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

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by Arch+Eng

Haha.. "Yes in my back yard" sounds a little.....
I mean would you wear a shirt that says yes in my backyard

..But seriously I am tired of arguing over this. I say we all just have a battle royale and the last man standing gets to decide what happens.

Yeah, sorry for dragging it out - especially since this will get decided in the real world and not on this forum (which has been my point).

[boxbot]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

Please, Boxbot, come up with an ironic name and start a new thread for this debate before the SSP server crashes.

Sure, let me just see what's been going on in this thread all day.

Oh.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by TempleGuy1000

Sorry to keep dragging this but just for Clarification from the historical commissions website:

Sounds good to me. Determining "appropriateness" will require full disclosure and evaluation of the facts, not just bloviating about old and useless vs. shiny and new. That's all I've been saying. Seriously: I'm all for demolition or facadectomy if that's truly the best/only solution (my personal favorite of the three, the coffee shoppe, has already been given a reprieve), but I have a feeling that a solution that's a bit more thought out will win the day. PS (for Summers' benefit) - I used to work one block from this site at 1845 Walnut (my office window faced Sansom), have been an on again - off again member of the Catholic Philo Club at Stotesbury Mansion (which neighbors the lots/buildings in question), and am still regularly in the area, so I'm very familiar with the streetscape.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Let me ask you guys a question. Do any of you posting on here who are against these buildings being demolished actually live in Rittenhouse Square? Because I do, right at 18th and Walnut. I am all for preserving the city's history, but I am also all for new development.

If you are so against these buildings being demolished, where were you the past 25 years while these buildings sat vacant and fell into a state of disrepair? Why weren't you advocating to renovate these buildings the entire time they sat vacant?

That empty lot AND the parking lot are a total eyesore for Rittenhouse, which should be Philadelphia's PREMIERE neighborhood. Finally a credible developer comes along and wants to built something gorgeous here and we throw a hissy fit over these structures? If the facades can be preserved, will that be enough for you guys? I honestly would rather these buildings be demolished if it means this lot FINALLY gets developed. I'm not sure why you guys have such an attachment to these buildings.

"Philadelphia will become Dallas if we let these two insignificant buildings be demolished." Come on guys. Let's stop being dramatic, and actually offer some productive conversation. I think allowing the developers to demolish the structures but preserve the facade for the Warwick is the right way to go.

I live in Rittenhouse. I am for insisting on facade preservation where fullscale preservation of landmarks does not make sense/is not viable unless it means that a lot will never be developed. I actually think the landmark designation, preservation, etc... process needs to be a lot more sophisticated and multifactorial. There needs to be a better definition of what hardship is. And there needs to be some more formalized criteria regarding the significance of buildings as well as the scarcity of similar buildings. Both in the designation process and in any later preservation dispute. This needs to be considered as does the length of time buildings at issue are vacant and the likelihood of any future viable use. I think this is all part of the equation to lesser or greater degrees already. But it seems pretty ad hoc to me.

Sorry if I've revived sleeping dogs...haven't checked the forum since the morning and there's been a couple pages of posts on this thread since then...

[dustin.downey]

Just an FYI- We have looked extensively at ways to preserve the Warwick, the biggest issue is that both the brick and concrete structure is in bad shape. The structural engineer is concerned that all the floors will have to be replaced if any structure is modified for shafts. Much of the brick is breaking apart due to water infiltration and poor mortar. All of this adds up replacing 90% of the building and the facade which would mean it is really no longer historic.
The funeral home should have never been listed as historic and is deplorable shape. I have not yet heard any compelling arguments to save it even from the most serious preservationists.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by dustin.downey

Just an FYI- We have looked extensively at ways to preserve the Warwick, the biggest issue is that both the brick and concrete structure is in bad shape. The structural engineer is concerned that all the floors will have to be replaced if any structure is modified for shafts. Much of the brick is breaking apart due to water infiltration and poor mortar. All of this adds up replacing 90% of the building and the facade which would mean it is really no longer historic.
The funeral home should have never been listed as historic and is deplorable shape. I have not yet heard any compelling arguments to save it even from the most serious preservationists.

