PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread X

[TK2001]

https://phillyyimby.com/2022/01/obse...ew-jersey.html

[Nanyika]

Originally Posted by PurpleWhiteOut

I'm going to be honest, I don't think there was historical demand for anything taller than we have from the early skyscraper era. I think the "agreement" ended exactly when the modern demand necessitated it. If the demand were there earlier, I would imagine it would have been surpassed. I think it's more likely that the added costs of building so high wasn't worth it since buildable land wasn't that scarce, especially back then they had no qualms with demolition to redevlop

I think PurpleWhiteOut is exactly on the mark here. The "Gentleman’s Agreement” had little effect on limiting the height of Philadelphia's buildings—at least until the late 1980s. As Philadelphia hemorrhaged financial and corporate headquarters, often to New York City, there was little demand for more office space here. That’s why for over 55 years Philadelphia only had two buildings (PSFS and PNB) that were anywhere near the height of City Hall. Penn Center came together in the 1950s with a series of 20-story buildings, built over a number of years to test out the demand. Why build higher only to have a large portion of the buildings sit vacant? The only U.S. cities where pressures existed to build tall were New York and Chicago; virtually every other big city had at best only a handful of relatively low "skyscrapers" until about 40 years ago.

[thoughtcriminal]

Originally Posted by Nanyika

I think PurpleWhiteOut is exactly on the mark here. The "Gentleman’s Agreement” had little effect on limiting the height of Philadelphia's buildings—at least until the late 1980s. As Philadelphia hemorrhaged financial and corporate headquarters, often to New York City, there was little demand for more office space here. That’s why for over 55 years Philadelphia only had two buildings (PSFS and PNB) that were anywhere near the height of City Hall. Penn Center came together in the 1950s with a series of 20-story buildings, built over a number of years to test out the demand. Why build higher only to have a large portion of the buildings sit vacant? The only U.S. cities where pressures existed to build tall were New York and Chicago; virtually every other big city had at best only a handful of relatively low "skyscrapers" until about 40 years ago.

it's irrelevant when the market demanded taller buildings. The empire state building was almost completely empty when it opened, so clearly there was not a market need for it at the time. the point is, even having a restriction like this, informal as it was, is small-minded and stifling. why would anyone agree to such a thing? the answer really is that most did not agree to it on the merits that Bacon tried to sell it on (ie, that City Hall should be the central image of the city's skyline and that all other buildings were secondary to it). there were proposals for buildings taller than city hall long before 1 Lib but they only agreed not to build higher because of the veiled threat that Bacon would issue when presented with such a proposal (ie, that if they insisted on building higher, it would be the last thing they ever built in the city.)
saying that the "agreement" was ok because there wasn't a market need for taller buildings anyway is beside the point - if there was no market for skyscrapers, why bother restricting them? it's because there would be a market for them, and Bacon didn't want his precious city hall to be lost in their shadows. Bacon just forced his view of the city skyline on everyone else. if the "agreement" was such a good idea, why was it never codified into the zoning code? because people in city council would have been perceived (correctly) as being anti-business, and that would have affected their campaign coffers.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by thoughtcriminal

it's irrelevant when the market demanded taller buildings. The empire state building was almost completely empty when it opened, so clearly there was not a market need for it at the time. the point is, even having a restriction like this, informal as it was, is small-minded and stifling. why would anyone agree to such a thing? the answer really is that most did not agree to it on the merits that Bacon tried to sell it on (ie, that City Hall should be the central image of the city's skyline and that all other buildings were secondary to it). there were proposals for buildings taller than city hall long before 1 Lib but they only agreed not to build higher because of the veiled threat that Bacon would issue when presented with such a proposal (ie, that if they insisted on building higher, it would be the last thing they ever built in the city.)
saying that the "agreement" was ok because there wasn't a market need for taller buildings anyway is beside the point - if there was no market for skyscrapers, why bother restricting them? it's because there would be a market for them, and Bacon didn't want his precious city hall to be lost in their shadows. Bacon just forced his view of the city skyline on everyone else. if the "agreement" was such a good idea, why was it never codified into the zoning code? because people in city council would have been perceived (correctly) as being anti-business, and that would have affected their campaign coffers.

It was never codified into the zoning code because it never truly mattered. As purplewhiteout points out, it's not as though there were a bunch of buildings built just shorter than the limit. There's no evidence any development was stopped by the gentleman's agreement and as soon as there was a real effort to break it, it easily happened.

I don't think it had any significant effect.

