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

[jsbrook]

Love the design! Looks great.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by boxbot

It is incorporated into the renders.

That's what I thought, as mentioned above. Thanks for the annotation! You can see it and the roof of the coffee shop to its left. Only the funeral home is not visible from that angle (but very well could be below that part of the new construction). Even if they think that they cannot salvage the buildings, they've already done a layout that includes them, so the drive aisle must be able to go elsewhere. I'm hoping that this allows for preservation of the facades at least.

[boxbot]

Originally Posted by Arch+Eng

I take everything I said back. DEMO THE HISTORICAL BUILDINGS

Why? The render makes it clear the tower itself is on an entirely different footprint. (In fact, the Warick Apartments are in the render you provided (see above). The only reason to raze them that we've been given is some measly $1.6m remediation cost.

[Arch+Eng]

Originally Posted by boxbot

Why? The render makes it clear the tower itself is on an entirely different footprint. (In fact, the Warick Apartments are in the render you provided (see above). The only reason to raze them that we've been given is some measly $1.6m remediation cost.

The demolition plans CLEARLY show both of the buildings getting demolished though. It is weird that they show the Warwick in the render. The floor plan says otherwise.

[boxbot]

Originally Posted by Arch+Eng

The demolition plans CLEARLY show both of the buildings getting demolished though. It is weird that they show the Warwick in the render. The floor plan says otherwise.

Someone probably forgot to change the render after they went to Plan "B." but it cuts directly against their argument that it's a hardship to keep them.

[Zoot]

Hey guys - looong time lurker with an occasional desire to chime in.

I must say that I am extremely disappointed in this proposed design and I am surprised so many of you are excited. The height is phenomenal but don't let it distract you. I am amazed at how many people will throw away our heritage, unique nature for a ho-hum designed skyscraper. Let your height boners subside and look at this more clearly.

The design is fine - for Market Street or JFK. It looks too commercial and bland. I am not expecting a trophy design from this developer or architect, but at least propose something handsome and worthy of the location. And it can be as tall as you want.

[Arch+Eng]

Originally Posted by zoot

... Height boners ...

[PhilliesPhan]

Between the AMAZING rendering of 1911 Walnut and what Summers said about 1911 Walnut, 1910 Chestnut, and W and Elements rising at the same time, I think I'll need a new pair of pants before I head to my Macroeconomics class at 2!

[Arch+Eng]

Originally Posted by PhilliesPhan

Between the AMAZING rendering of 1911 Walnut and what Summers said about 1911 Walnut, 1910 Chestnut, and W and Elements rising at the same time, I think I'll need a new pair of pants before I head to my Macroeconomics class at 2!

..and lets not forget how much of a sexy beast 2100 Market is.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by Zoot

Hey guys - looong time lurker with an occasional desire to chime in.

I must say that I am extremely disappointed in this proposed design and I am surprised so many of you are excited. The height is phenomenal but don't let it distract you. I am amazed at how many people will throw away our heritage, unique nature for a ho-hum designed skyscraper. Let your height boners subside and look at this more clearly.

The design is fine - for Market Street or JFK. It looks too commercial and bland. I am not expecting a trophy design from this developer or architect, but at least propose something handsome and worthy of the location. And it can be as tall as you want.

Welcome to the forum!

But I disagree. I think the design is very nice, modern and Chicago-esk. I think the Warwick is extremely forgettable. The funeral home is nice but only 2 floors. I wouldn't miss this for one second if replaced by a 51 or 52 story 600 foot beast.

Yes, as a historic city we have to preserve our history, but we also can't let some things get in the way of progress, advancement and economic development. This lot has sat vacant for far too long in Philadelphia's most desirable neighborhood RIGHT on the square. It's about time this lot is developed with active street frontage, new residents, and most importantly, more tax dollars for the city. It's not like they're asking to demolish a block of Society Hill

I say we let them demolish the Funeral home, and see if they can preserve the Warwick, if not, at least it's facade. MAKE IT HAPPEN!

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by Zoot

Hey guys - looong time lurker with an occasional desire to chime in.

I must say that I am extremely disappointed in this proposed design and I am surprised so many of you are excited. The height is phenomenal but don't let it distract you. I am amazed at how many people will throw away our heritage, unique nature for a ho-hum designed skyscraper. Let your height boners subside and look at this more clearly.

The design is fine - for Market Street or JFK. It looks too commercial and bland. I am not expecting a trophy design from this developer or architect, but at least propose something handsome and worthy of the location. And it can be as tall as you want.