Thanks for your input. It is most welcome. I've taken the position that if we lose these buildings, we ultimately have the Parking Authority to thank for it, thanks to long neglect (although the Castleway clearly did little to maintain the properties as well). I'd have to think about whether I agree that long overdue maintenance/remediation renders a building non-historic (as it's possible that a large percentage of a facade might be incrementally replaced with regular maintenance), but it's an interesting argument. I am most curious about how/why the state of the buildings was not ascertainable during due diligence for the acquisition (as the need for demolition was not asserted until well after that) and why the coffee shoppe was part of the demolition request and then not. Again, your taking the time to interact in this forum is very much appreciated.

[boxbot]

Originally Posted by dustin.downey

Just an FYI- We have looked extensively at ways to preserve the Warwick, the biggest issue is that both the brick and concrete structure is in bad shape. The structural engineer is concerned that all the floors will have to be replaced if any structure is modified for shafts. Much of the brick is breaking apart due to water infiltration and poor mortar. All of this adds up replacing 90% of the building and the facade which would mean it is really no longer historic.
The funeral home should have never been listed as historic and is deplorable shape. I have not yet heard any compelling arguments to save it even from the most serious preservationists.

Didn't SLC's hardship application state a $1.6m remediation cost for all three buildings?

[Arch+Eng]

Man idc anymore. Demo the damn buildings....if and only if... It stays at 600'.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by boxbot

Didn't SLC's hardship application state a $1.6m remediation cost for all three buildings?

Yes, but that's just remediation. Remediation is just the removal of pollutants or contaminants. That does not include the redevelopment cost - like the building of the frame/floor-plates, facade, etc. That's what I've been trying to say all along.

It would be $1.6 million for remediation alone plus another $25 million to reno the building. Guarantee you're looking at nearly $30 million or more to redevelop the Warwick for ~25 apartments or condos and maybe one small retail space. When a building gets that bad, you're basically rebuilding the entire building, and apparently the facade needs work as well according to Dustin Downey.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by Arch+Eng

Man idc anymore. Demo the damn buildings....if and only if... It stays at 600'.

Yet the "neighbors" would literally die of a brain aneurysm if there was a 600 footer on the square. Oh the SHADOWS! Oh the wind! Oh the sun beams reflecting off the glass scorching the park and blinding my schnauzer.

So we're at a lose lose. Near neighbors say demolish the buildings and lower the height. Preservationists say demolish the buildings but keep it at 600 feet.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by summersm343

I do walk by these buildings quite often lately. Sure they're ornate and old and nice, but they're also in disrepair, and at night, the alley is quite foreboding to walk down. It's dark, and there is no life. The empty lot and the large parking lot are even worse. I cringe every-time I walk by that empty lot and cringe even harder when a tourist or visitor walks by it.

Philadelphia would not become Dallas over demolishing two structures. That's ridiculous. We would have to go through decades of demolishing entire blocks of buildings and replacing it with retail strip malls and parking garages and buildings with grass set backs to become Dallas.

This is not the Divine Lorraine, a structure that sat in a declining and crime ridden neighborhood for decades where no one wanted to move and is only now drawing in residents due to the recent revitalization of the surrounding neighborhoods. This is RITTENHOUSE SQUARE, Philadelphia's premiere neighborhood since, well, forever. There is no excuse for these buildings sitting vacant for 25+ years and this empty lot and parking lot being there for decades. It is our fault as a city for allowing these buildings to fall into disrepair, not the developers fault for buying these plots of land with the intentions of building something great for this city. We cannot ask these developers to pay for the city's mistakes. We also have to stop treating developers as enemies, and working with them professionally to build the best city Philadelphia can be. We have to welcome outside developers to continue to inject capital into the city and keep moving it forward. This thought that the developers are up to something sneaky and they're our enemy is truly ridiculous and conspiracy theorist.

A new building here would inject life into the block, onto Sansom, and onto the square. New retail, and a TON of it. ~150 condos and ~350 apartments... HIGH END apartments mind you that will draw in wealthy residents. This is exactly the type of thing Rittenhouse needs.

