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

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by ConstructStudent

The current design is for one tower at about 560'

Boom! Can't argue with that height. Definitely respectable for the area. Thanks for the update ConstructStudent and keep us updated!

[Jawnadelphia]

560ft .... nnice! I'll take it.

Any idea on when a rendering might turn up? or ....maybe even a hint at the architectural style? This is a very important piece to the puzzle - its Rittenhouse Sq after all.

[UPenn18]

Based on where this lot is and after having looked at a few angles, I think a 560 ft tower here will partially, if not mostly block the view of Liberty 2 from the South Street bridge, so this thing had better look nice!

Edit: Upon further consideration, I believe a good bit of top of Liberty 2 would appear above this building, so that should look cool.

[iheartphilly]

If I recall it correctly, the intent of the developer is to make 1911 Walnut into apartment homes. Can't see anything but luxury for this building considering the neighborhood. It's gonna be top dollars-hope the design fits the bill.

[1487]

Hopefully some images surface soon.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by TallCoolOne

560ft .... nnice! I'll take it.

Any idea on when a rendering might turn up? or ....maybe even a hint at the architectural style? This is a very important piece to the puzzle - its Rittenhouse Sq after all.

+1

Due to the Gentleman's Agreement, the vast majority of our buildings are under 500 feet. Anything over that threshold should be visible from most angles.

A hint of the architectural style would be nice. I'm holding out hope for a modern all glass tower.....

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by McBane

Due to the Gentleman's Agreement, the vast majority of our buildings are under 500 feet.

I agree with everything else in your post . . . but I just want to make a minor irrelevant correction:

The vast majority of buildings are under 500 feet because . . . most buildings on earth in any city are under 500 feet. The Gentleman's Agreement has very little to do with it.

Resume on topic discussion.

[1487]

Originally Posted by McBane

+1

Due to the Gentleman's Agreement, the vast majority of our buildings are under 500 feet. Anything over that threshold should be visible from most angles.

A hint of the architectural style would be nice. I'm holding out hope for a modern all glass tower.....

that seems unlikely this close to rittenhouse. I think we have a few glass towers in the residential hi rise stable completed recently- I think it might be nice to have something that is a bit more traditional. A better, taller version of 10 rittenhouse.

[boxbot]

Originally Posted by 1487

that seems unlikely this close to rittenhouse. I think we have a few glass towers in the residential hi rise stable completed recently- I think it might be nice to have something that is a bit more traditional. A better, taller version of 10 rittenhouse.

Ooof. If you had said a taller version of 1601 Vine or the original render for 1900 Chestnut, I'd be with you. The only way to improve the look of 10 Rittenhouse is with a wrecking ball.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by 1487

that seems unlikely this close to rittenhouse. I think we have a few glass towers in the residential hi rise stable completed recently- I think it might be nice to have something that is a bit more traditional. A better, taller version of 10 rittenhouse.

But why? Rittenhouse Square has a myriad of architectural styles representing several eras. You can have glass tower and still respect the Square. Look at 500 Walnut. That wouldn't look good on Rittenhouse?

And saying Rittenhouse Square must be fronted by traditional buildings is like saying all buildings in Old City have to have red brick. It's boring!

But our opinions are just that. What's more important than architectural style - and I'm sure we can agree on this - is the quality of materials. A traditional building built with quality materials (like say 15 Central Park West or what we think 1601 Vine will look like) is always welcome!

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by 1487

that seems unlikely this close to rittenhouse. I think we have a few glass towers in the residential hi rise stable completed recently- I think it might be nice to have something that is a bit more traditional. A better, taller version of 10 rittenhouse.

10 Rit is a mishmash grotesquerie. Something like 30 Park Place would look GREAT here.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by McBane

But why? Rittenhouse Square has a myriad of architectural styles representing several eras. You can have glass tower and still respect the Square. Look at 500 Walnut. That wouldn't look good on Rittenhouse?

And saying Rittenhouse Square must be fronted by traditional buildings is like saying all buildings in Old City have to have red brick. It's boring!

But our opinions are just that. What's more important than architectural style - and I'm sure we can agree on this - is the quality of materials. A traditional building built with quality materials (like say 15 Central Park West or what we think 1601 Vine will look like) is always welcome!

Agree on the quality point. That's not to say that all current buildings on or near the square are high quality or are well-designed. In my view, the Savoy and Claridge are close to being ugly. The Rittenhouse Hotel and Parc Rittenhouse are pretty decent. Barclay too. As far as style, yes, it doesn't have to be traditional. The building does not even directly front the square. It's just off. I'd love to see something like 30 Park Place, though, personally rather than something modern. But I'll be fine with any good design.

[jjv007]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

I agree with everything else in your post . . . but I just want to make a minor irrelevant correction:

The vast majority of buildings are under 500 feet because . . . most buildings on earth in any city are under 500 feet. The Gentleman's Agreement has very little to do with it.

