PHILADELPHIA | Lowrise/General Developments Thread

[jmj]

Originally Posted by Londonee

YEEEESSSS....a real life PREIT employee on the forum!

It's a mall, I guess I don't expect the Louvre here. I do wonder how many people have WALKED past the property and on the numbered streets. It's a massive improvement from the sidewalk level. Especially the underpass areas which used to be akin to walking under a parking garage. The K of P mall is hugely successful but isn't exactly memorable from the outside- it's a warehouse with a few fancy entrances facing a parking lot.

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by jmj

It's a mall, I guess I don't expect the Louvre here. I do wonder how many people have WALKED past the property and on the numbered streets. It's a massive improvement from the sidewalk level. Especially the underpass areas which used to be akin to walking under a parking garage. The K of P mall is hugely successful but isn't exactly memorable from the outside- it's a warehouse with a few fancy entrances facing a parking lot.

The "it's a mall" defense went out the window when the city bequeathed 4 full blocks on our most important and visible arterial to PREIT. If this was at Broad and Washington, I'd be more inclined to agree. But it's not, so i'm not. This is important to get right.

[City Wide]

Originally Posted by jmj

It's a mall, I guess I don't expect the Louvre here. I do wonder how many people have WALKED past the property and on the numbered streets. It's a massive improvement from the sidewalk level. Especially the underpass areas which used to be akin to walking under a parking garage. The K of P mall is hugely successful but isn't exactly memorable from the outside- it's a warehouse with a few fancy entrances facing a parking lot.

There's rightfully a huge difference in expectations between a very successful suburban mall set in the middle of acres of parking and a reconstructed mall at 8th & Market St. in CC Philly. Anything less then a major upgrade in many different areas in how this mall looks to city would be/will be a major disappointment. And as Londonee points out, since the City more or less handed over a large block of important real estate to this developer I think the City, and we who are the city, have the right to desire a high standard. The last thing we should want or willing to accept is a warehouse, regardless of how successful it might turn out to be.

[jmj]

Originally Posted by Londonee

The "it's a mall" defense went out the window when the city bequeathed 4 full blocks on our most important and visible arterial to PREIT. If this was at Broad and Washington, I'd be more inclined to agree. But it's not, so i'm not. This is important to get right.

so you anticipated a near total teardown? It's still a mall. You can add glass, signs, etc. Still a box with all the action on the inside. I mean what we had there wasn't exactly the talk of the design trade mags. People need to walk around it and underneath it before pretending not much has changed. Even without the final digital signs the street level is MUCH better.

[jmj]

Originally Posted by City Wide

There's rightfully a huge difference in expectations between a very successful suburban mall set in the middle of acres of parking and a reconstructed mall at 8th & Market St. in CC Philly. Anything less then a major upgrade in many different areas in how this mall looks to city would be/will be a major disappointment. And as Londonee points out, since the City more or less handed over a large block of important real estate to this developer I think the City, and we who are the city, have the right to desire a high standard. The last thing we should want or willing to accept is a warehouse, regardless of how successful it might turn out to be.

This is already better than K of P on the outside- my point is that a successful and high earning mall doesn't get that way based on outstanding exterior design. The success of the project financially has nothing to do with the complaints being levied here. Isn't this company (JV really) putting $300M of private money into this? If that constitutes something being "handed over" to an entity I guess that's not real money to some folks. How much would they have to put in before its safe to say they have enough invested to be allowed to control the design? This is about attracting tenants, generating taxes and profits and adding street level activity where there was none before. Over a year before it's completed I'm amazed that people are confident in it's failure.

[El Duderino]

Originally Posted by jmj

This is already better than K of P on the outside- my point is that a successful and high earning mall doesn't get that way based on outstanding exterior design. The success of the project financially has nothing to do with the complaints being levied here. Isn't this company (JV really) putting $300M of private money into this? If that constitutes something being "handed over" to an entity I guess that's not real money to some folks. How much would they have to put in before its safe to say they have enough invested to be allowed to control the design? This is about attracting tenants, generating taxes and profits and adding street level activity where there was none before. Over a year before it's completed I'm amazed that people are confident in it's failure.

