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

[jjv007]

Originally Posted by Justin7

First, I generally agree with your view of community groups, but I am not sure how it's relevant. I strongly support height and density.

I think I've made my reasons for opposition to this project clear, but I will restate that

a) First and foremost I don't think historically designated buildings should be demolished. This is obviously not a hardship case and treating it as one would be a mistake. The city would be poorer if it let SLC destroy these buildings.

b) Under an circumstances, but for a driveway? That is an urban disaster better suited for, yup, Dallas. Massive curb cuts are not good urban design.

c) Lowrise development on Sansom. This is a separate lot also well suited for a high density building. That's not what we're getting.

d) Spanning Moravian St. There may be circumstances where allowing to a private company to essentially take control and build over a city street, but this isn't one of them.

e) SLC's track record. Again, compare the 3601 Market renderings to the actual building. Then look at the rest of their projects that are built in open fields somewhere.

Your last sentence is an obvious straw man setup. Actually, your entire post is nothing but. A project could have a thousand moving parts, 999 great and 1 terrible and still be an awful development.

Despite all of my objections, there are two private lots here that SLC controls (not including the protected buildings) and they have ever right to build on them. I certainly would not make an argument to the contrary. What they do not have a right to do is tear down protected buildings and take over a city street.

So again: Give up trying to demolish protected buildings, give up trying to connect to two lots spanning a city street. Build the tower on Walnut as the plan calls for an trash the rest. This would be a win for Philadelphia. SLC would still make a ton of money. Everyone wins.

I actually think these are very sensible points and agree with a lot of what you said. My only problem is that many members of the community groups can't think as rationally as you. They'll want the preservation you mentioned but unlike you they won't really want the development in any form either. So unfortunately it's gonna be a struggle to come to a compromise. Perhaps SLC is using their planned demolition of the designated historical buildings as somewhat of a bargaining chip.

[Justin7]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

That's a new one.

I agree with many of your points. But preserving a dark dank 18th c. dumpster alley never used by pedestrians is definitely not one of them.

This is a cynical new argument, beyond the more understandable historic preservation issue, concocted to throw one more wrench in the works to gain additional negotiating leverage.

It's just a tactic, not an urban design principal, and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

The idea that perhaps they could make the project less of a superblock and break it into smaller pieces at street level, I agree that is preferable from an urban design perspective, but it is not something that should be imposed on a developer on a spot basis at this late stage in the game; if that's the kind of development we want in this neighborhood it should have already been codified in the zoning.

So please spare us the "take over a city street" stuff: should that requirement ever actually be imposed on the developer you'd likely end up with a pitch black, walled in unused dead-end back alley that just wastes space. As it does now.

Stick with the historic preservation argument, but please drop the back alley closure injustice thing. It's just a stupid argument.

You're way out of line, man. This is not a cynical. It is not a tactic. It is not disingenuous. It is not concocted to create leverage. The city doesn't need leverage. It has the law on it's side. Philadelphia can choose to negotiate or they can can tell SLC to follow the code and walk away. Handing a public street to a private developer is a big deal and shouldn't be taken lightly. It certainly shouldn't be done so that an unproven developer can create a superblock. Small blocks are absolutely an urban design principal and your insulting tone is unwarranted.

Furthermore, it is absolutely not being "imposed" on the dev at this "late stage in the game." They are asking for a variance. They are imposing this request on the city, not the other way around. You can't just call dibs on a street because you own lots on either side of it.

I stand by my assertion that if these two lots were sold to capable developers there would already be two highrise buildings in the works. Again (and again and again) Philly is booming and this is a prime location. Giving in to unreasonable demands would be foolish.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Just cool it, will you guys? Let's see what comes out of the discussions with the stakeholders group and then complain. There's no reason why debate has to degenerate into argumentation.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by Justin7

. . . I stand by my assertion that if these two lots were sold to capable developers there would already be two highrise buildings in the works. Again (and again and again) Philly is booming and this is a prime location. Giving in to unreasonable demands would be foolish.

Every project that has ever been proposed for that site consolidated the lots. That's why PPA purchased them all so many years ago. That's partly why the site is considered so valuable. That's what developers will do at such a location.

Should your idea of preventing the closure of an unused back alley prevail . . . . well, enjoy your dumpster alley. It'll be there for along time.

