PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread X

[nemesisinphilly]

Originally Posted by PurpleWhiteOut

Walnut Street Properties Destroyed by Arson Sold. Tower on the Horizon?

Finally some signs of movement on the Walnut arson parcels. All three sold to an unnamed NY based company.

Can't find anyone else reporting on this other than risingrealestate.

Wouldn't be surprised if the NY Company was Midwood. They already own 1723-29 on this block of Walnut.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by PurpleWhiteOut

Walnut Street Properties Destroyed by Arson Sold. Tower on the Horizon?

Finally some signs of movement on the Walnut arson parcels. All three sold to an unnamed NY based company.

Huge! Love to finally see some forward progress here. I wish the new owners would at least put up some signage and cover the fence to block the view of that awful lot. It could even just say something vague like “Something New Coming Soon”

[skyhigh07]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Huge! Love to finally see some forward progress here. I wish the new owners would at least put up some signage and cover the fence to block the view of that awful lot. It could even just say something vague like “Something New Coming Soon”

Was just thinking that the other day. Or at least put an opaque fence up so it hides the pit.

[thoughtcriminal]

Originally Posted by PurpleWhiteOut

Walnut Street Properties Destroyed by Arson Sold. Tower on the Horizon?

Finally some signs of movement on the Walnut arson parcels. All three sold to an unnamed NY based company.

Obviously this is a great site for a tower, and I'm glad they were able to purchase all 3 lots in what appears to be a step in that direction.
But to make them restore the facades that were destroyed by the protesters? That's ridiculous. It's one thing to preserve them if they were still there, but quite another to make them rebuild them after they've been destroyed. They're gone, and to rebuild them and integrate them into the facade of a new tower is just a stupid, hollow, fake gesture.

[UrbanRevival]

Originally Posted by thoughtcriminal

That's ridiculous. It's one thing to preserve them if they were still there, but quite another to make them rebuild them after they've been destroyed. They're gone, and to rebuild them and integrate them into the facade of a new tower is just a stupid, hollow, fake gesture.

Disagree completely. They were historic in nature, and absolutely contributed to the cohesiveness of the street. There's nothing "stupid" or "fake" about trying to maintain the integrity of Philadelphia's best physical assets, which are its history and intimate streetscapes.

I'll never get the umbrage over requiring a developer to give a little bit of a f**k about historic context. Real estate developers--and especially those from New York--are swimming in money. Calm down if they have to put in a little more time and effort to make their millions.

[chimpskibot]

Originally Posted by thoughtcriminal

Obviously this is a great site for a tower, and I'm glad they were able to purchase all 3 lots in what appears to be a step in that direction.
But to make them restore the facades that were destroyed by the protesters? That's ridiculous. It's one thing to preserve them if they were still there, but quite another to make them rebuild them after they've been destroyed. They're gone, and to rebuild them and integrate them into the facade of a new tower is just a stupid, hollow, fake gesture.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. This like the laurel, s19th and 1620 Sansom will be transformative for the Walnut St. corridor and Center cities long term health.

[thoughtcriminal]

Originally Posted by UrbanRevival

Disagree completely. They were historic in nature, and absolutely contributed to the cohesiveness of the street.

All in the past tense. I'm not sure how "historic" they were - not all old things are "historic" - but if you really want to be true to the history, you have to acknowledge the fact that the buildings are gone, instead of pretending they are still there. That is what I mean by fake.

Originally Posted by UrbanRevival

There's nothing "stupid" or "fake" about trying to maintain the integrity of Philadelphia's best physical assets, which are its history and intimate streetscapes.

They wouldn't be maintaining it, they would be trying to re-create it, since the buildings are gone. So as long as you're re-creating it, why not re-create with something new instead of just trying to put something old back. It could be done in a sensitive, cohesive way that knits the area together in the same way that the old buildings did, but not just mindlessly copying what was there. That's the creative challenge.

[UrbanRevival]

Originally Posted by thoughtcriminal

They wouldn't be maintaining it, they would be trying to re-create it, since the buildings are gone. So as long as you're re-creating it, why not re-create with something new instead of just trying to put something old back. It could be done in a sensitive, cohesive way that knits the area together in the same way that the old buildings did, but not just mindlessly copying what was there. That's the creative challenge.

That sounds reasonable, and my apologies if I interpreted your last post as more of a hot-take to simply disregard history.

I understand where you're coming from, and in many cases, I'd likely agree with you. But I think the Walnut Street Corridor, and the prominence of the old buildings, are significant enough to at least give it a try. If the execution ends up looking terrible, then by all means, you should be the first poster to say, "I told you so."

