PHILADELPHIA | 1001 S. Broad Street Phase I | 180 FT | 14 FLOORS

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by Kidphilly

not sure if this real but seems to get the massing much more appropriately at the same corner

It's not new. It's a plan for the NW corner of Broad and Wash, opposite Blatstein's proposal.

[MusicMan84]

I was at the meeting. Tensions were running high. There was a lot of yelling, talking over, arguing, and nearly a physical altercation. It was not pretty.

Basically, the neighborhood argues that the 600 parking spaces proposed will not be enough. Bart counters that this is twice the requirement.

The neighborhood remembers that this site was not always zoned CMX-5, and they fought that zoning. They don't believe the zoning is appropriate.

The neighborhood is used to a couple of standing conditions regarding parking. They indicate it has been a South Philly luxury to be able to own a car and park it on the street in the neighborhood, unlike other parts of the city. They also feel this right/luxury is already under attack by commuters who park in their neighborhood and then walk/SEPTA to work. They are terrified that this would further take away their parking luxury. Emotions running hot on this topic.

The neighborhood criticizes the rooftop village and most indicate they will not use it - Bart insists it will work.

The neighborhood criticizes the tower for removing their "skyline" views. I believe there was a bit of confusion on this point. Bart argued that they would be able to see the Philly skyline - but the more the neighbors talked, I believe they were actually describing the horizon. For example - one participant kept insisting that in every direction they looked, they had a beautiful skyline. I think it was a horizon comment...but I could be wrong.

The issue of the zoning variance came up - in which Bart is asking not to bury the parking. He was pointedly asked what his hardship was in not burying parking. Bart never really answered this. He sort of acted like he didn't understand the question, which I think would be hard to believe. His responses were basically...I don't want to bury it, it would take longer, I am hiding the parking, I am building a rooftop village... but he never directly addressed a hardship (in my opinion) - which may not bode well for his seeking of a variance.

The neighborhood also cited many Broad Street developments recently completed, closer to Center City, which are shorter. They see this as Bart just trying to line his pockets and in the process drastically upending their community. Particularly in the location of the tower.

--

My 2 cents:

The neighborhood has some valid complaints. Not all are based in reason - such as the request to provide more parking. However, the concerns of whether this is a quality design that has been thoughtfully woven into their community have some merit.

Bart could definitely propose something here that both takes advantage of the density he is allowed by zoning, but also transitions into the residential scale of the neighborhood. Instead, he seems to have become obsessed with the village rooftop - which seems to dictate all of the design.

Most of the concerns could be addressed, if not for the damn sky village.
Bury parking? - but then I can't have a sky village.
Reintroduce the street grid? - but, sky village!
Move the massing to Broad & Washington? - but that would put my glorious sky village in shadows!

I think because the neighborhood feels that those sorts of concerns are not even considered - they are not able to hear an argument about parking ratios or transit oriented development. They don't care - they hate the whole thing and will wedge as many issues as possible.

While I desperately want to see this site developed - I don't think Bart has it right, yet.

[boxbot]

Originally Posted by MusicMan84

The neighborhood criticizes the tower for removing their "skyline" views. I believe there was a bit of confusion on this point. Bart argued that they would be able to see the Philly skyline - but the more the neighbors talked, I believe they were actually describing the horizon. For example - one participant kept insisting that in every direction they looked, they had a beautiful skyline. I think it was a horizon comment...but I could be wrong.

Leave it to Bart to steal the horizon from everyone.

[City Wide]

-------First time, long time-----------
Like many others I have my questions whether Bart would build this even if he got his above ground parking, and I think there are other problems with how this proposal deals with the way the building creates a unattractive wall along Broad St and Washington Ave. (along with massing, etc.) and at first I thought the "village" was weird.

But the more I looked at the plans and realized the village looks like a series of 3 story building, with living on the top two, the more I'm thinking why not.
If the restaurants and stores don't work out I don't see any reason why these spaces couldn't be turned into apartments. In other words, as different as the village seems to be, when compared to some of the other questions/problems/issues this plan presents, I'm not too bent over the village.

I'd rather have this plan as is then keeping the empty lot for another 10 years.

