PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread IX

[skyscraper]

Maybe I'm asking the wrong group here, but just as a curiosity:Just before One Lib was constructed, there was an informal poll by one of the newspapers asking whether Billy Penn's height should be surpassed, and the response was 3:1 in favor of keeping the height restriction.
Question is, would anyone want to go back to that now? Was there any value in restricting building heights to Billy Penn?

[iheartphilly]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

Maybe I'm asking the wrong group here, but just as a curiosity:Just before One Lib was constructed, there was an informal poll by one of the newspapers asking whether Billy Penn's height should be surpassed, and the response was 3:1 in favor of keeping the height restriction.
Question is, would anyone want to go back to that now? Was there any value in restricting building heights to Billy Penn?

Yes, I would say the value is that you got many low to mid-rise building built. There was a neat video that showed Philly buildings built starting in the 1900's to current. It broke it down by highlighting the buidings in each era. Google it.

Also, here's an interesting article pop density. The more people, the more buildings needed.

https://www.phillymag.com/citified/2015/04/17/manhattanization-of-philadelphia/

[Londonee]

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/re...nstitute-temple-university-20180530.html

Weird article. Like, no news was broken. Basically a study said if a project had more $$ and more people interested in it, then it may have a better chance of preceding and being successful.

Meanwhile, news seems to have broken here that Blatstein is full speed ahead on 1001 S. Broad Street and Adelman is busy reporting this?

[skyscraper]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

Yes, I would say the value is that you got many low to mid-rise building built. There was a neat video that showed Philly buildings built starting in the 1900's to current. It broke it down by highlighting the buidings in each era. Google it.

Also, here's an interesting article pop density. The more people, the more buildings needed.

https://www.phillymag.com/citified/2015/04/17/manhattanization-of-philadelphia/

but there are still low and mid rise buildings being built now: not every building has to be taller than Penn, it's just that it's no longer a consideration.

[iheartphilly]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

but there are still low and mid rise buildings being built now: not every building has to be taller than Penn, it's just that it's no longer a consideration.

Correct...without the Billy Penn height restriction, we get a mix of taller builds. The ratio of low to mid-rise is greater than high rise buildings, so I'm in favor of leveling it out with taller builds (the caveat that the market dictates that and mix-use bldgs generally increase the height of the build or a corporate highrise with a significant need of office space). I would love to see more new constructions above 547 feet come online.

[skyscraper]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

Correct...without the Billy Penn height restriction, we get a mix of taller builds. The ratio of low to mid-rise is greater than high rise buildings, so I'm in favor of leveling it out with taller builds (the caveat that the market dictates that and mix-use bldgs generally increase the height of the build or a corporate highrise with a significant need of office space). I would love to see more new constructions above 547 feet come online.

I guess what I'm really asking is whether you would want the city to never have broken Bacon's height restriction. Is the city better for having broken it or should we have stuck with it?

[iheartphilly]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

I guess what I'm really asking is whether you would want the city to never have broken Bacon's height restriction. Is the city better for having broken it or should we have stuck with it?

I think I answer it in the above, but just in case it wasn't direct, yes and yes. The city is better for it because the diversity in height, size, and scale of taller buildings really showcases the different uses and demand of taller building. It also allows architects, developers, and tenants the option in developing something that was unable to them before the restriction. Win-Win in my book.

[Tatts]

Originally Posted by Mr Saturn64

Off topic, but I wanted to ask. In New York today, there will be the "Manhattanhenge" effect, where the sunrise and sunset are directly aligned with the streets of Manhattan. Does a similar effect ever happen in Philly? I think it would be cool to see the sun set directly over Market.

Yes. Phillyhenge happens at sunset on September 5. Our grid is more closely aligned with true N/S than NYC's, so ours happens closer to the equinoxi. The spring henge happens about April 5.

Check the website The Photographer's Ephemera for cool tools to monitor all that stuff.

[McBane]

Some things to think about if we maintained the status quo.....

Because office buildings maxed out at 500 feet and assuming the same number of square footage was built, would office construction have expanded further west along Market and JFK? What about East Market?

Because JFK Blvd has a 300 foot height limit (because of some apparently shortsighted decision), would Arch Street have more office buildings?

Would Comcast have been forced to encroach more deeply into Logan Square vs being consolidated in two (hopefully three) really tall buildings?

One of the main problems I have with the height limit is that, in an effort to maximize floor space, developers end up building boxy towers; spires, tapered roofs, etc. are out of the question. The skyline also has a "flat" look; aside from the lack of spires et. al., you end up with many 500 foot towers and nothing (except Bill Penn) taller.

[Knight Hospitaller]

I would've been OK with a DC style height limit, with Billy Penn being our version of the Washington monument, but that would've had to be in place before the twentieth century. I once saw a very nice Paris-like rendering of how the Victorians envisioned an ideal "Philly of the Future." Nothing was taller than the main part of City Hall (which is about 8 floors, IIRC).