But I'm hoping we'll all be pleasantly surprised by the result.

[skyhigh07]

Originally Posted by thoughtcriminal

All in the past tense. I'm not sure how "historic" they were - not all old things are "historic" - but if you really want to be true to the history, you have to acknowledge the fact that the buildings are gone, instead of pretending they are still there. That is what I mean by fake.


They wouldn't be maintaining it, they would be trying to re-create it, since the buildings are gone. So as long as you're re-creating it, why not re-create with something new instead of just trying to put something old back. It could be done in a sensitive, cohesive way that knits the area together in the same way that the old buildings did, but not just mindlessly copying what was there. That's the creative challenge.

Yeah, I disagree. Supposedly, they were required by the PHC to preserve certain architectural elements of the facades to then reincorporate them into the reconstruction. This was done similarly with the old Spanish-revival coffee shop on Sansom that was demolished for The Laurel. It was recently rebuilt and looks like its been there all along.

Also, a lot people tend to think of old buildings as pristine artifacts when they’re really not. Most have been reconstructed to varying degrees over the years. Even a good chunk of Independence Hall is a reconstruction. The only original part of it is the center building shell. In the case of the Walnut St buildings, if executed well the reconstructed facades along with a high rise overbuild could be a great outcome. Otherwise we’ll end up with just another sleek banal high rise that isn’t particularly unique to Philadelphia. At the end of the day, historic preservation is about honoring the aesthetics which represent the historic fabric of a given site or area.

[thoughtcriminal]

Originally Posted by UrbanRevival

That sounds reasonable, and my apologies if I interpreted your last post as more of a hot-take to simply disregard history.

No worries, this is the type of discussion we're supposed to be having here.

Originally Posted by UrbanRevival

I understand where you're coming from, and in many cases, I'd likely agree with you. But I think the Walnut Street Corridor, and the prominence of the old buildings, are significant enough to at least give it a try. If the execution ends up looking terrible, then by all means, you should be the first poster to say, "I told you so."

So take that thought to the extreme. What if some terrible event happened and the Walnut Street Corridor were destroyed altogether. Would it make sense just to re-create what's there now, or would it make more sense to do something new, that creates the same type of intimate streetscape but in a way that moves forward instead of just looking back? This regressive impulse we have of not even just maintaining what we have but replacing it in kind when it is destroyed makes no sense.
On the other side, we could look at Penn Station in New York, and say they never should have demolished the old and replaced it with the piece of shit that is there now, and I would agree with that. Not everything old is worth saving, and not everything new is great. It all has to be done intelligently and in a way that preserves the asset being described here and knowing where that comes from. It isn't just the actual architectural details of the buildings, but their relationship to the street and public spaces. It can be done well and thoughtfully, without mimicking the old.

[thoughtcriminal]

Originally Posted by skyhigh07

Yeah, I disagree. Supposedly, they were required by the PHC to preserve certain architectural elements of the facades to then reincorporate them into the reconstruction. This was done similarly with the old Spanish-revival coffee shop on Sansom that was demolished for The Laurel. It was recently rebuilt and looks like its been there all along.

But it hasn't been there all along. How is that being "historic"? It's like trying to display a reproduction of a piece of art in a museum.

Originally Posted by skyhigh07

At the end of the day, historic preservation is about honoring the aesthetics which represent the historic fabric of a given site or area.

Disagree, or at least it shouldn't be that, was never meant to be that. It may have morphed into that, but that seems like a perversion.

[skyhigh07]

Originally Posted by thoughtcriminal

But it hasn't been there all along. How is that being "historic"? It's like trying to display a reproduction of a piece of art in a museum.


Disagree, or at least it shouldn't be that, was never meant to be that. It may have morphed into that, but that seems like a perversion.

Well, the cool terra cotta ornamentation that was preserved and reapplied is technically historic. Would you rather it be thrown away or stored in a back room at a museum somewhere? I think most on here were happy to see it rebuilt.

I mean I guess we could live in a world of just glass skyscrapers because historic preservation “isn’t what it’s meant to be” and no building is 100% historic. A building isn’t a curated painting. Building materials tend to deteriorate over time and most people aren’t going to painstakingly restore 150 year old brick or brownstone. Most of the renovated brownstones and townhouses you see these days are just facades or shells. Maybe they preserve the mantlepieces or staircases but many have been gutted over the years to suit new purposes and/or 21st century needs. Does this mean we should start leveling most of Rittenhouse? Hopefully not.