Not that this is the only other option, but I'll take this over a bunch of Toll Brothers town houses.

My biggest issue is one connected to all zoning variances, once granted the variance goes along with the property, not the project. So Bart gets his requested zoning and then flips the property, then there's very little to control the next owner/proposal.

[MikeNigh]

Originally Posted by City Wide

But the more I looked at the plans and realized the village looks like a series of 3 story building, with living on the top two, the more I'm thinking why not.
If the restaurants and stores don't work out I don't see any reason why these spaces couldn't be turned into apartments. In other words, as different as the village seems to be, when compared to some of the other questions/problems/issues this plan presents, I'm not too bent over the village.

Exactly. Do we have any examples of this being done elsewhere and succeeding or failing and why? It seems like in a worst case it's just another story of the mall or w/e except this one doesn't have a roof. It could maybe be made to work good enough.

[Arch+Eng]

The rooftop village is dope. I don't know whats wrong with you guys.

[Larry King]

Originally Posted by Arch+Eng

The rooftop village is dope. I don't know whats wrong with you guys.

I like it too, and if it doesn't work it's Bart's money not mine so who cares

[McBane]

Originally Posted by MusicMan84

The neighborhood criticizes the rooftop village and most indicate they will not use it - Bart insists it will work.

LOL, I don't the type of people to attend a zoning meeting and complain about parking are the demographic that Bart is trying to woo. But anyway, I don't see how casual observers can think they know more than an accomplished businessman who has done the research and is taking all the risk. At least, I certainly don't have the knowledge or experience to declare that a rooftop village will fail (or be a success).

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by MikeNigh

Exactly. Do we have any examples of this being done elsewhere and succeeding or failing and why? It seems like in a worst case it's just another story of the mall or w/e except this one doesn't have a roof. It could maybe be made to work good enough.

Originally Posted by Arch+Eng

The rooftop village is dope. I don't know whats wrong with you guys.

Location, location, location. I'm not against the concept of a "rooftop village" - as lame and faux as it sounds - so long as there's an appropriate amount of street-facing retail and the location works for it. 8th and Market? With tens of thousands of tourists, tens of thousands of office-workers, tens of thousands of residents, and a few thousands Medical students all within a few blocks on any given Tuesday? Sure.

Broad and Washington? The only nearby businesses are industrial - and I don't see their employees patronizing a cafe on the "rooftop village" sipping a $5 latte? There are ZERO tourists here and most of the nearby residents are 9-5ers (or worse, poor) so who is keeping these rooftop village businesses afloat Tuesday at 3pm? Again, 777 S. Broad Street - in a FAR more central location 4 blocks to the North - can't maintain a single business in brand new, street fronting, retail spaces.

This site would be great for a scaled down residential component atop 2-3 big box retailers that CC lacks like a Home Goods or a Wal Mart or a Bed Bath Beyond or a Babies R Us/Toys R Us, etc. Keep it simple stupid.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by McBane

LOL, I don't the type of people to attend a zoning meeting and complain about parking are the demographic that Bart is trying to woo. But anyway, I don't see how casual observers can think they know more than an accomplished businessman who has done the research and is taking all the risk. At least, I certainly don't have the knowledge or experience to declare that a rooftop village will fail (or be a success).

Nimbies, liked a stopped clock, can still be right twice per day. The best thing I heard was the suggestion that the block be broken up like East Market. I think that's a far better and realistic model to emulate. I think a quirky rooftop plan is better suited to an already dense area. Why create a Laputa-like island in the sky that does not allow its activity to easily spill over to adjacent blocks? As someone suggested, this is the equivalent of an inward-looking mall without a roof.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by Larry King

I like it too, and if it doesn't work it's Bart's money not mine so who cares

The only money Bart is spending is on lawyers, he's not building anything here. As I mentioned early, my biggest criticism of this project was in how inelegantly it interacts with the zoning code and how that hampers this projects' ability to even get built in the first place. A few weeks back Inga wrote that article about how Pearl has become such experts in dealing with the zoning code that they were able to start building right in the middle of center city by right without even going to the public with plans. Bart is sort of like the opposite of Pearl in this regard. Given a CMX5 designation to work with he nonetheless proposes a plan that requires a multitude of zoning variances. Even the massing of the tower, something he doesn't actually need a variance for, is sort of needlessly antagonistic towards near neighbors and just motivates them to fight this even more. His plan, as proposed will not get built. ever. Like the sky village or not, it is sort of besides the point. This ain't happening because Bart is inept.

