PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread X

[phishtown]

Originally Posted by summersm343

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.

Yeah those 4, plus One Dock Street and 702 Sansom. I know they all have their reasons, but even before covid it felt like the ratio of projects to actual things getting built East of Broad was higher than other places in the city. So when I see 400+ ft proposed my first instinct is to be skeptical, even if I'm hopefully wrong

It's been 2-3 years since East Market and 1213 Walnut were completed we're just now seeing new construction with East Market Phase 3, maybe I'm just impatient

[Nanyika]

Originally Posted by 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.

I generally agree with this opinion. I have no objections, in general, to high-rise or mid-rise buildings in the area. For example, I thought the objections to the proposal for apartments above the supermarket on 5th St. were unfounded, and I see nothing wrong with the 30-story addition to the hotel on Dock Street, or to a mid-rise near the Ritz Theatre. My comments were merely on this specific project; and the potential faults I tried to deal with were not shadows, lack of historical charm, or too much density.

I do not even think that the 3rd & Walnut project, if built, would be an utter disaster—only that it could be improved. My main criticism did not even address the height as much as the fact that the placement and shape of this blocky building would dominate the street and obstruct the view corridor.

As I suggested earlier, it might be made slimmer, and thus less obtrusive, by layering or stepping back some floors. As an example, look at historical photos of the Irvin Building, a 1928 skyscraper (which expanded an earlier building) that used to stand at 4th & Walnut until the Park Service tore it down in 1974. And so, this project might have, just as a hypothetical example, a base of maybe five or six stories, stepped back to eight stories, and then rising in a tower to 10 stories or more. The current capacity of the building could be maintained by bringing the facade to the corner and eliminating the front plaza. Also, before we sign off on unmitigated approval for the project, we should see what the rear of the building looks like.

Finally, I want to say that I am not offended if people disagree with me. Debate is good! I do not appreciate it, however, when posters simply slam my opinions as "bullshit," and then raise an issue like density that has nothing to do with the points I was trying to make. I am a strong advocate of density and good urbanist values, and I often agree with the arguments made by that particular poster.

[Jayfar]

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 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

The Architectural Committee Zoom meeting is this morning. 232-36 WALNUT ST is listed on the agenda at 11:30AM, however that's only an estimate.

Related comment documents were posted to the PHC website yesterday (7/27). If you think you already know what both parties have to say about the proposal, you're probably right.

232-36 Walnut St. National Park Service comment: National Park Service statement from Cynthia MacLeod, Superintendent, Independence National Historical Park: https://www.phila.gov/media/20200727130039/NPS-Comment-232-36-Walnut-St.pdf

232-36 Walnut St. SHCA comment, Paul Boni, Chair, SHCA Zoning & Historic Preservation Committee: https://www.phila.gov/media/20200727174454/SHCA-comment-232-36-Walnut-St.pdf

Instructions below for joining the meeting and commenting. Note that it has been their practice to accept emailed comments to [email protected] even while the meeting is in progress; put 232-36 Walnut St in the subject line. Emailed comments are included in the official record and may also, as time permits, be read aloud in the meeting by PHC staff.

Philadelphia Historical Commission
Meeting of the Architectural Committee
Tuesday, July 28, 2020
9:00 AM | Remote Meeting on Zoom Webinar
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Architectural Committee will hold its July 28, 2020 meeting remotely, not in person, using the Zoom Webinar platform. You can watch, listen, and comment using a computer, tablet, smartphone, or telephone.
The meeting agenda and application materials for the Architectural Committee meeting are available on the Historical Commission's Public Meetings page.
To watch the meeting live on Zoom using your computer, tablet, or smartphone, click on the following link on July 28.
Link: https://bit.ly/acjuly28
Password: 029945
To listen to the meeting live on the telephone, call this number on July 28.
Telephone Number: 1-646-876-9923
Webinar ID: 882 1926 5437
Password: 029945
To offer written comments prior to the meeting, send an email to [email protected].
After the meeting, you can watch a recording of the meeting on the Recordings page of the Historical Commission’s website.

