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

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by UPenn18

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.

That's why demolition of historic buildings should be contingent on the plan (i.e. renders, building program, etc.) of their replacement and the ability to adhere to those plans.

Demolition of historic buildings can happen but should never happen without a clear replacement in mind. Southern Land hasn't shown us their replacement, and I object to their demolition until they do.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by 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.

I don't get it. Even if they demolish the buildings how can they combine the lots? There's a street in between the empty lot on Walnut and these historic buildings on Sansom. Would they be able to take over the street too?

[BenKatzPhillytoParis]

Originally Posted by allovertown

I don't get it. Even if they demolish the buildings how can they combine the lots? There's a street in between the empty lot on Walnut and these historic buildings on Sansom. Would they be able to take over the street too?

What street?

[BenKatzPhillytoParis]

Originally Posted by allovertown

I don't get it. Even if they demolish the buildings how can they combine the lots? There's a street in between the empty lot on Walnut and these historic buildings on Sansom. Would they be able to take over the street too?

What street?

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by BenKatzPhillytoParis

What street?

I believe it's Moravian. I guess it's more of an alley than a street, but it's there.

[PHL10]

I agree that with the rationale and requirements to destroy a historic building that people have been putting forth. A recent example of a demo “for nothing” was the 1500 block of Cherry Street. They demolished an occupied and perfectly functional mid-1800 townhome for some pie-in-the sky project.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9556...7i13312!8i6656


I think it’s clear that they demo’d the building in an attempt to increase the value of the lot for new construction.

[blorkishdork]

Yes, Moravian, and the previous developers wanted to strike Moravian st from the grid, which I believe these guys would want to do as well. And I didn't like it for the Drannoff project on South Broad, nor do I like it here, I like our public streets especially our smallest ones, they make Philly unique in the States.

When you really look at the site plan of the lots, it really is 3 distinct lots, you have the lot with the old buildings, the lot facing Walnut and the lot on the corner of 20th, Moravian and Sansom. To me it really doesn't make sense to combine these lots, its an awkwardly shaped lot. I think I'd feel slightly different if we had fewer big lots, but we have several and huge swathes of land all over the city that could be developed. I just don't see why they should destroy these buildings, even for a good design. I hate combining lots, it makes the city more bland and boring. Compare Walnut st to Market West, Walnut is so much better to walk down because it has smaller lots that make the street feel human scale. And the thing that really irks me is its not like all of these buildings are squat 2 story buildings like they were at 10 Rittenhouse, the one building is 7 stories? We are talking decent density. Any way, I know many disagree with me so I'll end my rant now.

As an aside, I would welcome infinite height on the other two lots .

[Arch+Eng]

Originally Posted by summersm343

..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...

That's exactly what I would prefer to happen. Smaller stores on street level are soo much more inviting and aesthetically pleasing then one large continuous wall for one large site/project. I like human scale, not corporation scale. Im surprised you guys wouldn't agree here, since you all hate parking, I would assume that you would want to keep things in walking distance and not create mega block projects.

I completely agree with others here, that finding ways to reuse more properties everywhere in our city will keep us a great creative historical aesthetic city, and not some city with metal cladding mega projects everywhere that looks like it was just built in the last 20 years.

What would you prefer:
Reuse Existing Lots
Reuse Example #2
or
Combine Lots for one continuous Project
Combine Example #2


My argument here is really just against combining lots in historic areas. There are plenty of actual land lots around the city to develop on. We have to keep our city walkable and preserve the historic architectural facades. Especially since the art of architecture has seemed to have died off tremendously. Now its all about the profit so you really can't expect great design. Let developers have their way and we will have this. At least you guys will be happy about the DENSITY though. 2.9 Million residents / square foot

/end rant

[BenKatzPhillytoParis]

Originally Posted by Arch+Eng

That's exactly what I would prefer to happen. Smaller stores on street level are soo much more inviting and aesthetically pleasing then one large continuous wall for one large site/project. I like human scale, not corporation scale. Im surprised you guys wouldn't agree here, since you all hate parking, I would assume that you would want to keep things in walking distance and not create mega block projects.

I completely agree with others here, that finding ways to reuse more properties everywhere in our city will keep us a great creative historical aesthetic city, and not some city with metal cladding mega projects everywhere that looks like it was just built in the last 20 years.

What would you prefer:
Reuse Existing Lots
Reuse Example #2
or
Combine Lots for one continuous Project
Combine Example #2


My argument here is really just against combining lots in historic areas. There are plenty of actual land lots around the city to develop on. We have to keep our city walkable and preserve the historic architectural facades. Especially since the art of architecture has seemed to have died off tremendously. Now its all about the profit so you really can't expect great design. Let developers have their way and we will have this. At least you guys will be happy about the DENSITY though. 2.9 Million residents / square foot

/end rant

This really goes to the heart of the issue. Even though big lots are sometimes necessary for certain types of high-rise projects, they're certainly not prerequisites, and as a rule—they bring a really stale vibe to cities.