So the sky village isn't just a terrible idea, it's existence has necessitated that Bart make other choices such as the massing that are actively preventing this building from being built.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by allovertown

The only money Bart is spending is on lawyers, he's not building anything here. As I mentioned early, my biggest criticism of this project was in how inelegantly it interacts with the zoning code and how that hampers this projects' ability to even get built in the first place. A few weeks back Inga wrote that article about how Pearl has become such experts in dealing with the zoning code that they were able to start building right in the middle of center city by right without even going to the public with plans. Bart is sort of like the opposite of Pearl in this regard. Given a CMX5 designation to work with he nonetheless proposes a plan that requires a multitude of zoning variances. Even the massing of the tower, something he doesn't actually need a variance for, is sort of needlessly antagonistic towards near neighbors and just motivates them to fight this even more. His plan, as proposed will not get built. ever. Like the sky village or not, it is sort of besides the point. This ain't happening because Bart is inept.

So the sky village isn't just a terrible idea, it's existence has necessitated that Bart make other choices such as the massing that are actively preventing this building from being built.

Exactly. That he cannot come up with a plan to build by right in a CMX-5 zone is insane. It's like he's playing with toy soldiers, except that it's architectural blocks in this case.

[1487]

CDR wants Tower to resubmit the package

http://philly.curbed.com/2016/3/2/11...-broad-project

[Flyers2001]

Originally Posted by 1487

CDR wants Tower to resubmit the package

http://philly.curbed.com/2016/3/2/11...-broad-project

"This project will be a great asset—once it's done and with proper design and execution," said committee member Nancy Rogo Trainer."

Sounds like they are more for than against. Which is good. The idea to align the tower North South seems reasonable as well as the parking concern. I think they can come to terms on those ideas. The height didn't seem an issue.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by 1487

CDR wants Tower to resubmit the package

http://philly.curbed.com/2016/3/2/11...-broad-project

At least it sounds like the CDR is for the project which is great

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by summersm343

At least it sounds like the CDR is for the project which is great

Only the nimbiest of nimbys is against. Blatstein is just so ham-fisted/inspirationless in his approach that it takes more than 40 meetings to come up with something that will work in a CMX-5 zone. Cecil Baker to the rescue.

[Arch+Eng]

Inspiration less ≠ RoofTop Village

Blatstein is the Man

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by Arch+Eng

Inspiration less ≠ RoofTop Village

Blatstein is the Man

I was wondering about my word choice when I wrote that. I had in mind "having vision" vs. "seeing things."

[Londonee]

Does anyone else think its strange that the North West and North East views from this absurd Rooftop Village - the valuable views that showcase the city's skyline - will be fully obscured by the high-rise portion of this project? You'll have a view of a sea of South Philly row homes?

So what are you placing these amenities on the roof for if not for an awesome view? The whole concept just comes off as perfectly arbitrary.

[Kidphilly]

Originally Posted by Londonee

Does anyone else think its strange that the North West and North East views from this absurd Rooftop Village - the valuable views that showcase the city's skyline - will be fully obscured by the high-rise portion of this project? You'll have a view of a sea of South Philly row homes?

So what are you placing these amenities on the roof for if not for an awesome view? The whole concept just comes off as perfectly arbitrary.

I am trying to figure out what is not strange from this proposal

I almost feel as if we need to evaluate this without the roof top village and just assume it likely will just be dead space on a roof in a later form.

With that not sure how well the big box retail fronts the street.

Also why not move the tallest tower to a diagonal from mid Wash (between Broad and 13th toward 13th and Carpenter, a smaller tower on the SE corner of Broad. That could allow views of the city, move the tallest structure away form the school and have afternoon to evening sun for any pool (maybe the roof could a re-tasked pool club anyway. The massing is massive from the street regardless.