[Redddog]

Originally Posted by Jayfar

The Architectural Committee Zoom meeting is this morning. 232-36 WALNUT ST is listed on the agenda at 11:30AM, however that's only an estimate.

Related comment documents were posted to the PHC website yesterday (7/27). If you think you already know what both parties have to say about the proposal, you're probably right.

232-36 Walnut St. National Park Service comment: National Park Service statement from Cynthia MacLeod, Superintendent, Independence National Historical Park: https://www.phila.gov/media/20200727130039/NPS-Comment-232-36-Walnut-St.pdf

232-36 Walnut St. SHCA comment, Paul Boni, Chair, SHCA Zoning & Historic Preservation Committee: https://www.phila.gov/media/20200727174454/SHCA-comment-232-36-Walnut-St.pdf

Instructions below for joining the meeting and commenting. Note that it has been their practice to accept emailed comments to [email protected] even while the meeting is in progress; put 232-36 Walnut St in the subject line. Emailed comments are included in the official record and may also, as time permits, be read aloud in the meeting by PHC staff.

Philadelphia Historical Commission
Meeting of the Architectural Committee
Tuesday, July 28, 2020
9:00 AM | Remote Meeting on Zoom Webinar
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Architectural Committee will hold its July 28, 2020 meeting remotely, not in person, using the Zoom Webinar platform. You can watch, listen, and comment using a computer, tablet, smartphone, or telephone.
The meeting agenda and application materials for the Architectural Committee meeting are available on the Historical Commission's Public Meetings page.
To watch the meeting live on Zoom using your computer, tablet, or smartphone, click on the following link on July 28.
Link: https://bit.ly/acjuly28
Password: 029945
To listen to the meeting live on the telephone, call this number on July 28.
Telephone Number: 1-646-876-9923
Webinar ID: 882 1926 5437
Password: 029945
To offer written comments prior to the meeting, send an email to [email protected].
After the meeting, you can watch a recording of the meeting on the Recordings page of the Historical Commission’s website.

No chance for this one, folks.

Move along. Nothin' to see here.

[Justin7]

Originally Posted by Nanyika

It would dominate 3rd St.

[...]

it would interrupt the view corridor up and down 3rd St.

Originally Posted by Nanyika

the placement and shape of this blocky building would dominate the street and obstruct the view corridor.

[...]

The current capacity of the building could be maintained by bringing the facade to the corner and eliminating the front plaza.

What "view corridor" are you talking about? I cannot figure out what you mean by view corridor in reference to this site. In fact I'm unable to find a single view this building would block that doesn't involve the lowers floors of SH Towers.

Also, you twice mention that the building would dominate the street, which I'm also struggling to understand, but you go on to suggest removing the small plaza and pulling the building out the street which seems counter to your stated concern.

[Nanyika]

Originally Posted by Justin7

What "view corridor" are you talking about? I cannot figure out what you mean by view corridor in reference to this site. In fact I'm unable to find a single view this building would block that doesn't involve the lowers floors of SH Towers.

Also, you twice mention that the building would dominate the street, which I'm also struggling to understand, but you go on to suggest removing the small plaza and pulling the building out the street which seems counter to your stated concern.

Those are fair questions. To my way of thinking, the issue is not so much that the building blocks a view but that the combination of height and bulk make it very dominant in that low-rise neighborhood. If you walk up and down 3rd St. and try to visualize the building, you might see what I mean. That's why I suggested that contouring the building by stepping back some levels (like the nearby Custom House) might give it a less overbearing appearance along 3rd St. As for the view from Dock Street in the east, it is difficult to say right now since we have been given no drawings.

In regard to your question about extending the building to the corner, I was referring to that possibility under the circumstances that its first level would be limited to five or maybe six stories. Then the elevation would be relatively in scale with that of other buildings in the area. Right now, the front plaza that the architects have projected seems rather empty and useless. It was probably planned merely to ensure that the 15-story building would not loom directly over the Merchants Exchange; but a five or six story section would not have that problem.

