like a stretch. and completely ignoring what IS improved makes it easy to cherry pick things we don’t like; walk down arch instead of cherry if you want to eat at an indoor restaurant.

[SEFTA]

It seems the real problem is the flood plain status. It will probably remain some what isolated because nobody can open street level retail with out insurance.

[1487]

Originally Posted by SEFTA

It seems the real problem is the flood plain status. It will probably remain some what isolated because nobody can open street level retail with out insurance.

well apparently that's what PMC said at the first CDR hearing and I'm not sure what sort of intelligent response to that was offered by the panel. My interpretation based on the coverage is that they just ignored that and said "come back to us showing us it can work". So building retail that would've remained vacant would have been seen as a victory for some

[Knight Hospitaller]

My only REAL peeve about this is the lack of connection to the trail. I'm not sure how feasible it is without spending a wad of cash and appeasing CSX. I don't know whether the city could've conditioned the extension of the zoning variance (if I remember things correctly) on incorporating trail access.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by 1487

If the locale was all that hot it would've been purchased and redeveloped years ago. It's a great location from the perspective that you get great views from here- but when it comes to being close to restaurants, retail, strong street level activity, subway stops, etc. it's not that great of a location. This is a mostly residential part of CC where there isn't a ton going on from a food/retail perspective. There isn't much ground level activity in the residential buildings near this site.

Like PMC, you're living in the past. In 10 years, with everything going up around it, it will be a great location. In 20 years, it will be a STELLAR location.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by Justin7

It's one thing to expect inspirational architecture, it's another to expect simple street interaction.

This location only feels "far away" because there is no reason to go here. Throw in 2-3 decent restaurants, simple human scale architecture along 23rd/Cherry, and a connection to the river and that can change very fast. Apologies for the cliche, but PMC is building for the past rather than for the future. It's a big missed opportunity.

Completely agree. It's not going to take very much for this to become an extremely desirable location, and it will happen sooner than people think. It's already in the beginning stages. The bigger problem seems to me to be the flood plain issues. But count me in the camp that WOULD rather see it remain a parking lot for 10 years. Because at the end of that time, the dynamic will be completely different, and we might be able to get something really good here (assuming flood plain issues can be addressed).

A parcel on the river that joins Logan Square and the burgeoning Schuylkill Yards development, a block away from Aramark headquarters and Philly's forthcoming version of Soho House is a desirable piece of land. But, cry as we might, it seems this will move forward now. And with the current design and lack of street interaction.

[Larry King]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

My only REAL peeve about this is the lack of connection to the trail. I'm not sure how feasible it is without spending a wad of cash and appeasing CSX. I don't know whether the city could've conditioned the extension of the zoning variance (if I remember things correctly) on incorporating trail access.

I'm sure they would've connected to it if they could, not easy to get done.

[1487]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Like PMC, you're living in the past. In 10 years, with everything going up around it, it will be a great location. In 20 years, it will be a STELLAR location.

the existing isolated residential buildings nearby aren't likely going anywhere. Neither is the rail viaduct to the south. Neither are the CSX tracks. Also, the fact that it's largely bordered by rowhomes to the east means that this is going to remain a mostly quiet, residential pocket for years to come. I don't see any prospects of this turning into a hot street retail/restaurant corridor with tons of pedestrians in 10 or 20 years.

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by PHL10

I’m not making the argument that this site is in the middle of nowhere but we do need to see that the area isn’t prime either. Just look to the south at what should be prime real estate at 22nd and Market. It’s a disaster on par with some of the worst intersections in downtown Detroit. We need to fill some lots and then when they become scarce, we’ll see some higher uses.

Again, as I've stated a million times, including during this discussion - empty lots aren't a clear sign of lack of demand or an indicator of value - just look at the Rittenhouse Square lot, the lot at 20th and Walnut, or 17th and Pine, or 13th and Locus... - but a sign of bad/absentee/disinterested ownership coupled with a tax structure that doesn't disincentive squatting.

[DocAwesome]

Logan square neighborhood may be much sleepier than most other CC areas, but many people seek the lack of hustle out. As evidenced by the prices there. Being able to live in relative quiet and walk 10 minutes to a major metropolitan CBD? It is a stellar location now.

[SEFTA]

I would love to see the area around 22nd & Market with a massive amount of mixed use development. Seeing that there is no MFL station nearby, maybe a couple of major residential towers on Market would be a nice balance to farther east.

[1487]

Originally Posted by DocAwesome

Logan square neighborhood may be much sleepier than most other CC areas, but many people seek the lack of hustle out. As evidenced by the prices there. Being able to live in relative quiet and walk 10 minutes to a major metropolitan CBD? It is a stellar location now.

its a nice area- I was addressing the notion that there is a lot of pent up demand for ground floor retail in this area. Its not near any significant office buildings and its largely surrounded by single family rowhouses. And my guess is 90% of the people who live in this area own cars. This area is not a hotbed of streetlife after dark- or during the day.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by 1487

its a nice area- I was addressing the notion that there is a lot of pent up demand for ground floor retail in this area. Its not near any significant office buildings and its largely surrounded by single family rowhouses. And my guess is 90% of the people who live in this area own cars. This area is not a hotbed of streetlife after dark- or during the day.

Disagree for the reasons everyone already said. Arch and Market from the 20th to 24th blocks will continue to fill in with commercial AND residential. And retail and restaurant space. Not to mention the blocks to the South, i.e. Chestnut through Walnut. Sunoco is shopping the parcel that holds its gas station at 22nd and Walnut for $25,000,000. And it's not a far walk over the river to the projects that will burgeon on the other side of the Schuylkill. I don't believe that railroad tracks will compromise any of this development.

[GtownFriend]

Originally Posted by DocAwesome

Logan square neighborhood may be much sleepier than most other CC areas, but many people seek the lack of hustle out. As evidenced by the prices there. Being able to live in relative quiet and walk 10 minutes to a major metropolitan CBD? It is a stellar location now.

Following this discussion circle around, I keep going back to this:

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

But it was the LSNA that actually had PMC scale back their retail plans to the blank walls you see in the latest proposal.

This suggests the folks in the mega townhouses (ie LSNA) want to keep things sleepy.