PHILADELPHIA | THE LAUREL @ 1911 Walnut | 604 FT | 48 FLOORS

[McBane]

It's so interesting to see such widespread support for preservation on this forum. We're the NIMBYs

In all seriousness, if the need to preserve these buildings are that obvious to us, then I'm hopeful the city and the surrounding neighbors will be adamant that the buildings stay and either be rehabbed or incorporated into the building facade.

And I agree with others here - barring some sort of Mandeville Place type draw-dropper - these existing buildings should absolutely be preserved. And as others have pointed out, SLC's portfolio is very "meh".

Hopefully the city doesn't cave. As much as the city has grown in recent years, I'm sure the city wants this parcel developed ASAP. Next to 1919 Market and Disneyhole, this is probably the most high profile vacant lot in the city.

[summersm343]

Developer wants to demolish 3 historic Rittenhouse properties

The new owner of three historic properties located on the 1900 block of Sansom Street wants to knock the buildings down due to the poor conditions that "pose significant safety concerns."

Southern Land Company filed an economic hardship application with the city's Historical Commission last month, requesting approval to demolish the Rittenhouse Coffee Shop, the Warwick Apartment House and the Oliver H. Bair Funeral Home.

The Historical Commission has granted similar approvals for other developers in the past, although none of their projects ever got off the ground.

Meanwhile the Tennessee company has already made its mark in Philadelphia with the mixed-use property, 3601 Market, part of the University City Science Center. It also has plans to turn a long-vacant Rittenhouse Square lot, which was purchased for about $30 million earlier this year, into a residential tower.

http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelp...arwick-bl.html

[boxbot]

Originally Posted by summersm343

The new owner of three historic properties located on the 1900 block of Sansom Street wants to knock the buildings down due to the poor conditions that "pose significant safety concerns."
http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelp...arwick-bl.html

"Cough. Bullshit. Cough." These old buildings were meant to last an eternity and appear to be in good condition on the outside. Heck, the brick has even been repointed.

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by boxbot

"Cough. Bullshit. Cough." These old buildings were meant to last an eternity and appear to be in good condition on the outside. Heck, the brick has even been repointed.

Like I posted above, let's hope this is just a bargaining position being taken by Southern Land to get NIMBY's, etc. to agree to a taller building, i.e., to make the project more profitable so that these buildings can be preserved. Similar to what happened with 3737 Chestnut, if memory serves.

[Arch+Eng]

Reject Reject Reject
Sound like BS to me...
Before you give any developer permission to demo they should have to show renderings of what they plan on replacing it with first. I can see them demo'ing these properties and replacing them with horrible metal clad cheap buildings.
I say No.

[summersm343]

Another article from PhillyMag regarding the demo:

http://www.phillymag.com/property/20...rittenhouse-2/

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by Arch+Eng

Reject Reject Reject
Sound like BS to me...
Before you give any developer permission to demo they should have to show renderings of what they plan on replacing it with first. I can see them demo'ing these properties and replacing them with horrible metal clad cheap buildings.
I say No.

I agree. Should definitely have to show renderings in order to be granted permission for demolition.

I am not sure why everyone is so adamant on preserving these buildings however.

SLC dumped $40 million on this lot. I'm not really in the boat on lets make them preserve these buildings too. Preserving the buildings will 1. hold up the project and 2. make it impossible to make this one large site. Demolishing these properties allows for one continual lot and larger retail space. Keeping these properties here would cause SLC to have to build two separate towers. Two separate towers will 100% be shorter than one combined tower.

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Another article from PhillyMag regarding the demo:

http://www.phillymag.com/property/20...rittenhouse-2/

From that article:

It will also be interesting to see the response from the community. The statement from Southern Land said that they're "working closely with the Center City Residents Association task force, Rittenhouse Plaza, city officials and other stakeholders including businesses, preservation and neighborhood associations to achieve a result at the property that will be of maximum benefit to the community.”

* * * *

At the opening, Southern's Dustin Downey said they were looking to develop an "iconic" building at 1911 Walnut, while working closely with the community to ensure that everything runs smoothly: "I hope they like it. If they don't, we'll redesign it so that they like it."

I.e., let us build a taller tower, and we can keep and preserve these old buildings (let's hope).

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by Philly Fan

From that article:



I.e., let us build a taller tower, and we can keep and preserve these old buildings (let's hope).