I love the height. Design not bad.

But i thinkvwe are in for a long fight witb CCRA, who will likely have a less charitable opinion than yours.

My guess is that Inga will pan this too.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

I love the height. Design not bad.

But i thinkvwe are in for a long fight witb CCRA, who will likely have a less charitable opinion than yours.

My guess is that Inga will pan this too.

Yeah well if I was the Planning Commission, I would tell these NIMBYs to either let the development happen or we'll make all of you responsible for paying the city the equivalent in tax dollars this development will generate.

Their choice

[BenKatzPhillytoParis]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

I love the height. Design not bad.

But i thinkvwe are in for a long fight witb CCRA, who will likely have a less charitable opinion than yours.

My guess is that Inga will pan this too.

I actually think Inga will not dislike the design. But will probably say it could be more interesting. I mean, I certainly like it. But I wouldn't say it's phenomenal by any measure. It has a few interesting aspects to it, but it's basically just a glass tower. There's nothing THAT distinct about it. And with that in mind, there's really no legit reason to demo all of the historic buildings. As others have said, none of the tower is near the façades at all. Of course it will cost somewhat more to keep them. But the whole idea it's a hardship is nonsense. A hardship does not mean you will make slightly less money for shareholders by retaining something. It means development is impossible. All this is is a game of chicken. And if we don't call their bluff on this, it sets a horrible precedent, and developers in the future similarly will make no effort to preserve and integrate older significant structures into new development. It may actually delay development in the future because developers will hold out thinking the city will cave.

[Zoot]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Yeah well if I was the Planning Commission, I would tell these NIMBYs to either let the development happen or we'll make all of you responsible for paying the city the equivalent in tax dollars this development will generate.

Their choice

As a YIMBY member of CCRA with a direct view of this lot, I will counter that we can't rubber-stamp this project because it's tall and provides tax dollars (which will be abated mind you). CCRA is flawed and can be a pain to deal with, but it is the only forum we (and I am including "you" in that "we") have to work with developers to get a better product. Let's look at things carefully and not accept the first iteration that lands on our door. 10 Rittenhouse may have been delayed for eons, but it would be far worse if approved in its first iteration.

And it sounds like the preservation factor is still up for debate. Renderings include the historic properties but the insider here claims they are included in the demo plans. Perhaps only the interiors are included in the demo plans? That makes more sense. But if there are full demo plans for the site, then SLC has even more gall than I thought. Their demolition has not yet been approved - nor should it based on a remediation cost that would still be a line item even if the properties were demolished.

P.S. Thank you for the "welcome" but I've been an active reader since 2006. I just don't comment very often. I bite my tongue frequently. I work in the industry and I am amazed by the misinformation that gets spewed and then gobbled up in some other threads.

[Zoot]

Originally Posted by BenKatzPhillytoParis

I actually think Inga will not dislike the design. But will probably say it could be more interesting. I mean, I certainly like it. But I wouldn't say it's phenomenal by any measure. It has a few interesting aspects to it, but it's basically just a glass tower. There's nothing THAT distinct about it. And with that in mind, there's really no legit reason to demo all of the historic buildings. As others have said, none of the tower is near the façades at all. Of course it will cost somewhat more to keep them. But the whole idea it's a hardship is nonsense. A hardship does not mean you will make slightly less money for shareholders by retaining something. It means development is impossible. All this is is a game of chicken. And if we don't call their bluff on this, it sets a horrible precedent, and developers in the future similarly will make no effort to preserve and integrate older significant structures into new development. It may actually delay development in the future because developers will hold out thinking the city will cave.

Oh I will definitely call their bluff. They only recently offered to preserve the coffee shop because it was the only property not within the footprint of their development site. They are just pretending to compromise. And no developer would ignore the due diligence on the cost of preservation prior to acquiring a site. The costs shouldn't be a surprise to them and they should have built the costs into their purchase price. The only reason SLC would choose to exclude the properties from their due diligence, is because they always intended on the demolition route. This and the sham excuse for remediation costs only make this developer look dishonest and sneaky. Don't fall for their trick just because they are showing you something tall and glassy.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by Zoot

As a YIMBY member of CCRA with a direct view of this lot, I will counter that we can't rubber-stamp this project because it's tall and provides tax dollars (which will be abated mind you). CCRA is flawed and can be a pain to deal with, but it is the only forum we (and I am including "you" in that "we") have to work with developers to get a better product. Let's look at things carefully and not accept the first iteration that lands on our door. 10 Rittenhouse may have been delayed for eons, but it would be far worse if approved in its first iteration.

