PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread X

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by PHL10

Summers, what is your guess at height?

40 floors, 470 feet tall.

That many units? Has to be at least 35+ floors

[eixample]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

^^
Can PHC be sued for being arbitrary and capricious on the denial if zoning allows for it?

Courts are very deferential to the historical commission's interpretation of the historical preservation ordinance. The recent Dilworth house cases reinforced that the commission members should be given wide leeway to apply the standards of the ordinance unless they are "plainly erroneous or inconsistent" with the ordinance. The preservation ordinance is a separate thing from the zoning code so it really doesn't help if a project is by right.

[iheartphilly]

Originally Posted by eixample

Courts are very deferential to the historical commission's interpretation of the historical preservation ordinance. The recent Dilworth house cases reinforced that the commission members should be given wide leeway to apply the standards of the ordinance unless they are "plainly erroneous or inconsistent" with the ordinance. The preservation ordinance is a separate thing from the zoning code so it really doesn't help if a project is by right.

ok, but here they are tearing down a city McMasion built maybe 10 years ago or so and wanting to replace it on that lot with the hotel. I don't see anything historical about what they are tearing down. The Dilworth house I can understand, but even there I thought they were only saving the facade and tearing down whats behind it and building that new and up.

[Jayfar]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

ok, but here they are tearing down a city McMasion built maybe 10 years ago or so and wanting to replace it on that lot with the hotel. I don't see anything historical about what they are tearing down. The Dilworth house I can understand, but even there I thought they were only saving the facade and tearing down whats behind it and building that new and up.

No one is suggesting the strange mansion shouldn't be torn down; it's a non-contributing structure in the historic district. It's the character of the historic district itself that comes into play. The National Park Service sets the basic standards that most cities' historic preservation standards derive from. Note too that this site is directly across Walnut St from the Merchants Exchange Building, which is a National Historic Landmark (a notch above inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places).

https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/applying-rehabilitation/successful-rehab/new-construction.htm

New Construction within the Boundaries of Historic Properties
It is possible to add new construction within the boundaries of historic properties if site conditions allow and if the design, density, and placement of the new construction respect the overall character of the site. According to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation – Standard 9 in particular – and the Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, new construction needs to be built in a manner that protects the integrity of the historic building(s) and the property’s setting.

In addition, the following must be considered:

Related new construction – including buildings, driveways, parking lots, landscape improvements and other new features – must not alter the historic character of a property. A property’s historic function must be evident even if there is a change of use.

The location of new construction should be considered carefully in order to follow the setbacks of historic buildings and to avoid blocking their primary elevations. New construction should be placed away from or at the side or rear of historic buildings and must avoid obscuring, damaging, or destroying character-defining features of these buildings or the site.

Protecting the historic setting and context of a property, including the degree of open space and building density, must always be considered when planning new construction on an historic site This entails identifying the formal or informal arrangements of buildings on the site, and whether they have a distinctive urban, suburban, or rural character. For example, a historic building traditionally surrounded by open space must not be crowded with dense development.

In properties with multiple historic buildings, the historic relationship between buildings must also be protected. Contributing buildings must not be isolated from one another by the insertion of new construction.

As with new additions, the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of new construction on the site of a historic building must be compatible with those of the historic building. When visible and in close proximity to historic buildings, the new construction must be subordinate to these buildings. New construction should also be distinct from the old and must not attempt to replicate historic buildings elsewhere on site and to avoid creating a false sense of historic development.

The limitations on the size, scale, and design of new construction may be less critical the farther it is located from historic buildings.

As with additions, maximizing the advantage of existing site conditions, such as wooded areas or drops in grade, that limit visibility is highly recommended.

Historic landscapes and significant viewsheds must be preserved. Also, significant archeological resources should be taken into account when evaluating the placement of new construction, and, as appropriate, mitigation measures should be implemented if the archeological resources will be disturbed.