[thoughtcriminal]

Originally Posted by allovertown

It was never codified into the zoning code because it never truly mattered. As purplewhiteout points out, it's not as though there were a bunch of buildings built just shorter than the limit. There's no evidence any development was stopped by the gentleman's agreement and as soon as there was a real effort to break it, it easily happened.

I don't think it had any significant effect.

I disagree with this. when 1Lib was proposed, it was anything but assured that it was going to happen. it was super controversial. and there definitely were projects that were shot down because of the "agreement." Louis Kahn himself was a victim of it. he and Bacon butted heads all the time.
Here is a brief, if not authoritative, history of the "agreement." It states that in the early 60s, there were two projects that were proposed and rejected because of the "agreement." surely there were others.
https://blog.phillyhistory.org/index...ans-agreement/

[Jayfar]

Originally Posted by thoughtcriminal

I disagree with this. when 1Lib was proposed, it was anything but assured that it was going to happen. it was super controversial. and there definitely were projects that were shot down because of the "agreement." Louis Kahn himself was a victim of it. he and Bacon butted heads all the time.
Here is a brief, if not authoritative, history of the "agreement." It states that in the early 60s, there were two projects that were proposed and rejected because of the "agreement." surely there were others.
https://blog.phillyhistory.org/index...ans-agreement/

And the PhillyHistory blog piece missed the 1961 zoning approval for architect/developer Samuel I. Ohshiver's 63-story 'Golden City' mixed use development at 2301 Pennsylvania Blvd. Somehow it wasn't built, though I haven't found any newspaper references to its undoing. I can imagine Bacon had a role in putting the kibosh on it. Oshiver went on to build The Pennsylvanian on the Parkway in 1963.

Discussion with docs in this subthread at P.I.C.H.: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Phil...90213901267250

[bdurk]

While we're on this topic, does anyone know of any buildings that were proposed in before Liberty 1 that were taller than City Hall? I looked it up but I can't seem to find much. Would be really interesting if we had like an ESB proposed or something like that and it got shot down.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by thoughtcriminal

I disagree with this. when 1Lib was proposed, it was anything but assured that it was going to happen. it was super controversial. and there definitely were projects that were shot down because of the "agreement." Louis Kahn himself was a victim of it. he and Bacon butted heads all the time.
Here is a brief, if not authoritative, history of the "agreement." It states that in the early 60s, there were two projects that were proposed and rejected because of the "agreement." surely there were others.
https://blog.phillyhistory.org/index...ans-agreement/

It's really easy to propose to build a tall building. It's something quite different to build one.

It's not as though 548 feet is short. We're not talking about a DC or Paris level height limit here. People were still able to build buildings quite tall, and the fact remains that for the better part of a century, only two were built to that height.

This wasn't a height limit that you would expect to completely destroy the financials of a building. If any of the proposals were serious you'd expect that if building a 800 or 900 foot tall was such a profitable proposition, a 540 foot tall building would also be profitable and we'd see a lot more buildings of that height from this time.

Plus this article really paints Edmund Bacon as the main force behind the agreement, but by the time he's city planner Philly had already gone half a century without eclipsing city hall. People are lamenting we didn't get our Chrysler Building or Empire State Buildings, Bacon wasn't even in Philly when those buildings were built.

And as the article points out, plenty of people in city government wanted tall buildings and supported efforts to build them. If someone really had the means and will power to build a taller building in Philly, it likely would have happened, just as it did with Rouse and Liberty 1.

Maybe the informal agreement was enough to downsize or squash a handful of buildings. Without it, I'd guess there's probably a building built taller than city hall before liberty 1. But all evidence points to the likelihood that it didn't have a huge affect and our skyline wouldn't look radically different had it never existed.

[thoughtcriminal]

Originally Posted by allovertown

It's really easy to propose to build a tall building. It's something quite different to build one.

It's not as though 548 feet is short. We're not talking about a DC or Paris level height limit here. People were still able to build buildings quite tall, and the fact remains that for the better part of a century, only two were built to that height.

This wasn't a height limit that you would expect to completely destroy the financials of a building. If any of the proposals were serious you'd expect that if building a 800 or 900 foot tall was such a profitable proposition, a 540 foot tall building would also be profitable and we'd see a lot more buildings of that height from this time.

Plus this article really paints Edmund Bacon as the main force behind the agreement, but by the time he's city planner Philly had already gone half a century without eclipsing city hall. People are lamenting we didn't get our Chrysler Building or Empire State Buildings, Bacon wasn't even in Philly when those buildings were built.

And as the article points out, plenty of people in city government wanted tall buildings and supported efforts to build them. If someone really had the means and will power to build a taller building in Philly, it likely would have happened, just as it did with Rouse and Liberty 1.