And it sounds like the preservation factor is still up for debate. Renderings include the historic properties but the insider here claims they are included in the demo plans. Perhaps only the interiors are included in the demo plans? That makes more sense. But if there are full demo plans for the site, then SLC has even more gall than I thought. Their demolition has not yet been approved - nor should it based on a remediation cost that would still be a line item even if the properties were demolished.

P.S. Thank you for the "welcome" but I've been an active reader since 2006. I just don't comment very often. I bite my tongue frequently. I work in the industry and I am amazed by the misinformation that gets spewed and then gobbled up in some other threads.

Yes, 10 Rittenhouse was delayed so long, that it came on the market during the economic bust and was unsuccessful to the point where the building and previous developer went bankrupt, and it had to be bought by Dranoff. Is that what we want to do to our developers? Haha.

Feel free to comment more frequently on any misinformation. All viewpoints are welcome here

And I don't disagree with you about pushing for great design, but I also feel there are quite a few NIMBYs in the Rittenhouse area that will fight tooth and nail and delay a lot of otherwise great projects.

Although the condos/apartments THEMSELVES may be abated, there will still be tax paying residents living within the condos/apartments - a lot of them mind you. Not only that, but there will be leasing and sales staff for the building, concierge, maintenance, cleaners, and a large retail space that could create over 100 jobs alone. All of these people will pay taxes, and this will create jobs. Not to mention construction jobs which will also generate taxes for the city.

There is a lot to consider, and after already paying $30+ million for the lot another $1.5 million just for abatement is quite a lot. This does not include the redevelopment of the structures which could cost another couple of million dollars. Then to ask the developer for a nice design on top of that and we're really getting into big numbers. Probably looking at $50+ million when all is said and done before this even gets into the ground and before we start adding construction costs.

All I'm saying is this lot has sat vacant for far too long, and the NIMBYs shouldn't curb the development over a few small, forgettable buildings. This lot needs to be developed this go around to not risk it sitting vacant for another 10 years.

[summersm343]

[Knight Hospitaller]

Personally, Zoot, I like the appearance. Maybe I'm easy to please, but I think that it looks restrained and dignified, which is what I'd want on the Square. It's got a few flourishes, like the apparent cantilevering and sky garden that add interest. I suppose that we should all await the additional renderings. [Edit: Summers just posted a couple new views, which I think reinforce that this building is interesting without a lot of flash. I think that a building like 2100 Market, for example, would look very out of place on the Square. I note that there are no close ups of the part of Sansom that has us all aflutter].

I too am baffled by the way Southern has handled the historic properties. I'm not ready to accuse them of outright dishonesty when their own renderings show the buildings preserved. It may seem unfathomable that they would not have taken a serious look at those buildings beforehand, but I've seen otherwise savvy clients do some things that leaves me scratching my head. We'll just have to see what comes out before the Commission.

[boxbot]

Originally Posted by summersm343

I think the design is very nice, modern and Chicago-esk. I think the Warwick is extremely forgettable. The funeral home is nice but only 2 floors. I wouldn't miss this for one second if replaced by a 51 or 52 story 600 foot beast.

Yes, as a historic city we have to preserve our history, but we also can't let some things get in the way of progress, advancement and economic development. This lot has sat vacant for far too long in Philadelphia's most desirable neighborhood RIGHT on the square. It's about time this lot is developed with active street frontage, new residents, and most importantly, more tax dollars for the city. It's not like they're asking to demolish a block of Society Hill

I say we let them demolish the Funeral home, and see if they can preserve the Warwick, if not, at least it's facade. MAKE IT HAPPEN!

Originally Posted by summersm343

All I'm saying is this lot has sat vacant for far too long, and the NIMBYs shouldn't curb the development over a few small, forgettable buildings. This lot needs to be developed this go around to not risk it sitting vacant for another 10 years.

That is a shockingly short-sighted position. We're all here because we love height, but you're conflating a vacant lot on Rittenhouse Square with intact completely rehabbable buildings that are adjacent. They don't want to build the tower where these buildings are. There's no support for the position that preservation will kill this deal and lead to a vacant lot for 10 years. The developer isn't even arguing that. They haven't given any reason to demo other than the cost savings. We can have excellent design and preservation.

[Human Scale]

It would be cool to see 1911 Walnut and 1910 Chestnut together. They compliment each other.