[iheartphilly]

Originally Posted by Jayfar

No one is suggesting the strange mansion shouldn't be torn down; it's a non-contributing structure in the historic district. It's the character of the historic district itself that comes into play. The National Park Service sets the basic standards that most cities' historic preservation standards derive from. Note too that this site is directly across Walnut St the Merchants Exchange Building, which is a National Historic Landmark (a notch above inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places).

https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/applying-rehabilitation/successful-rehab/new-construction.htm

New Construction within the Boundaries of Historic Properties
It is possible to add new construction within the boundaries of historic properties if site conditions allow and if the design, density, and placement of the new construction respect the overall character of the site. According to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation – Standard 9 in particular – and the Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, new construction needs to be built in a manner that protects the integrity of the historic building(s) and the property’s setting.

In addition, the following must be considered:

Related new construction – including buildings, driveways, parking lots, landscape improvements and other new features – must not alter the historic character of a property. A property’s historic function must be evident even if there is a change of use.

The location of new construction should be considered carefully in order to follow the setbacks of historic buildings and to avoid blocking their primary elevations. New construction should be placed away from or at the side or rear of historic buildings and must avoid obscuring, damaging, or destroying character-defining features of these buildings or the site.

Protecting the historic setting and context of a property, including the degree of open space and building density, must always be considered when planning new construction on an historic site This entails identifying the formal or informal arrangements of buildings on the site, and whether they have a distinctive urban, suburban, or rural character. For example, a historic building traditionally surrounded by open space must not be crowded with dense development.

In properties with multiple historic buildings, the historic relationship between buildings must also be protected. Contributing buildings must not be isolated from one another by the insertion of new construction.

As with new additions, the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of new construction on the site of a historic building must be compatible with those of the historic building. When visible and in close proximity to historic buildings, the new construction must be subordinate to these buildings. New construction should also be distinct from the old and must not attempt to replicate historic buildings elsewhere on site and to avoid creating a false sense of historic development.

The limitations on the size, scale, and design of new construction may be less critical the farther it is located from historic buildings.

As with additions, maximizing the advantage of existing site conditions, such as wooded areas or drops in grade, that limit visibility is highly recommended.

Historic landscapes and significant viewsheds must be preserved. Also, significant archeological resources should be taken into account when evaluating the placement of new construction, and, as appropriate, mitigation measures should be implemented if the archeological resources will be disturbed.

Ok, that's fair. But the mansion that was built there in the first place -how did that get past the Historical Commission in the first place, if we go by the standard you referenced? The current 12 story hotel's design and material is well above average and the typical onlooker probably would think it falls in line with the adjacent Merchant Bank bldg, at least more so then the modern looking brick mansion.

And, the current 12 story hotel reminds me a little of the build quality and design of the Alexander developed by the Mormons.

I just hope there isn't a double standard here being applied between the modern brick mansion and the proposed hotel.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

Ok, that's fair. But the mansion that was built there in the first place -how did that get past the Historical Commission in the first place, if we go by the standard you referenced? The current 12 story hotel's design and material is well above average and the typical onlooker probably would think it falls in line with the adjacent Merchant Bank bldg, at least more so then the modern looking brick mansion.

And, the current 12 story hotel reminds me a little of the build quality and design of the Alexander developed by the Mormons.

I just hope there isn't a double standard here being applied between the modern brick mansion and the proposed hotel.

The mansion got built because it's all a sham and no one really cares about history or the character of the neighborhood or whatever bullshit the society hill neighborhood association says they care about. All they care about is preventing the addition of density to their exclusive enclave, keeping out the undesirables, reducing demand for on street parking, etc. A plot of land that could have contained 6 houses with no off street parking by right, instead contains a single ridiculous mcmansion and an absurd 5 car garage. Society Hill Neighbors association must have loved the mcmansion project.

[Jayfar]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

Ok, that's fair. But the mansion that was built there in the first place -how did that get past the Historical Commission in the first place, if we go by the standard you referenced? The current 12 story hotel's design and material is well above average and the typical onlooker probably would think it falls in line with the adjacent Merchant Bank bldg, at least more so then the modern looking brick mansion.