I agree that it is much better at street level, but the facade material choices are not great (the black granite was dated in 2007) and they don’t go well with the neglected (and totally sad) top portion - people have the right to say this. One element of the street level i don’t like at all is how the retail entrances aren’t at grade; there are short ramps and/or steps at most of the Market Street facing entries, with curbs preventing easily stepping up. This is a design choice that almost compels people to know where they are going before they get there, or they literally have to back track or walk further and turn around - decisions like that have nothing to do with the amount of investment, it just seems unfriendly to casual, potential shoppers, of which there are many in the area.

All of these critiques makes this less than a slam dunk in some people’s minds, which is a fair assessment, if not one you agree with. We all want this to work/be wildly successful, and some think better design choices for the exterior to increase curb appeal would help.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by El Duderino

I agree that it is much better at street level, but the facade material choices are not great (the black granite was dated in 2007) and they don’t go well with the neglected (and totally sad) top portion - people have the right to say this. One element of the street level i don’t like at all is how the retail entrances aren’t at grade; there are short ramps and/or steps at most of the Market Street facing entries, with curbs preventing easily stepping up. This is a design choice that almost compels people to know where they are going before they get there, or they literally have to back track or walk further and turn around - decisions like that have nothing to do with the amount of investment, it just seems unfriendly to casual, potential shoppers, of which there are many in the area.

All of these critiques makes this less than a slam dunk in some people’s minds, which is a fair assessment, if not one you agree with. We all want this to work/be wildly successful, and some think better design choices for the exterior to increase curb appeal would help.

I think stuff like the entrances are actually important. Design wise it just seems like nothing is going right and it's pretty pathetic showing by PREIT.

My overarching point though, is that the aesthetic design just won't really matter as long as it is above a certain very low threshold. Stuff like the dated granite and whatever has basically ceased to be on my radar. Architecturally this is garbage, but I don't think it is aesthetically offensive in the general sense. It just seems like a bunch of just vague pastiches of modern architecture that should hopefully just blend into the background. It'l be new and shiny and it will be unoffensive enough that I just view it as not being a factor for the vast majority of the population. If they can pull off the tenants and they don't totally fuck up its integration with the street, I don't think the architecture will be the reason this sinks or swims.

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by jmj

so you anticipated a near total teardown? It's still a mall. You can add glass, signs, etc. Still a box with all the action on the inside. I mean what we had there wasn't exactly the talk of the design trade mags. People need to walk around it and underneath it before pretending not much has changed. Even without the final digital signs the street level is MUCH better.

There are quite a few examples of beautifully executed urban shopping spaces like this around the world. Look into it.

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by allovertown

My overarching point though, is that the aesthetic design just won't really matter as long as it is above a certain very low threshold. Stuff like the dated granite and whatever has basically ceased to be on my radar. Architecturally this is garbage, but I don't think it is aesthetically offensive in the general sense. It just seems like a bunch of just vague pastiches of modern architecture that should hopefully just blend into the background. It'l be new and shiny and it will be unoffensive enough that I just view it as not being a factor for the vast majority of the population. If they can pull off the tenants and they don't totally fuck up its integration with the street, I don't think the architecture will be the reason this sinks or swims.

Fair points. I think the addition of the digital signage will help as well. It's like a shiny gold object to distract viewers from the hideousness lurking nearby.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by Londonee

Fair points. I think the addition of the digital signage will help as well. It's like a shiny gold object to distract viewers from the hideousness lurking nearby.

Agree that the digital signage could go a long way in masking a lot of faults. I don't exactly have high hopes on the digital signage at the moment however. In the general sense you think about Times Square and you think what you need to replicate it is high quality digital screens plastered everywhere and you're set. But after a couple years with the signs on top of the Lit Bros building and what I've seen so far at the East Market Development, it really demonstrates how important it is to have major advertisers paying for that advertising space. In Times Square not only is that space super desirable by the world's coolest brands but they like build special advertising videos specifically for Times Square so that it fits on some of the oddly shaped congregations of screens that exist there.

You look at Lit Bros on the other hand and you see stagnant adds for like injury lawyers and car dealerships and it just looks like shit. No matter how impressive the tech is for some of this stuff, if you can't draw advertisers that can take advantage of it, it just looks like an electronic billboard you see on the side of the hallway.