[PHL10]

Originally Posted by Arch+Eng

What would you prefer:
Reuse Existing Lots
Reuse Example #2
or
Combine Lots for one continuous Project
Combine Example #2

I agree with your point in general but you picked some really severe examples. Here are more appropriate examples of what we can expect, the newest high-rise built on/near the square:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9505...7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9509...7i13312!8i6656

[blorkishdork]

That is a good point, but one thing I would like to point out is that development did incorporate two or three historical buildings in the development. The one that the Barnes and Noble is in and the one flanking the Barnes and Noble's left side are both part of 10 Rittenhouse (and maybe the one flanking the right as well?). Which I feel brings back to the point... Why can't they save these buildings? The lot in question is larger than the 10 Rittenhouse, and if you were to break them into two lots, they are roughly 3/4 the size of 10 Rittenhouse, surely big enough to have something tall (even with preserving the old buildings).

[McBane]

I think we need to get over this notion that if the existing buildings stay, we're going to get two smaller buildings instead of one grand tower. It's not a this or that choice unless Southern is too cheap to find an alternate solution.

On the 2100 block of Market, I personally thought the continued existence of the fire house midblock would prevent a a really tall building from being built on that block. But Brandywine wasn't discouraged and their architect found a solution and the result is amazing.

Sure it's easier to just knock down these historic buildings and Southern is going to convince the public that it's absolutely necessary but in truth, they can still achieve a single tall tower without demolition; it will just require Southern to go outside their comfort zone which to this day has been bland boring architecture.

[BenKatzPhillytoParis]

Originally Posted by blorkishdork

That is a good point, but one thing I would like to point out is that development did incorporate two or three historical buildings in the development. The one that the Barnes and Noble is in and the one flanking the Barnes and Noble's left side are both part of 10 Rittenhouse (and maybe the one flanking the right as well?). Which I feel brings back to the point... Why can't they save these buildings? The lot in question is larger than the 10 Rittenhouse, and if you were to break them into two lots, they are roughly 3/4 the size of 10 Rittenhouse, surely big enough to have something tall (even with preserving the old buildings).

Yeah, that example kind of proves Arch+Eng's point. 10 Rittenhouse's street presence is not bad precisely because it's not the whole block.

[Arch+Eng]

We are a World Heritage City now guys. We can't just go around demolishing any building for new developments in our historic areas.

[MikeNigh]

Originally Posted by Arch+Eng

We are a World Heritage City now guys. We can't just go around demolishing any building for new developments in our historic areas.

A good 500+ foot tower would be more historically significant in the long run. We're acting like they are ho hum diddly. They are a huge deal / honor / achievement for any city on the planet.

Obviously we'd all rather they could be kept in part and the full plan otherwise be built. But them kept in full is crazy.

[BenKatzPhillytoParis]

Originally Posted by MikeNigh

A good 500+ foot tower would be more historically significant in the long run. We're acting like they are ho hum diddly. They are a huge deal / honor / achievement for any city on the planet.

Obviously we'd all rather they could be kept in part and the full plan otherwise be built. But them kept in full is crazy.

I don't see how a 500+ foot tower is automatically more historically significant in the long run...or a huge honor. There are more buildings in the world at this point that could be qualified as towers, most of which are of mediocre design—or not designed at all, merely engineered—, than there are artfully designed buildings as old as the ones in question. How is them being kept in full crazy? And what is the "full plan"? There is no plan, that's sort of why a lot of posters here are peeved by the immediate declared "need" to demo them...

[AbortedWalrus]

Originally Posted by UPenn18

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.

The Historical Commission can say "Sorry, but we've allowed too many historical properties to be demolished in favor of new development and we've decided to slow the pace." There doesn't have to be a precedent set. The Historical Commission has the power to make the decision unilaterally and there's not much developers can do it about it.

[boxbot]

Originally Posted by AbortedWalrus

The Historical Commission can say "Sorry, but we've allowed too many historical properties to be demolished in favor of new development and we've decided to slow the pace." There doesn't have to be a precedent set. The Historical Commission has the power to make the decision unilaterally and there's not much developers can do it about it.

In Philadelphia? Surely there must be something they can do about it.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by boxbot

In Philadelphia? Surely there must be something they can do about it.

... and hope that they don't notice Jefferson Davis's face on the bills.

[ConstructStudent]

The project will be one tower approximately 599'6". Glass facade and a podium that is shaped like a L. Two separate entrance's for condos and apartments. That's all I can say at this time.