PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread IX - Page 919

skyscraper · #**18361** Posted **Aug 31, 2018, 12:11 AM**

They say that if you die and go to hell, you have to change planes in Atlanta.
Let’s get back to talking about Philly skyscrapers now, ok?
How about that SLS Tower?

mcgrath618 · #**18362** Posted **Aug 31, 2018, 2:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyscraper

They say that if you die and go to hell, you have to change planes in Atlanta.
Let’s get back to talking about Philly skyscrapers now, ok?
How about that SLS Tower?

Begone, heathen.
Unless you have those renderings you said you'd seen, we will not be fooled by your tricks. Give us what we want - nay - NEED. INFORMATION.

summersm343 · #**18363** Posted **Aug 31, 2018, 3:17 AM**

Nice uCity Square rendering I haven't seen yet.

skyscraper · #**18364** Posted **Aug 31, 2018, 11:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcgrath618

Begone, heathen.
Unless you have those renderings you said you'd seen, we will not be fooled by your tricks. Give us what we want - nay - NEED. INFORMATION.

What info are you looking for? I can’t give you the renderings but I have told you that the building height is 542’, there is no hotel, it’s all resi, and that the massing is essentially the same as before.

jsbrook · #**18365** Posted **Aug 31, 2018, 11:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by thisisforreal

Assuming that list is accurate, I'm surprised that Atlanta came in at #3 with 51 million. I'm even more surprised that, since New Orleans and Washington DC didn't make the cut, and #10 is San Fran with 25 million, that means Atlanta had more visitors than DC and New Orleans put together, which I find even more incredulous.

It is astounding to me that Atlanta only has 8 million visitors a year less than NYC. Is this survey counting people who don't leave the airport?...It is a big hub.

MichaelScottsOffice · #**18366** Posted **Aug 31, 2018, 1:16 PM**

The numbers world atlas uses are provided by each cities own estimates. Tourist data is difficult to verify and each city has its own method of getting these estimates, there is no standard amongst the cities in America that determine what makes someone a tourist. Although I like seeing Philly high on that list I wouldn’t read too much into it.

Londonee · #**18367** Posted **Aug 31, 2018, 2:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcgrath618

Atlanta is indeed smaller than Denver by square footage, but ATL is the busiest airport in the world according to Wikipedia.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

^
That's a lot of connecting flights...LOL

Quote:

Originally Posted by City Wide

NYC's three airport (some count 4) add up to more the Atlanta, but as a single airport they claim more passengers then any other in this country. It's as boring as hell, I've been stuck there twice for around 12 hours. One can only ride the little airport subway so many times before it gets old.

Everyone understands that there's a difference between O&D traffic and connecting passengers, right? ATL is busiest airport b/c Delta (the largest airline depending on which metric you are looking at) routes a massive percentage of its network through it. It's geographic location has always made it perfect as a transit hub. The massive majority of travelers through that airport never actually step foot outside of it.

City Wide · #**18368** Posted **Aug 31, 2018, 3:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelScottsOffice

The numbers world atlas uses are provided by each cities own estimates. Tourist data is difficult to verify and each city has its own method of getting these estimates, there is no standard amongst the cities in America that determine what makes someone a tourist. Although I like seeing Philly high on that list I wouldn’t read too much into it.

Atlanta is a city known for big conventions, so maybe every hotel visitor is counted as a tourist.

Interesting, but on the other hand, who cares? If its all done by self reporting who believes any of the figures, including Philly's

nemesisinphilly · #**18369** Posted **Aug 31, 2018, 5:36 PM**

CCRA is attempting to downzone pretty much all of Center City West to CMX-3? This must not be allowed to happen, page 7 below:

http://www.centercityresidents.org/resources/Documents/28623_CCRA_Qtr3_2018_WEB.pdf

Jayfar · #**18370** Posted **Aug 31, 2018, 6:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nemesisinphilly

CCRA is attempting to downzone pretty much all of Center City West to CMX-3? This must not be allowed to happen, page 7 below:

http://www.centercityresidents.org/resources/Documents/28623_CCRA_Qtr3_2018_WEB.pdf

Just Walnut, Sansom and Chestnut is my understanding.

allovertown · #**18371** Posted **Aug 31, 2018, 7:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayfar

Just Walnut, Sansom and Chestnut is my understanding.