[jmj]

Originally Posted by El Duderino

I agree that it is much better at street level, but the facade material choices are not great (the black granite was dated in 2007) and they don’t go well with the neglected (and totally sad) top portion - people have the right to say this. One element of the street level i don’t like at all is how the retail entrances aren’t at grade; there are short ramps and/or steps at most of the Market Street facing entries, with curbs preventing easily stepping up. This is a design choice that almost compels people to know where they are going before they get there, or they literally have to back track or walk further and turn around - decisions like that have nothing to do with the amount of investment, it just seems unfriendly to casual, potential shoppers, of which there are many in the area.

All of these critiques makes this less than a slam dunk in some people’s minds, which is a fair assessment, if not one you agree with. We all want this to work/be wildly successful, and some think better design choices for the exterior to increase curb appeal would help.

I never thought the office portion would be totally reclad- but that's just me. If it gets cleaned as promised it will look better, but this isn't a brand new structure. It's $400M+ and people are wondering why they aren't spending "more"- I'm not surprised at all. PEople looking to spend money on drinks, clothes or movies aren't basing that decision on granite cladding or lack thereof. It's similar to suggesting that recently completed apt buildings wont lease up because their materials pale in comparison to early 20th century towers. Do renters even care? Anything built is subject to VE unless it's a vanity project for a wealthy sponsor.

[jmj]

Originally Posted by Londonee

There are quite a few examples of beautifully executed urban shopping spaces like this around the world. Look into it.

I didn't know the standard was match the best urban centers in the entire world or bust. It's a hell of a lot better that what was there for the last 35 years.

[City Wide]

Originally Posted by jmj

This is already better than K of P on the outside- my point is that a successful and high earning mall doesn't get that way based on outstanding exterior design. The success of the project financially has nothing to do with the complaints being levied here. Isn't this company (JV really) putting $300M of private money into this? If that constitutes something being "handed over" to an entity I guess that's not real money to some folks. How much would they have to put in before its safe to say they have enough invested to be allowed to control the design? This is about attracting tenants, generating taxes and profits and adding street level activity where there was none before. Over a year before it's completed I'm amazed that people are confident in it's failure.

Failure can have different definitions depending on one's perspective. For PREIT failure will have to do with the return on investment and that sortof factor, and we can guess about that, but it will probably take years for them to know if it's a failure or a success. For me and I think others following this thread failure is something completely different, having to do more with how the built environment which PREIT is creating relates to and interacts with the surrounding city. And it's on that level which real concerns have been raised. Its not a either or situation, pass or fail, we're probably dealing in shades on gray, as is often the case when talking about design.

And yes I'm aware that if they had built a truly wonderful, urbanely aware mall and 90% of us thought it was near perfect, and it failed financially then that would be a failure of sorts on the design end; it has to be alive to be a success.

If PREIT had bought out the Cities interest in the old Gallery my attitude might be alittle different; that didn't happen but in reality they control what they're building, the time when the City could have had input has long since passed, but we the people can still express our opinions. How much they are spending means nothing to me, I'm not more impressed by $300M then I am by $50M and the amount certainly doesn't add to or subtract from what the public has 'invested' in this project. I care about the results, the public face of the 'warehouse', and I hope that the shops can draw in many new customers to CC.

And lastly, are you really saying that what is being built here can't be and shouldn't be critiqued in a different fashion from K of P? If so, I'm surprised you are even on this site, after all this forum is about what we build, and not about whether the owners turn a profit. People here don't argue over if Comcast II is going to be financial success, we argue about the color of it's glass, how it hits the street, whether it should have been taller/shorter/thinner and if we are going to be able to get inside it's lobby.

[El Duderino]

Originally Posted by jmj

I never thought the office portion would be totally reclad- but that's just me. If it gets cleaned as promised it will look better, but this isn't a brand new structure. It's $400M+ and people are wondering why they aren't spending "more"- I'm not surprised at all. PEople looking to spend money on drinks, clothes or movies aren't basing that decision on granite cladding or lack thereof. It's similar to suggesting that recently completed apt buildings wont lease up because their materials pale in comparison to early 20th century towers. Do renters even care? Anything built is subject to VE unless it's a vanity project for a wealthy sponsor.