Most people aren’t going to wring their hands or even know that a historic district isn’t 100% historic. Most will appreciate the area’s unique aesthetics and for the history that is represented there.

Edit: Come to think of it, even the old paintings you see in museums aren’t 100% original. They tend to fade over time and have been touched up and restored.

[thoughtcriminal]

Originally Posted by skyhigh07

Edit: Come to think of it, even the old paintings you see in museums aren’t 100% original. They tend to fade over time and have been touched up and restored.

touched up and restored is one thing, copying the original then displaying it after the original was destroyed, and hoping no one will notice or just saying that the copy is as good as the original, is quite another. you make an argument for maintaining historic buildings, not passing off copies as the original.

[skyhigh07]

Originally Posted by thoughtcriminal

touched up and restored is one thing, copying the original then displaying it after the original was destroyed, and hoping no one will notice or just saying that the copy is as good as the original, is quite another. you make an argument for maintaining historic buildings, not passing off copies as the original.

We’re talking about design here, not patent law. Lol

A lot of the materials from the facades have been set aside and will be reused. So they won’t necessarily be “copies”.

[AnEmperorPenguin]

I think using "historical review" to try and set a neighborhoods appearance in stone is kind of losing the plot, "old" doesn't mean historical and looking old doesn't add anything, not to mention "never changing" would itself be ahistorical

[McBane]

Originally Posted by thoughtcriminal

Obviously this is a great site for a tower, and I'm glad they were able to purchase all 3 lots in what appears to be a step in that direction.
But to make them restore the facades that were destroyed by the protesters? That's ridiculous. It's one thing to preserve them if they were still there, but quite another to make them rebuild them after they've been destroyed. They're gone, and to rebuild them and integrate them into the facade of a new tower is just a stupid, hollow, fake gesture.

I'm with you on this. They were old but not historical. Were they even protected? And incorporating fake versions into the facade will probably end up looking cheesy. I'm envisioning a cheap rebuild with a generic glass tower set back.

But to put things into perspective, my top priority is just getting the hole filled with something halfway decent looking (not 23rd and Walnut) that will replace the blight, activate the street, add height, and put residents on the street. And who knows, maybe they'll do a good job and it will turn out well.

[PurpleWhiteOut]

Originally Posted by McBane

Were they even protected?

Essentially most of Rittenhouse and Filter Square are in a historic district together.

[BroadandMarket]

I think they were handsome buildings. I'd be more worried about the precedent it would start. We already have a huge issue with demolition by neglect so I'm sure developers would consider arson as a way to get a hardship exception to tear down a historic building (I'm aware this case was not arson from a developer). I'm still mourning the loss of the cool buildings at Front and Chestnut which was intentional neglect by the owner to build a parking lot.

[PHL10]

Originally Posted by BroadandMarket

I think they were handsome buildings. I'd be more worried about the precedent it would start. We already have a huge issue with demolition by neglect so I'm sure developers would consider arson as a way to get a hardship exception to tear down a historic building (I'm aware this case was not arson from a developer). I'm still mourning the loss of the cool buildings at Front and Chestnut which was intentional neglect by the owner to build a parking lot.

I'm almost never down that block but I see that one of the two are gone as of 2020 per Google Street view. The other is gone as well? Not sure how it could be allowed to tear down mid-19th century commercial buildings in Old City??!!

[skyhigh07]

Originally Posted by BroadandMarket

I think they were handsome buildings. I'd be more worried about the precedent it would start. We already have a huge issue with demolition by neglect so I'm sure developers would consider arson as a way to get a hardship exception to tear down a historic building (I'm aware this case was not arson from a developer). I'm still mourning the loss of the cool buildings at Front and Chestnut which was intentional neglect by the owner to build a parking lot.

Completely agree. If the facades aren’t rebuilt, the best possible outcome would be something like The Laurel base/entrance. Sure, it would be of high quality but it would probably diminish the block’s intimate charm. The Rittenhouse Coffee Shop on Sansom was rebuilt and looks great in opinion. So it can be done and done well.

And yes, the PHC probably won’t reverse their decision at this point. They issued the requirement prior to the demo that the facades must be rebuilt. The site is under their jurisdiction - they oversaw the demo process including laser scanning the facades and salvaging materials. Furthermore, they’ve nixed other project proposals elsewhere involving similar circumstances that didn’t adhere to their requirements. I doubt they would or can break precedent. So I’d get used to the fact that the facades will be rebuilt in some form. The actual critique should be about the execution and overbuild at this point.