That's roughly half of the largely contiguous east west cross streets in the area they represent. And the area to the south is already mostly zoned lower than this already.

It's an absurd proposal.

iheartphilly · #**18372** Posted **Aug 31, 2018, 7:47 PM**

+1
Small-minded thinkers. Philly needs to increase its tax base with more people living and working in the city proper.

skyscraper · #**18373** Posted **Aug 31, 2018, 8:41 PM**

this is a typical scare tactic. they say that 56 buildings or whatever on those 3 blocks on walnut aren't protected, so be prepared to say goodbye to them. then, on sansom, buildings are even "less protected." if the buildings on walnut have no protection, how can other buildings be less protected?
not every building is worthy of protection, even old ones.

jsbrook · #**18374** Posted **Sep 1, 2018, 1:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayfar

Just Walnut, Sansom and Chestnut is my understanding.

Ridiculous. With the exception of things like PHA's old headquarters, I think it would be a shame to see most of the low and midrise buildings on these blocks demoed. But there is no reason why taller towers should not rise on vacant lots and parking lots throughout these blocks. And, no, they would not turn them into "deep canyons." Some overbuilds are not things to avoid at all costs here either. Better approach would be to designate some of the more significant buildings. Some are on the Philly register I believe, like the Stotesbury Mansions and buildings around the forthcoming 1911 Walnut.

allovertown · #**18375** Posted **Sep 1, 2018, 6:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Ridiculous. With the exception of things like PHA's old headquarters, I think it would be a shame to see most of the low and midrise buildings on these blocks demoed. But there is no reason why taller towers should not rise on vacant lots and parking lots throughout these blocks. And, no, they would not turn them into "deep canyons." Some overbuilds are not things to avoid at all costs here either. Better approach would be to designate some of the more significant buildings. Some are on the Philly register I believe, like the Stotesbury Mansions and buildings around the forthcoming 1911 Walnut.

Agreed. I said the same thing with the news of the similar downzoning proposal in Society Hill. I am a big fan of preservation, especially in Philadelphia, a city with a rich historic architectural heritage that in general, I see no need in destroying to make way for modern buildings when there are still so many open development opportunities in this city.

But this downzoning business is a bullshit covered trojan horse. Downzoning doesn't protect historic buildings, it just prevents density. In West Philly they have been destroying beautiful Victorian buildings even in areas that already have restrictive zoning. They're knocking down these historic buildings, not to build taller, but to build more efficiently. Pack in more rooms, more apartments, more parking spaces in a more energy efficient envelope with cheap materials.

If they want to protect buildings then this community group should be busy nominating buildings for preservation, not trying to advocate for downzoing.

So not only does this not protect buildings that should be protected, but on undeveloped or underdeveloped land with insignificant buildings, it prevents the construction of skyscrapers which are entirely appropriate for the area.

eixample · #**18376** Posted **Sep 1, 2018, 9:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Ridiculous. With the exception of things like PHA's old headquarters, I think it would be a shame to see most of the low and midrise buildings on these blocks demoed. But there is no reason why taller towers should not rise on vacant lots and parking lots throughout these blocks. And, no, they would not turn them into "deep canyons." Some overbuilds are not things to avoid at all costs here either. Better approach would be to designate some of the more significant buildings. Some are on the Philly register I believe, like the Stotesbury Mansions and buildings around the forthcoming 1911 Walnut.

Totally agree. I am a big historic preservation fan and think that there is a lot of work to be done on individual lots and also I would advoc preserving through potential downzoning certain low rise certain great 19th century blocks of center city, like some Jewelers Row, several strips on Sansom, such as the south 1500 and 1600 blocks and blocks like 20th between Locust and Spruce. But wholesale downzonings in Center City would be terrible. When people talk about gentrification pressure in Point Breeze or Brewerytown or wherever, a large part of that is that we are not building enough supply in the heart of town to meet the demand for new housing that and that new construction is then being pushed outward.

SEFTA · #**18377** Posted **Sep 1, 2018, 2:46 PM**

This might be a good opportunity to gerrymander a district. No, seriously. Block by block re-designate which sections should be saved and where towers could be allowed. Actually make a decision instead of a blanket designation. Start treating each property as precious and, particularly this district, decide. The mix of low and high rise is crucial for this area.