I said nothing about recladding top, I said it looks sad and doesn’t read well with the base. I said nothing about the cost, I was talking about the design choice of materials; there are less/equally expensive materials that would look better and more cohesive with the overall concept than the black granite (i’m fine with the other facade materials, save for the Burlington panels, which are smaller). I said nothing about renters, I said the street level design and overall look might not bring in casual passers by at the same level a more pleasing-looking project might.

I get that you feel compelled to defend this project (I’m starting to think Londonee was dead on...), but please at least pretend to address my points if you’re going to quote me and respond.

[DudeGuy]

The Keystone Opportunity Zone for the Cira Center is expiring this year. Does anyone know if this is having any impact on the occupancy of the building? Per Brandywine it's in the high 90% as of their last earnings call.

[iamrobk]

Originally Posted by DudeGuy

The Keystone Opportunity Zone for the Cira Center is expiring this year. Does anyone know if this is having any impact on the occupancy of the building? Per Brandywine it's in the high 90% as of their last earnings call.

No idea if this means they'll actually move, but I know no one at Dechert likes working there and they'd all much rather be in Center City. Wouldn't surprise me if at least 1 tenant moves because of similar reasons at the end of the KOZ.

[Jayfar]

Originally Posted by DudeGuy

The Keystone Opportunity Zone for the Cira Center is expiring this year. Does anyone know if this is having any impact on the occupancy of the building? Per Brandywine it's in the high 90% as of their last earnings call.

I wonder if they are eligible for and/or seeking an extension?

On July 13, 2016, Governor Tom Wolf signed Act 84 of 2016. Under this Act, the KOZ program was expanded to include 12 new zones comprising 375 acres each for a period of up to 10 years effective January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2026. Also, existing parcels can be extended up to 10 years if the applicant meets the job creation and capital investment requirements. The requirements are:
Application must be filed three months before expiration date of the existing zone of subzone.
Have a cumulative minimum of 2,500 employees within the Commonwealth at the time of the application.
Demonstrate a total prior minimum capital investment within the Commonwealth of at least $300 million.
Conduct active business operations from one or more facilities on the parcel or parcels which are the subject of the application.
Comply with the provisions of the KOZ Act.

http://www.taxwarriors.com/blog/what-happens-when-koz-tax-breaks-are-not-extended

[DudeGuy]

Commercial mixed use comprising of first floor retail/commercial with storage units above. Callowhill Neighborhood Association is holding a zoning meeting this upcoming Monday.

A block from the Spring Garden SEPTA stop. Ridiculous.

[mcgrath618]

Absolutely horrid. These self storage buildings need to go. The one in Havertown is atrocious.

[jmj]

Originally Posted by El Duderino

I said nothing about recladding top, I said it looks sad and doesn’t read well with the base. I said nothing about the cost, I was talking about the design choice of materials; there are less/equally expensive materials that would look better and more cohesive with the overall concept than the black granite (i’m fine with the other facade materials, save for the Burlington panels, which are smaller). I said nothing about renters, I said the street level design and overall look might not bring in casual passers by at the same level a more pleasing-looking project might.

I get that you feel compelled to defend this project (I’m starting to think Londonee was dead on...), but please at least pretend to address my points if you’re going to quote me and respond.

Everyone has an opinion about choice of colors or materials- none of them are right or wrong. That's subjective. You feel strongly one way (as do others who are posting about these details incessantly) and I could find an equal number of people who either like it or aren't bothered in the least by the granite or whatever. The point is the actual design as it relates to the street is 20 times better than what was there before and based on the content of the complaints it certainly sounds like the majority of the people talking haven't actually been down there. Instead of blank walls and emergency exit doors you now have glass on two levels, entrances from Market Street, new street furniture, a grand entrance at 9th and Market, tremendous improvements to the underpass areas and improvements along Filbert (new entrances, benches, planters, etc) and before it opens people are saying from an urban context it's a failure or at least a huge disappointment. Changing cladding materials does not improve or degrade the actual design features pertinent to how the building interacts with the surrounding streets.

I would def walk around the entire site and along the the underpass streets and take a closer look before claiming the building fails to check the required boxes for a successful urban shopping center. The exterior finishes aren't great or inspiring but I'm not surprised at all. I would argue the street level finishes at East Market are even more basic.