It won't be one taller tower though. Look at the site on Google Maps:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ph...3e58c1!6m1!1e1

These properties break up the lot. With preserving these properties, Southern Land will have to build two separate towers. One on the empty lot and one on the parking lot. This would almost surely result in two ~300 foot towers - one condo and one apartment. Demolishing these properties and combing the lots allowing for one tower will with apartment and condo combined will almost surely allow for a 500-600 footer. Also, a larger lot allows for more retail space added which opens up the possibility for a Bloomie's or Nordstrom downtown. Retail floors also have higher floor to ceiling ratios which increase the height of the tower.

Also, two separate towers would need two separate lobbies, instead of one combined for one tower. This will also take away from retail square footage which means we wouldn't be getting any significant retail here.

So it's your choice SSP Philly forumers: push to re-purpose these forgettable low rise buildings, holding up the project on this site longer and causing for a split of the site and undoubtedly two shorter towers. OR, allow the demolition of these forgettable low rise buildings, allowing for a combination of the site for one taller tower with a larger retail footprint.

[MikeNigh]

fuck the buildings, they are ugly. The Warwick is only okay. The buildings should only be used to make sure something really good replaces them.

[Philly Fan]

EDIT: Never mind. Withdrawing what I said on further reflection and review of the site.

[summersm343]

Also, Southernland originally said when they bought the site that the tower would have 360 apartments and 65 condos with rezoning.

360 apartments is about 350 feet roughly. 65 condos is about 200 feet. Without combining the lot, I think we're looking at two towers: one 350 feet and one 200 feet.

With combining the lot, we're looking at a 450-550 foot tower.

Also, WITHOUT rezoning, the apartment count would drop down to 120 and the condo count would drop down to 50. That means we're looking at a ~200 foot apartment tower and a ~175 foot condo tower. Combined would be 350-400 feet.

We better hope they get approval to demolish those lowrise buildings or we will all be sorely disappointed. We also better hope they get a zoning variance for height and density or we will also all be sorely disappointed.

[TempleGuy1000]

Yep not to piss anyone off, but I too could care about those little buildings. This is our prime time spot. It isn't like knocking them down would all of a sudden change the feel of the area. There are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of historic buildings that look like those.

[PHL10]

I believe that every thought ever given to this combined property was that those buildings would be demo’d which is why I assumed that the permits and approvals were in place. If I recall the history of this site correctly, it’s really the Parking Authority that should be held accountable for the current state of the buildings and the combining of the lots. Those buildings were really lost as soon as that decision was made.

[BenKatzPhillytoParis]

Originally Posted by TempleGuy1000

Yep not to piss anyone off, but I too could care about those little buildings. This is our prime time spot. It isn't like knocking them down would all of a sudden change the feel of the area. There are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of historic buildings that look like those.

I think these buildings are awesome. While obviously I want development, I think maximizing height is subsidiary to Philadelphia remaining distinct. If we don't preserve, it just becomes more and more homogeneous. Real world-class cities find creative ways for adaptive reuse—THAT's what makes them textured and unique, as opposed to simply a collection of tracts of land to maximize value to developers. Sure, demoing these buildings by itself will not have a catastrophic effect on Philadelphia being unique, but this kind of thing happens all the time, and it's the drip drip drip of these kinds of demos that leads to architectural homogeneity. While SLC's statements about working towards an iconic design are laudable, they have zero track record for iconic designs, so...everyone needs way more information and should be very skeptical of their "hardship" before considering approving this. I'd rather have 200 and 300 foot towers of average design while preserving these than a 500-600 footer of average design and losing them. Also, speculating about different site configurations and how keeping these buildings prevents more retail or taller design is just that—speculation. If SLC wants to show why it is better to demo them, they should show the public alternative designs. Short of that, why rubber stamp their claims of hardship with no real evidence.

[McBane]

A few comments:

1. Architects can be creative. It's not so black and white. They can cantilever the tower over these buildings (look at 2100 Market and the fire house) and incorporate them or just their facades into the new tower. There's many options. A super sexy modern glass tower with these existing buildings' facades incorporated into the project would look really bold.

2. While I applaud Southern's statements about their commitment to designing a stellar tower, their portfolio leaves much to be desired. I'd hate to see these buildings get demolished for a meh design, regardless of the height. Height isn't everything.

3. But even if Southern had hired Norman Foster or another well known architect, the city should always demand to see plans AND finances before authorizing demolition permits. It goes beyond this individual circumstance. Every demolition request should be accompanied by a firm plan and an approved design. Demolition should be the last step before construction.