[Milksteak]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

I would've been OK with a DC style height limit, with Billy Penn being our version of the Washington monument, but that would've had to be in place before the twentieth century. I once saw a very nice Paris-like rendering of how the Victorians envisioned an ideal "Philly of the Future." Nothing was taller than the main part of City Hall (which is about 8 floors, IIRC).

I disagree, Washington DC is very unaesthetically pleasing to me. On the other hand, even still when I pass through Philly (or New York, or just about any other major American city), I get distracted by the architecture and skyline dynamic.

But this is literally a 'to each their own' thing based entirely on personal preference

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by Milksteak

I disagree, Washington DC is very unaesthetically pleasing to me. On the other hand, even still when I pass through Philly (or New York, or just about any other major American city), I get distracted by the architecture and skyline dynamic.

But this is literally a 'to each their own' thing based entirely on personal preference

Don't get me wrong, I love our skyline. I also don't love the aesthetics of many DC buildings. I just think that as an alternative to supertalls and canyon effects, a "lowrise" city with vistas and monuments (like Paris without La Defense) is nice. Apples and oranges, but both are satisfying. I never felt like London was lacking before Canary Wharf and the Shard.

[McBane]

Certainly a part of DC's look is their strong economy. But the strict height limit forces development to spread and you'll notice when you walk in DC that every lot is maximized (e.g., no parking lots or garages and buildings under 4 floors are rare). From the sky though, it's a very boring skyline as that type of regulation results in a boxy skyline with hardly any variation (all buildings are the same height, no spires, tiers, setbacks, angular roofs, etc.). But from the street, it looks pretty good, I have to admit.

[The Best Forumer]

Originally Posted by McBane

Certainly a part of DC's look is their strong economy. But the strict height limit forces development to spread and you'll notice when you walk in DC that every lot is maximized (e.g., no parking lots or garages and buildings under 4 floors are rare). From the sky though, it's a very boring skyline as that type of regulation results in a boxy skyline with hardly any variation (all buildings are the same height, no spires, tiers, setbacks, angular roofs, etc.). But from the street, it looks pretty good, I have to admit.

You mean like the street life is better than the skyline sort of thing, yes?

[TechTalkGuy]

Deleted

[el don]

Originally Posted by TechTalkGuy

Fasninating story, but I’ve never travelled to any other major city except for New York & Philadelphia.

In fact, I have absolutely NO DESIRE to ever visit any other major city.

New York & Philadelphia are neighbors, very close together. Drivable in about 120+ minutes (with EZPass).

[skyscraper]

Originally Posted by TechTalkGuy

Fasninating story, but I’ve never travelled to any other major city except for New York & Philadelphia.

In fact, I have absolutely NO DESIRE to ever visit any other major city.

New York & Philadelphia are neighbors, very close together. Drivable in about 120+ minutes (with EZPass).

hey I love Philly, love NY, but come on, there's a great big wide world out there. Lots to learn from and bring back.

[SEFTA]

I want to see all the major cities and as many as the minor ones that I can and whats in between

[McBane]

Originally Posted by TechTalkGuy

Fasninating story, but I’ve never travelled to any other major city except for New York & Philadelphia.

In fact, I have absolutely NO DESIRE to ever visit any other major city.

New York & Philadelphia are neighbors, very close together. Drivable in about 120+ minutes (with EZPass).

Wow! I sure hope you're young enough (I get the impression you are) to grow up (I don't meant this phrase in a condescending way), change your mind, and get out there!

I love going to other cities and making comparisons to Philly. Sometimes, it helps make you better appreciate what we have here; other times, seeing how other cities operate can highlight our shortfalls and may even shed light on something you didn't even realize was an issue (for example, what does Chicago do differently that helps keep the city so clean?). Plus, it's just great to see and experience other cultures, urban forms, transit systems, climates, cuisines, etc.

[Skintreesnail]

Originally Posted by McBane

Certainly a part of DC's look is their strong economy. But the strict height limit forces development to spread and you'll notice when you walk in DC that every lot is maximized (e.g., no parking lots or garages and buildings under 4 floors are rare). From the sky though, it's a very boring skyline as that type of regulation results in a boxy skyline with hardly any variation (all buildings are the same height, no spires, tiers, setbacks, angular roofs, etc.). But from the street, it looks pretty good, I have to admit.

Wow, I get a totally different impression at the street level: every time I'm in DC I feel disappointed by how soulless the city seems. I think a lot of the low-rise European cities have this personal feeling that DC just completely lacks. Maybe I just don't know where to look though. Of the US cities I've been to, Boston and Philly come closest to capturing that vibe at the street level.