[Cro Burnham]

I suppose it has a certain noirish Gotham-like charm.

https://goo.gl/maps/Jx5DFDp8rZ32

[TempleGuy1000]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

I suppose it has a certain noirish Gotham-like charm.

https://goo.gl/maps/Jx5DFDp8rZ32

The cool part of the alley isn't the two buildings getting knocked down though lol..

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by Justin7

a) First and foremost I don't think historically designated buildings should be demolished. This is obviously not a hardship case and treating it as one would be a mistake. The city would be poorer if it let SLC destroy these buildings.

This is an issue I and others have spoken to SLC representatives about already. I do not see any argument against preserving at at least their façades.

b) Under an circumstances, but for a driveway? That is an urban disaster better suited for, yup, Dallas. Massive curb cuts are not good urban design.

Agreed with this. This makes me glad Cecil Baker's involved. I'm going off memory here but he told me something to the effect that 1910 Walnut was designed in a large part such that there would be no curb cuts on Sansom. With this in mind, I doubt a new curb cut will appear in the next render unless there's an overriding reason why Moravian can't handle building traffic.

c) Lowrise development on Sansom. This is a separate lot also well suited for a high density building. That's not what we're getting.

Eh.

d) Spanning Moravian St. There may be circumstances where allowing to a private company to essentially take control and build over a city street, but this isn't one of them.

The Gimbel's building spans Ranstead. I don't really have a problem with minor access streets being spanned, especially if the tradeoff (e.g. Sansom façades preserved, no curb cuts on Sansom) is worth it.

e) SLC's track record. Again, compare the 3601 Market renderings to the actual building. Then look at the rest of their projects that are built in open fields somewhere.

Honestly, I think 3601 came out looking better than its rendering -- and much better than 38Chestnut. It was all in panel quality and window placement, too. (I almost used "fenestration" there but I don't think it has quite the meaning I want.) If 3601 was SLC's test case for building in urban markets, then I'm quite pleased with the results.

Your last sentence is an obvious straw man setup. Actually, your entire post is nothing but. A project could have a thousand moving parts, 999 great and 1 terrible and still be an awful development.

It is possible but the one lone bad part would have to be a critical part to change the outcome of the whole thing.

Despite all of my objections, there are two private lots here that SLC controls (not including the protected buildings) and they have ever right to build on them. I certainly would not make an argument to the contrary. What they do not have a right to do is tear down protected buildings and take over a city street.

So again: Give up trying to demolish protected buildings, give up trying to connect to two lots spanning a city street. Build the tower on Walnut as the plan calls for an trash the rest. This would be a win for Philadelphia. SLC would still make a ton of money. Everyone wins.

Another question to ask: Say the developer can address two or three of your concerns. Which one(s) would you be willing to compromise on?

[City Wide]

Originally Posted by RonnieStevens

So say they do build on a lot that is only facing Walnut, a slender tower that will probably have less architectural features as the size will cut into profits. You have to build up now to make up for the lost units but no one is going to approve the height increase. We then have a parking lot on Sansom and 3 abandoned historically protected building along that street. Maybe years from now there will be a proposal for another condo tower or maybe some luxury row homes like walnut estates. As we have heard from the developer, only the Rittenhouse coffee shop can be more or less reused without full on rehab. So aren't we going to get stuck with the funeral home and the Warwick till they fall down on to the street from another 20 years of neglect? If financial models show that saving and rehabing those 2 building doesn't make sense in the context of this larger project, how will it make sense in a smaller project with thinner margins and risk tolerance that would be build on the remaining lot along Samson?

The "3 abandoned" buildings are empty only because they were emptied by the PPA when they wanted to try their hand at being a developer.
The present developer Southern knew what they were getting into when they took on this project. It certainly wasn't a forced sale, so they had all the time they needed to do a few inspections.
Neglect, well shouldn't the City be making sure these buildings, any buildings, don't get to the point of falling down. And if that's a real concern for Southern let them sell the buildings. In this market I'm quite sure the Warwick would be grabbed in very little time. (I lived there for awhile 40 years ago. Each floor had 4 nice little apartments)
I don't remember all the details but when Southern bought into project the sale price had at least 2 different amounts dependent on what they ended up building or could get permission to build. Their profit is way at the bottom on my list of concerns. I would like tall, the taller the better. But more important then height is the quality of the design and how the building "fits" in. If it ends up showing up in our skyline, so much the better.

[jjv007]

https://www.bisnow.com/philadelphia/news...mar-2016-000000-0500_philadelphia-re#ath

The article among other things mentions Dustin Downey talking about University City development earlier today at International House Philadelphia.