Maybe the informal agreement was enough to downsize or squash a handful of buildings. Without it, I'd guess there's probably a building built taller than city hall before liberty 1. But all evidence points to the likelihood that it didn't have a huge affect and our skyline wouldn't look radically different had it never existed.

I still don't understand your point though; you're saying that in retrospect, the "agreement" was ok because it didn't matter much anyway. but at the time, no one would have known that. why have a restriction like that that *could* have had a major effect? do you think Bacon thought "I'll bully these developers into kowtowing to city hall, but it won't matter much anyway"? no, he anointed himself the guardian of the central image of the city.
the effect of the "agreement" on the skyline and in the development of the city is debatable. what I don't understand is how you can justify it on the basis of hindsight. truth is we don't know what other projects might have happened without the "agreement." all we know of is a handful of projects that were proposed and rejected. imagine if the "agreement" hadn't existed at all, and how many other projects might have been proposed and built.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by thoughtcriminal

I still don't understand your point though; you're saying that in retrospect, the "agreement" was ok because it didn't matter much anyway. but at the time, no one would have known that. why have a restriction like that that *could* have had a major effect? do you think Bacon thought "I'll bully these developers into kowtowing to city hall, but it won't matter much anyway"? no, he anointed himself the guardian of the central image of the city.
the effect of the "agreement" on the skyline and in the development of the city is debatable. what I don't understand is how you can justify it on the basis of hindsight. truth is we don't know what other projects might have happened without the "agreement." all we know of is a handful of projects that were proposed and rejected. imagine if the "agreement" hadn't existed at all, and how many other projects might have been proposed and built.

I'm not justifying it. I'm not saying it was good. Just saying, ultimately I don't think it mattered much. I'm saying if it had never existed, I don't think our skyline would look much different today because I don't think the gentleman's agreement was the primary reason we didn't build taller skyscrapers in the 20th century. I think the primary reason by far was a lack of demand and I don't think it's a coincidence that once demand for taller buildings was there, the gentleman's agreement crumpled like the hollow nothing that it was.

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by allovertown

I'm not justifying it. I'm not saying it was good. Just saying, ultimately I don't think it mattered much. I'm saying if it had never existed, I don't think our skyline would look much different today because I don't think the gentleman's agreement was the primary reason we didn't build taller skyscrapers in the 20th century. I think the primary reason by far was a lack of demand and I don't think it's a coincidence that once demand for taller buildings was there, the gentleman's agreement crumpled like the hollow nothing that it was.

Really? I mean Philadelphia didn't peak in population, prosperity and influence until around 1960 - 30 years after the Empire State Building was built. We had such an austere civic personality that I'm not surprised no one challenged the agreement. But if it weren't in place, would it really be that surprising for several of the men - in finance, insurance - whose names adorn buildings across town - to have wanted to build a large 700-800' edifice in honor of their ego?

[summersm343]

CDR Submissions for February are up!

One highrise, 2012 Chestnut, which we already know about.
Link:
https://www.phila.gov/departments/ph...blic-meetings/

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by Londonee

Really? I mean Philadelphia didn't peak in population, prosperity and influence until around 1960 - 30 years after the Empire State Building was built. We had such an austere civic personality that I'm not surprised no one challenged the agreement. But if it weren't in place, would it really be that surprising for several of the men - in finance, insurance - whose names adorn buildings across town - to have wanted to build a large 700-800' edifice in honor of their ego?

It's certainly a possibility. As I said, I wouldn't be surprised if without the agreement we had a building taller than city hall prior to the 80s. I just find it hard to believe we missed out on an Empire State Building or anything like that and I don't think the number of additional 550+ skyscrapers built during the time of the gentleman's agreement would have been tall enough or plentiful enough to have a significant impact on the skyline today.

When did the Gentleman's agreement even get put into place? No one even knows. Keep in mind when City Hall was first completed it was seen as an expensive boondoggle that was already hideously out of date by the time of its completion. Hard to imagine that anytime in the immediate aftermath people were rushing to declare it should forever remain the tallest building in the city.

It seems clear it predated Bacon's arrival circa 1950, but he seems to have been by far it's fiercest champion and without any actual law or anyone actively trying to enforce it like Bacon prior to his arrival, how much of an impediment was it really? None the less, half a century passed and only PSFS and PNB built skyscrapers that came even remotely close to city hall in height. Without the agreement do these two pass 550 feet? Maybe? It's not like they even built as tall as they could within the agreement.