And, the current 12 story hotel reminds me a little of the build quality and design of the Alexander developed by the Mormons.

I just hope there isn't a double standard here being applied between the modern brick mansion and the proposed hotel.

I can only guess that the mansion passed muster with the PHC by not being 15-stories (the actual height of the current proposal) and having a substantial setback from the street facing the Merchants Exchange — thus a far less imposing structure. To it's credit, the new proposal is also set back from the street somewhat and that may help its chances. On the other hand, some will insist urban buildings should maintain the street-wall and come right up to the sidewalk.

Google streetview: https://goo.gl/maps/STC5wqyZXerUYdSu9

[PurpleWhiteOut]

In terms of size, it's only a half block away from the General Accident Building which is 11 stories tall, not to mention that it's only a block and a half from the society hill towers and 510 Walnut. I really don't think it's out of scale with what's already there.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Zoning Application in for 448 unit mixed-use building at the old 12th Street Gym Site

That's HUUUUGGEEEE! This site isn't very big. That many units would HAVE to be 35+ floors easily.

Read more here:
https://li.phila.gov/?fbclid=IwAR1G9_IUk...ey=128093074&address=204%20S%2012TH%20ST

the fact that it mentions mixed income housing suggests that its larger than it otherwise would be due to bonuses.

[PHL10]

Originally Posted by allovertown

The mansion got built because it's all a sham and no one really cares about history or the character of the neighborhood or whatever bullshit the society hill neighborhood association says they care about. All they care about is preventing the addition of density to their exclusive enclave, keeping out the undesirables, reducing demand for on street parking, etc. A plot of land that could have contained 6 houses with no off street parking by right, instead contains a single ridiculous mcmansion and an absurd 5 car garage. Society Hill Neighbors association must have loved the mcmansion project.

Yep, that's pretty much it.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by PHL10

Yep, that's pretty much it.

I know the residents think they're protecting the neighborhood but in reality, to protect the neighborhood and keep it relevant, you have to let it evolve incrementally...even if just on the boundaries. The danger of not helping the neighborhood evolve in any way is that it becomes completely irrelevant.

This is sort of what happened to Old City. The folks on the OCCA were so against everything for so long and had such a specific interpretation of what Old City should look like that it received literally no investment for a very long time.

Developers just went elsewhere. Even with all of the new development today, Old City struggles to remain relevant because the old guard stained it for at least a generation.

It wouldn't be the worse thing in the world if Society Hill had a nice boutique hotel or two with beautiful common spaces (that act as an extension of the neighborhood) where you could meet friends for coffee or a cocktail.

[PHL10]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

This is sort of what happened to Old City. The folks on the OCCA were so against everything for so long and had such a specific interpretation of what Old City should look like that it received literally no investment for a very long time.

Developers just went elsewhere. Even with all of the new development today, Old City struggles to remain relevant because the old guard stained it for at least a generation.

I'd say it got to the point where it was looking very run down and blighted compared to the surrounding neighborhoods. Sad but many of the old guard, as you call them would rather have shuttered stores and decrepit, crumbling buildings than add any vibrancy and density to their neighborhood.

[eixample]

I agree with all this criticism. The main problem to me is councilmanic prerogative - the local council person kowtows to organized wealthy neighborhood groups because they want to get re-eelected without having to put up a fight and keep donations flowing. Squelching development in Society Hill, Logan Square, and Old City pushes development into other neighborhoods and increases gentrification. If you are opposed to gentrification (Gym, Kenyatta, Bass, Gauthier, Brooks) or just generally pro-development (Domb) you should be in favor of upzoning the development resistant pockets of center city and limiting historical districts and the scope of the preservation ordinance. I'm not a social justice warrior, but I do believe that rich nimbys are one of the biggest impediments to the real changes that could help poor people of color. (This is more about suburban upzoning and school district and municipal boundaries and schools funded primarily by property taxes but also a little bit about center city land use.) Now is the time for our pro-BLM council members to recognize this fact

[Nanyika]

I seem to have a different view from most of the comments on the 3rd & Walnut hotel. In general, I like the look of the building. It's a bit reminiscent of the Jayne Building, which used to stand a block away at 3rd & Chestnut (torn down in 1958 along with the entire row of historic 1850s commercial buildings). I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the architects were influenced by the Jayne Building. And the materials on the facade, provided that is real stone, are complementary to the Merchants' Exchange and other buildings in the area. But I don't think the building works very well at this specific location; it's too high and too square.