[39.95n]

For those of you playing along at home, documentation from Southern Land regarding the listed buildings on the site is now available on the Historical Commision website:

http://www.phila.gov/historical/Pages/default.aspx

[summersm343]

Soooo $15 mill to repurpose the Warwick for 18 residential units? Lol, yeah, demolish that shit.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Soooo $15 mill to repurpose the Warwick for 18 residential units? Lol, yeah, demolish that shit.

I'm sure they approached that estimate with the utmost sincerity.

It doesn't really matter how much it costs. They have to preserve it, and if they didn't want to they shouldn't have purchased it.

That being said, all this posturing seems to be headed to the compromise where the facade is saved, which is frankly, good enough for me.

[jjv007]

Preservation of history is vital to any city, particularly one like Philadelphia. However, when the history present is minimal at best and could stand in the way of progress, then you gotta take development > "history" the majority of the time I would say. Hey guys, this is not Independence Hall they're trying to demo here.
As for the Warwick, why the lack of upkeep before this project was announced? Perhaps if it was in better shape, SLC would be more committed to saving it and/or coming to a better compromise. As it stands currently, it's at a detriment to them monetarily and I would think time-wise as well to coordinate a restoration effort. All this being said, I think they should still do the best in their ability to preserve the façade at least.

[Jayfar]

I see from the Keast & Hood report that in the case of the Warwick the PPA exacerbated deterioration of exterior brick by repointing with the wrong kind of mortar.

http://www.phila.gov/historical/Documents/Sansom%20EXHIBIT%20D%20(KandH).pdf

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by jjv007

Preservation of history is vital to any city, particularly one like Philadelphia. However, when the history present is minimal at best and could stand in the way of progress, then you gotta take development > "history" the majority of the time I would say. Hey guys, this is not Independence Hall they're trying to demo here.
As for the Warwick, why the lack of upkeep before this project was announced? Perhaps if it was in better shape, SLC would be more committed to saving it and/or coming to a better compromise. As it stands currently, it's at a detriment to them monetarily and I would think time-wise as well to coordinate a restoration effort. All this being said, I think they should still do the best in their ability to preserve the façade at least.

I think there needs to be better regulation and guidance on what circumstances justify saving historic structures. It's not enough to say "it's the law". There should be a legislative fix that pursues a more intelligible approach to financial hardship and more concretely assesses the value (tangible and intangible) and rarity of the structure at issue. And that also accounts for when the internal structure has sat in disuse for decades without particular will or feasible means of restoration. I'm all for preservation under the right circumstances, but I don't think it makes sense to preserve these beyond the facades. And there should be a lot less hoops and machinations to jump through before that determination can rationally be made.

[Arch+Eng]

We, the city are the investment, they are not. We attracted them, they did not attract us. They want to build here. They have to work to build here...

[wanderer34]

Originally Posted by mmikeyphilly

Don't count on Donald Trump building ANYTHING in Philadelphia. He already got a dose of the "nimbys" here. He stated that Philadelphia is more than History, it's HISTORY, as far as I'm concerned" quoting Donald Trump. Not that he will be missed building here, personally. (Spoken as a nimby, lol)

And where did he say that??? Last time I checked, he tried to build a condo on the North Delaware Waterfront until the 2008 recession killed most of the projects here!

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by Arch+Eng

We, the city are the investment, they are not. We attracted them, they did not attract us. They want to build here. They have to work to build here...

Even so, if you make out-of-towners have to work too hard you'll scare off investment. That has worked against us in the past.

(That doesn't mean giving them carte blanche, but it does mean finding something in between.)

Originally Posted by wanderer34

And where did he say that??? Last time I checked, he tried to build a condo on the North Delaware Waterfront until the 2008 recession killed most of the projects here!

Wasn't that Ivanka's baby?

[boxbot]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Soooo $15 mill to repurpose the Warwick for 18 residential units? Lol, yeah, demolish that shit.

Ten times the prior estimate? Sounds legit. Is SLC blackmailing you? Just post a smiley emoticon for yes.

[mja]

Originally Posted by wanderer34

And where did he say that??? Last time I checked, he tried to build a condo on the North Delaware Waterfront until the 2008 recession killed most of the projects here!

I don't think he was actually building that. Didn't he just do one of those deals where he sells his name to another developer so that they can slap his name on the building?