Again 550 feet is still very tall. You would assume that if there really were people who wanted to build an 800 foot skyscraper, they'd have settled for a 500 foot skyscraper and we'd see a ton of buildings just under 550feet built during the time of the gentleman's agreement. But we basically don't see any until the 70s. And who knows, without the agreement maybe some of the 70s buildings, Meridian, Centre Square, 1818 Market, 2000 Market, etc. would have been built taller? But how much taller really? If they're 600 feet instead of 500 feet, who's really noticing or caring.

But we are after all contemplating an alternate history, who knows what would have happened. I certainly don't. I just feel like it's impact has often been overstated. The truth is, outside the dense island of Manhattan, very few buildings in this country were built taller than city hall in the first half of the 20th century anyway and it's not like other cities had this Gentleman's agreement. and in the second half of the 20th century when these types of skyscrapers were more common, the market conditions in philly weren't great for tall skyscrapers, and once market conditions improved I don't think it's a coincidence the agreement was quickly broken.

[summersm343]

PHILLY PERMITTED MORE THAN HALF THE HOUSING IN PENNSYLVANIA IN 2021

Philadelphia had a banner year for housing permitting in 2021, with more than 10,000 dwellings approved by the city permitting authorities. That’s about 3 times as much housing permitted as you’d see in a typical year from the recent past, and the reason has to do with both the timing of the full 10-year tax abatement expiring, and also historically-low housing inventory over the last 2 years.

The 10,000 homes figure comes from the City’s Department of Licenses and Inspections, and they note that there were still a lot of applications getting processed at the end of the year, so that’s likely a conservative estimate.

There’s another measure out there too from the Department of Housing and Urban Development which tracks monthly permitting totals for the country’s many permitting jurisdictions. That database is only updated through the end of November, but by their count, Philadelphia county had permitted 12,182 homes by that point.

By comparison, the entire commonwealth of Pennsylvania saw a total of 23,770 homes permitted through the end of November 2021, meaning Philadelphia alone has permitted more than 51% of the homes approved statewide all year. That’s a big shift from prior years where Philly accounted for about 31% of the state’s total home permitting activity in 2019, and 34% in 2020. About 92% of the housing permitted in Philadelphia in 2021 was multifamily housing, which accounted for about 79% of all multifamily housing permitted in total in Pennsylvania.

Significant as it may be, tax abatement reduction alone would not be sufficient to single-handedly justify the permit frenzy. After all, if the city was a lost cause in the eyes of investors, no amount of incentives would be able to generate significant construction activity. Instead, the permit volume is a testament of faith in Philadelphia’s bright future, where each filing represents potentially years of professional and personal time investment and millions of dollars in expenses for prospective builders [...]

​​However, even the record-setting volume of construction projected for the coming year is barely enough to keep up with Philadelphia’s established growth. Between 2010 and 2020, the city added over 72,000 new residents. Even if, in the coming years, the city continues to add half again as many new rental units as it does in an average year (say, 5,000 per year instead of the average 3,000-4,000), the volume of new units coming onto the market would be barely enough just to keep up with the city’s natural growth, let alone to provide enough housing supply to notably lower the current cost of living.

Read/view more here:
https://www.phila3-0.org/philly_perm...wnAJwGSyJuIBlM

[thoughtcriminal]

Originally Posted by allovertown

It's certainly a possibility. As I said, I wouldn't be surprised if without the agreement we had a building taller than city hall prior to the 80s. I just find it hard to believe we missed out on an Empire State Building or anything like that and I don't think the number of additional 550+ skyscrapers built during the time of the gentleman's agreement would have been tall enough or plentiful enough to have a significant impact on the skyline today.

When did the Gentleman's agreement even get put into place? No one even knows. Keep in mind when City Hall was first completed it was seen as an expensive boondoggle that was already hideously out of date by the time of its completion. Hard to imagine that anytime in the immediate aftermath people were rushing to declare it should forever remain the tallest building in the city.

It seems clear it predated Bacon's arrival circa 1950, but he seems to have been by far it's fiercest champion and without any actual law or anyone actively trying to enforce it like Bacon prior to his arrival, how much of an impediment was it really? None the less, half a century passed and only PSFS and PNB built skyscrapers that came even remotely close to city hall in height. Without the agreement do these two pass 550 feet? Maybe? It's not like they even built as tall as they could within the agreement.

Again 550 feet is still very tall. You would assume that if there really were people who wanted to build an 800 foot skyscraper, they'd have settled for a 500 foot skyscraper and we'd see a ton of buildings just under 550feet built during the time of the gentleman's agreement. But we basically don't see any until the 70s. And who knows, without the agreement maybe some of the 70s buildings, Meridian, Centre Square, 1818 Market, 2000 Market, etc. would have been built taller? But how much taller really? If they're 600 feet instead of 500 feet, who's really noticing or caring.