As I said earlier, there are aspects of the design that I like very much. It reminds us of the many fine 19th and early 20th-century commercial buildings that used to fill the area—many of them much taller than what is there now. I think it was criminal for the city to allow most of those buildings to be demolished. If the area still retained its old look and character, when this was a bustling business center, the proposal for this 15-story hotel would fit right in.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by Nanyika

Finally, I want to say that I am not offended if people disagree with me. Debate is good! I do not appreciate it, however, when posters simply slam my opinions as "bullshit," and then raise an issue like density that has nothing to do with the points I was trying to make. I am a strong advocate of density and good urbanist values, and I often agree with the arguments made by that particular poster.

Hey, I said "respectfully."

Seriously though you flat out said the building is too tall and would dominate the street. You weren't exactly quibbling with the design specifics as much as you were totally dismissing that a building of this height should be built here.

If you're a fan of density and urbanist values, you've yet to put forward a compelling reason why this density should not be added at this location. You said it is too square and had other design complaints, and that's fine to me. But urbanist values don't square with dismissing a building of this height out of hand at this location.

[Frontst17]

http://www.rising.realestate/341-unit-tower-proposed-on-trader-joes-parking-lot/

Rising updated their article with renders of the reader joes tower

[Nelsondvm2015]

They’ve posted renderings of the building for the Trader Joe’s lot.

http://http://www.rising.realestate/341-unit-tower-proposed-on-trader-joes-parking-lot/

[bigfish]

They seem to conceal the parking garage well and having an entrance on JFK should help that pedestrian experience out. It does seem that some of the absurdly high amount of parking spaces will be used for Trader Joes but who drives to that location anyways?

http://www.rising.realestate/341-unit-to...8Ns6fv6lhXriXlsagcWRWBN02ABTHke5-nn3Jvak

[McBane]

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.

110%. If you asked residents to choose between the proposed high rise and a 2 story parking garage without retail, they would overwhelmingly choose the latter.

On the topic of that building - it's probably not going to happen so my comment is moot, but... I question what a tower like that would actually look like after construction. The Alexander is the exception to the rule. Almost all faux-historical buildings end up looking like junk due to the cheap materials used. If you're not going to take the time and expense to make a faux-historical building look real, then we're better off with a boring glass box.

[Nelsondvm2015]

Does anyone know anything about this? It’s at Callowhill and 15th next door to the Hanover development on North Broad.

[TK2001]

Originally Posted by Frontst17

http://www.rising.realestate/341-unit-tower-proposed-on-trader-joes-parking-lot/

Rising updated their article with renders of the reader joes tower

Nice, I like it! Time to make a 3d model

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by Nelsondvm2015

They’ve posted renderings of the building for the Trader Joe’s lot.

http://http://www.rising.realestate/341-unit-tower-proposed-on-trader-joes-parking-lot/

Love it! Makes great use of the spot. Sure hides the garage.

[Jawnadelphia]

Trader Joe's lot - 33 N. 22nd Street - 316 feet tall - another SCB designed building.
https://www.phila.gov/media/20200728141823/2020-0721-33-N.-22nd-Street-CDR_reduced.pdf


1620 Sansom - 320 feet tall - another SCB designed building!
https://www.phila.gov/media/20200728142642/2020_0513-SLC-1620-SANSOM-CDR-Presentation_reduced.pdf


The rest of today's CDR notices -- lots of big projects:
https://www.phila.gov/documents/civic-design-review-cdr-meeting-materials/

[Jawnadelphia]

^The two Del. Ave proposals, which are basically right next to each other would bring exactly 950 new units to the area.

[mcgrath618]

I'll make a thread for 33 N 22nd shortly.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by mcgrath618

I'll make a thread for 33 N 22nd shortly.

Thank you! Looks like a great project!





Read more here:
http://www.rising.realestate/341-unit-tower-proposed-on-trader-joes-parking-lot/

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by Nelsondvm2015

Does anyone know anything about this? It’s at Callowhill and 15th next door to the Hanover development on North Broad.

Very interesting! I guess they actually got someone to buy this parcel. Another highrise hotel here would be nice. We'll wait to see if further news comes out about this.

[iheartphilly]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Very interesting! I guess they actually got someone to buy this parcel. Another highrise hotel here would be nice. We'll wait to see if further news comes out about this.

Canadian developers per the web address on the board. Interesting.