4. The buildings, as long as they are standing, are valuable chips that the city and neighbors can leverage in exchange for a better design. Or alternatively, the city can offer more height in exchange for preservation. But once demolished, these sorts of trade-offs can't happen.

I'm not going to tie myself to a tree to prevent these buildings from being demolished. But at the same time, I don't think the city should just roll over and rubber stamp the request without 1) guaranteeing something will be built and 2) making sure that the final design is worthy of the address.

[UrbanRevival]

Originally Posted by BenKatzPhillytoParis

I think these buildings are awesome. While obviously I want development, I think maximizing height is subsidiary to Philadelphia remaining distinct. If we don't preserve, it just becomes more and more homogeneous. Real world-class cities find creative ways for adaptive reuse—THAT's what makes them textured and unique, as opposed to simply a collection of tracts of land to maximize value to developers. Sure, demoing these buildings by itself will not have a catastrophic effect on Philadelphia being unique, but this kind of thing happens all the time, and it's the drip drip drip of these kinds of demos that leads to architectural homogeneity.

Precisely. I think the principle of allowing demolition is just as important as saving the structures themselves (which I think most objective people consider extremely charming and quintessentially Philadelphia).

Now that Philadelphia is experiencing a steady beat of development again, particularly in Center City, these kinds of scenarios are going to become more and more common. There will undoubtedly be other proposals down the line that similarly threaten the historic fabric of the city. Where should the line be drawn--that is the threshold question. Especially since historic preservation status apparently isn't permanent in the minds of some folks.

If Philly sets a precedent of treating its human-scaled historical buildings as meaningless, there's no question that it will begin to lose the charm and character that makes it unique and attractive to many people in first place. Does the city really want to begin to go the way of the Sun Belt cities that treat historic assets as useless garbage?

I completely recognize that no city is set in stone, and of course over time some of the built environment will be lost for various reasons, but historic heritage should not be seen as disposable, nor is it mutually exclusive with progress and modernity, as some seem to believe.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by McBane

A few comments:

1. Architects can be creative. It's not so black and white. They can cantilever the tower over these buildings (look at 2100 Market and the fire house) and incorporate them or just their facades into the new tower. There's many options. A super sexy modern glass tower with these existing buildings' facades incorporated into the project would look really bold.

2. While I applaud Southern's statements about their commitment to designing a stellar tower, their portfolio leaves much to be desired. I'd hate to see these buildings get demolished for a meh design, regardless of the height. Height isn't everything.

3. But even if Southern had hired Norman Foster or another well known architect, the city should always demand to see plans AND finances before authorizing demolition permits. It goes beyond this individual circumstance. Every demolition request should be accompanied by a firm plan and an approved design. Demolition should be the last step before construction.

4. The buildings, as long as they are standing, are valuable chips that the city and neighbors can leverage in exchange for a better design. Or alternatively, the city can offer more height in exchange for preservation. But once demolished, these sorts of trade-offs can't happen.

I'm not going to tie myself to a tree to prevent these buildings from being demolished. But at the same time, I don't think the city should just roll over and rubber stamp the request without 1) guaranteeing something will be built and 2) making sure that the final design is worthy of the address.

Excellent points all.

[jjv007]

Good points all around, but I agree with Summers. It's important to see plans and renderings beforehand but provided it's a project of reasonable quality, I don't see why it's such a big deal to demolish the existing historic buildings. Philadelphia is one of the oldest, most historic cities in the US and there are numerous buildings like this. It hinders development if a big fuss is made about every project that wants to take down such buildings. Then again, the plans for the new development need to be made clear before demo. It wouldn't be good to demo the buildings for something of poor quality that comes afterwards.

[UPenn18]

Originally Posted by jjv007

Philadelphia is one of the oldest, most historic cities in the US and there are numerous buildings like this.

I'm usually wary of "slippery slope arguments" but in this case... if these buildings are demolished, what's going to stop the next developer from saying "well you let SLC destroy those buildings, why can't we destroy these ones?" I'm not sure I want to set the precedent of demolishing high quality buildings... though it's not like that hasn't been done in the past. I just think the city has turned the corner enough to have sufficient leverage to not let this happen. I don't have a problem tearing down old buildings that are ugly, squat, and are in unsalvageable condition. But these buildings don't fit that description. They are made of good materials, are well designed, and meet the street well - I don't think there's a compelling reason to tear them down. And this is coming from someone who is usually of the "BUILD BABY BUILD" mindset.