Resume on topic discussion.

Yes, a lot of it did have to do with the Gentlemen's Agreement.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by jjv007

Yes, a lot of it did have to do with the Gentlemen's Agreement.

It's been discussed before here, but it really didn't. The gentleman's agreement's influence on Philadelphia development is largely overstated. If the gentleman's agreement really had an affect on Philadelphia development you'd see a lot of buildings built from 1901 to 1983 that are around 500' but with around 750,000 sq feet of floor space. Squat massive buildings that would have been easier to just build taller but were artificially shortened due to height restrictions. DC has tons of these due DC's height restrictions.

But in Philadelphia there's not only not a lot of these types of buildings, but in fact, hardly any all. Really only 5 Penn Center truly fits this criteria. The truth is that for much of the time period in which the gentleman's agreement was actually a thing, Philadelphia was simply in the midst of a massive economic downturn and the demand simply wasn't there to build really tall buildings.

It's no coincidence that as soon as the economic climate became ripe to build large buildings, the gentleman's agreement quickly disappeared. If that economic climate existed decades earlier, the gentleman's agreement would have been toast decades earlier. So no, it really didn't have anything to do with the gentleman's agreement.

[TechTalkGuy]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Boom! Can't argue with that height. Definitely respectable for the area.

Well, depending on the area, a 560 foot tall tower can get lost on the skyline.

But aside from what many on this forum are mentioning, the "Gentleman's Agreement" was one reason the area was zoned short.

Another reason for zoning has to do with the type of zoning (i.e. commercial vs residential), but even residential can have towers zoned well over 400 meters.

So, 560 feet?

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by allovertown

It's been discussed before here, but it really didn't. The gentleman's agreement's influence on Philadelphia development is largely overstated. If the gentleman's agreement really had an affect on Philadelphia development you'd see a lot of buildings built from 1901 to 1983 that are around 500' but with around 750,000 sq feet of floor space. Squat massive buildings that would have been easier to just build taller but were artificially shortened due to height restrictions. DC has tons of these due DC's height restrictions.

But in Philadelphia there's not only not a lot of these types of buildings, but in fact, hardly any all. Really only 5 Penn Center truly fits this criteria. The truth is that for much of the time period in which the gentleman's agreement was actually a thing, Philadelphia was simply in the midst of a massive economic downturn and the demand simply wasn't there to build really tall buildings.

It's no coincidence that as soon as the economic climate became ripe to build large buildings, the gentleman's agreement quickly disappeared. If that economic climate existed decades earlier, the gentleman's agreement would have been toast decades earlier. So no, it really didn't have anything to do with the gentleman's agreement.

Sounds about right to me. I know in the late 60s/early 70s that the developer of Centre Square initially hoped to break the Gentlemen's Agreement with something may 600' - 800', but prior to Rouse, no one else was bangin' down the doors to go above 500'. No one really got close till PSFS, and then it was another 40+ years before the 490' foot barrier was touched again with 5 Penn Ctr, Centre Sq W, 1600 Market, 1818 Market.

Maybe we'd have had a few without the agreement, like say Boston or Detroit or Seattle did back in the 70s, but probably not enough to prevent a 560' building on Rittenhouse Sq from standing out.

[MikeNigh]

Any idea on the floor count?

[boxbot]

Originally Posted by MikeNigh

Any idea on the floor count?

If these residential buildings were 560', this would be their floor count:

St. James: 51
Murano: 50
Ritz Carlton: 48

[MikeNigh]

Originally Posted by boxbot

If these residential buildings were 580', this would be their floor count:

St. James: 52
Murano: 51
Ritz Carlton: 49

Wow this and 1900 chestnut are going to make a huge impact!!

[McBane]

That's a lot of floors but it makes sense. Lots of recent articles detailing the new condo boom covered a similar theme: people moving from the suburbs, no longer want to downsize. Here's one such quote:

Allan Domb, of Allan Domb Real Estate, who has been selling condos in Center City for more than three decades, tracked the square footage of three-bedroom condos since the first ones appeared here. In the 1960s, he said, a three-bedroom unit at the Dorchester was 1,500 square feet, but by the 1990s with the Rittenhouse the 2,500 mark had been reached.

"Today, we see 2,500 to 5,000 square feet," Domb said. "The reason is baby boomers want bigger spaces as they leave their larger suburban homes."
http://www.philly.com/philly/busines...5YmZ6AbUQPB.99

A builder can go up to 50 floors while still keeping the overall number of units relatively low. This is definitely a premier location where buyers would be looking for those large units that are currently trending.

According to Wikipedia: RARC (48 floors/518 ft.), "features 270 one - three bedroom condominiums and penthouses that range between 890 square feet to 2,045 square feet." I'll bet that this tower will have much fewer units, even while being a few stories taller.