But we are after all contemplating an alternate history, who knows what would have happened. I certainly don't. I just feel like it's impact has often been overstated. The truth is, outside the dense island of Manhattan, very few buildings in this country were built taller than city hall in the first half of the 20th century anyway and it's not like other cities had this Gentleman's agreement. and in the second half of the 20th century when these types of skyscrapers were more common, the market conditions in philly weren't great for tall skyscrapers, and once market conditions improved I don't think it's a coincidence the agreement was quickly broken.

because the "agreement" was informal, there is no real date for its beginning, but it definitely was never even referred to until Bacon started calling it that, so that was in the late 1940s. Before that, I doubt it was much of an issue. the PSFS building certainly put Philadelphia on the modern skyscraper map, but more for its style than its height.
my point is not even that we should have had an Empire State or Chrysler Building. my point has been that there should not have been any restrictions, even informal ones, and the skyline would have taken its own shape organically. and maybe that was the case for most of the 20th century, until the market demanded taller buildings but instead, because of this "agreement" resulted in flat-topped, multi-building developments rather than tall singular buildings that could have been more expressive of their height.

[Aaamazarite]

Originally Posted by bdurk

While we're on this topic, does anyone know of any buildings that were proposed in before Liberty 1 that were taller than City Hall? I looked it up but I can't seem to find much. Would be really interesting if we had like an ESB proposed or something like that and it got shot down.

In 1963 a tower was proposed somewhere along 23rd street but the plans were changed when the developer meet with Edmund Bacon and he convinced them to kill it. This led Bacon to convince Mayor Tate to ask City Council for an official height limit ordinance since the "Gentleman's Agreement" was completely made up in a New Yorker article and spread as myth by Bacon. The ordinance died in Council.

In 1964 another group proposed a Vincent Kling-designed tower at 15th and Market and had the backing of the Planning Commission until Bacon convinced the mayor to step in and make them redesign it as two towers. The new design was the precursor of Centre Square.

Model of that one:

https://digital.library.temple.edu/d...d/38347/rec/12

Here's the Louis Kahn "City Tower" from 1960 (probably only conceptual):

http://architectuul.com/architecture...ity-tower/4157

I'm told that a number of the 60's and 70's office highrises started out as proposals that were taller than City Hall and ended up getting chopped before built. I believe the original design for One Logan Square was going to be just slightly taller than City Hall.

[Jayfar]

Originally Posted by Aaamazarite

In 1963 a tower was proposed somewhere along 23rd street but the plans were changed when the developer meet with Edmund Bacon and he convinced them to kill it. This led Bacon to convince Mayor Tate to ask City Council for an official height limit ordinance since the "Gentleman's Agreement" was completely made up in a New Yorker article and spread as myth by Bacon. The ordinance died in Council.

I can't help but think that that may have been the 1961 2301 Pennsylvania Blvd.proposal that I mentioned several comments back, which had an actual zoning permit issued:

Originally Posted by Jayfar

And the PhillyHistory blog piece missed the 1961 zoning approval for architect/developer Samuel I. Ohshiver's 63-story 'Golden City' mixed use development at 2301 Pennsylvania Blvd. Somehow it wasn't built, though I haven't found any newspaper references to its undoing. I can imagine Bacon had a role in putting the kibosh on it. Oshiver went on to build The Pennsylvanian on the Parkway in 1963.

Discussion with docs in this subthread at P.I.C.H.: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Phil...90213901267250

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by summersm343

PHILLY PERMITTED MORE THAN HALF THE HOUSING IN PENNSYLVANIA IN 2021



Read/view more here:
https://www.phila3-0.org/philly_perm...wnAJwGSyJuIBlM

But pHiLaDeLpHiA iS sHrInKiNg!!!

In all seriousness. Lets wait for the first ACS estimates this year. They'll probably say Philadelphia at most gained a couple thousand residents.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

But pHiLaDeLpHiA iS sHrInKiNg!!!

In all seriousness. Lets wait for the first ACS estimates this year. They'll probably say Philadelphia at most gained a couple thousand residents.

The yearly census estimates might even say Philly lost population between 2020 and 2021

Those yearly census “estimates” are a crock.

[summersm343]

Top 10 Tallest Buildings Under Construction In Philadelphia In 2022

Nice recap. Read/view more here:
https://phillyyimby.com/2022/01/top-...a-in-2022.html