I walked by the corner yesterday, and viewed the site from many angles, trying to imagine this project. It would dominate 3rd St. If it were placed slightly to the east, where the other high-rise proposal was unfortunately rejected, it would probably be okay, but not right at the intersection, where it would interrupt the view corridor up and down 3rd St. and loom over several historic buildings (such as St. Paul's Church). It would help also if the building were stepped back at several levels instead of being so blocky.

Actually, if all of the mid-rise buildings in the area that were torn down in the 1950s were still there, this hotel proposal would very possibly fit in. But like it or not, Society Hill today is generally a low-rise neighborhood with a defined character, and any proposals that break that scale and mold need to be very well situated in order to be compatible. I'm certainly not crazy about the 1990s mansion that is there now, though it has a nice garden, but I not convinced that the hotel proposal is a real improvement. In any case, it probably will be rejected in hearings.

[Justin7]

^Strongly disagree. I believe this size is perfectly appropriate for the location.

Context (Large Image):

[eixample]

Yeah, this is Walnut Street we are talking about, not Delancy or even Spruce or Pine. Walnut Street, along with Chestnut and Market should rise in height as the city grows. We don't even have shadow issues for society hill neighbors for buildings on Walnut. I don't think we should accept that Society Hill is preserved in amber as it sat in the 1970s. It's not colonial Williamsburg. We should protect 18th and 19th century housing, but buildings of 4, 5, 6 stories on most streets and even higher on Walnut is not going to ruin the historical charm of the neighborhood. There is no rule that a historical building becomes less noticeable or impotant if it has taller neighbors.

[phishtown]

Originally Posted by summersm343

40 floors, 470 feet tall.

That many units? Has to be at least 35+ floors

That would be awesome.
It seems to me though that there a lot of proposals in this general area over the past few years with none of them visibly progressing except for East Market/Jefferson. I hope that changes.

[nemesisinphilly]

Originally Posted by phishtown

That would be awesome.
It seems to me though that there a lot of proposals in this general area over the past few years with none of them visibly progressing except for East Market/Jefferson. I hope that changes.

That's true but demo and building permits are a step beyond just a proposal.

This is also a major developer that has already done work in Philly. They built the glass Cheesecake Factory/Verizon building at 15th and Walnut

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by phishtown

That would be awesome.
It seems to me though that there a lot of proposals in this general area over the past few years with none of them visibly progressing except for East Market/Jefferson. I hope that changes.

Well... let's see. 1213 Walnut was built. Both of the Chestnut Street East Market towers are moving forward.

What else is there?

The Sansom Street senior apartment tower - I can certainly understand why that would be delayed in the current climate...

The hotel tower at the site of the old Midtown Diner.... again, I could understand why a hotel would be delayed in this climate.

The tower in place of the old Wendy's? That was also basically an extended stay hotel....

So, aside from 3 towers which all likely have good reasons to be delayed in this climate, what other tower am I missing east of Broad that hasn't progressed? 709 Chestnut? Not sure what's going on with that honestly.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by Nanyika

Actually, if all of the mid-rise buildings in the area that were torn down in the 1950s were still there, this hotel proposal would very possibly fit in. But like it or not, Society Hill today is generally a low-rise neighborhood with a defined character, and any proposals that break that scale and mold need to be very well situated in order to be compatible.

Respectfully. No. This is bullshit.

This site is three blocks from a subway station.

Maximizing transportation infrastructure is WAYYYYYYYYY more important and helpful to the city, then fitting in with a low-rise neighborhood that this building would not even really sit within as much as be located on its edge.