The attitude of "you are not welcome here, this is our city" is exactly what held Philadelphia back for so long. We need to do away with that attitude, and work with developers in a constructive and productive manner. We need to welcome residents and developers and businesses from all over the country and world, not turn them away with our provincial attitude.

Respectfully, this is a bunch of bullshit. None of the preservationists are arguing that the developers are evil. I would never presume such a thing, I'm sure they're wonderful people. I don't think SLC is evil, I just think like nearly every money making operation in this country, their primary goal is just that, making money.

That a developer would like to maximize their return isn't a conspiracy theory, it's common sense and I don't mean this as a slight to the developer. I don't expect a company that just dropped tens of millions on a plot of land to be a bunch of altruistic saints who will do what is best for Philadelphia regardless of cost. They're trying to make money and that's fine.

But it's the job of the city and the historic commission to look out for the best interests of the city not to bend over to every developer that throws them a buck. It is not provincial to expect people who want to invest in our city to respect our history and our laws.

And it'd be one thing if what was replacing these buildings was truly groundbreaking, but it's not. It's nice looking building. It's nothing special and with the height decreasing, it seems to be getting less special by the day.

I walk past these buildings frequently and I've long awaited their revival. With the great new Boyd Project, Sansom street is about to be injected with a whole lot more life and activity, I'd love to see these buildings be a part of that. If that can't happen than they need a more compelling reason than "We'll still make a ton of money, but not nearly as much as if we demolished them." Also they need to replace them with something that looks great and brings life to Sansom Street. A fucking driveway ain't cutting it.

[TempleGuy1000]

Originally Posted by allovertown

I walk past these buildings frequently and I've long awaited their revival. With the great new Boyd Project, Sansom street is about to be injected with a whole lot more life and activity, I'd love to see these buildings be a part of that. If that can't happen than they need a more compelling reason than "We'll still make a ton of money, but not nearly as much as if we demolished them." Also they need to replace them with something that looks great and brings life to Sansom Street. A fucking driveway ain't cutting it.

The Boyd Project is great? Tell me you are kidding? Seriously what alternate universe am I in where destroying a 1920s' era movie house for a 27 story apartment tower is GREAT! But demolishing a boarded up turd that was in shitty shape for who knows how many decades is worth saving? It's cool who needs a theater that debuted the Wizard of Oz or anything right? When we got Chester Kirk's grand masterpiece example of victorian dallas architecture

[UPenn18]

Originally Posted by allovertown

With the great new Boyd Project, Sansom street is about to be injected with a whole lot more life and activity, I'd love to see these buildings be a part of that.

It's interesting how similar these two projects are (the other being 1910 Chestnut). Not only are they along the same block of Sampson, but both developments are on oddly shaped lots with historic structures on them, and developers are adding lots of ground floor retail topped by tall (but not that tall), glass apartment towers. I can see why the Boyd entrance would be saved in the case of 1910 Chestnut, as it truly was unique. The Warwick is certainly cool, but I'm not sold on the idea of it being unique enough to be saved if it means we'll get a less-than spectacular development here. Economic development is a legitimate public purpose after all, perhaps enough to justify demoing the Warwick. Given that the towers face each other along Sampson, I wouldn't be surprised if SLC and Pearl have discussed ways their developments can complement each other so as to make their investments more valuable.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by TempleGuy1000

The Boyd Project is great? Tell me you are kidding? Seriously what alternate universe am I in where destroying a 1920s' era movie house for a 27 story apartment tower is GREAT! But demolishing a boarded up turd that was in shitty shape for who knows how many decades is worth saving? It's cool who needs a theater that debuted the Wizard of Oz or anything right? When we got Chester Kirk's grand masterpiece example of victorian dallas architecture

I'm a preservationist, but I'm also a realist. There isn't much of a demand for movie theaters in general in today's world, much less giant one screen theaters. It was a relic of a bygone era and while I would have loved to see the theater preserved and used as a live performance space, it was shown time and time again that there was no demand for such a space, or at least certainly not at the considerable price it would have taken to rehab the Boyd. If you really want to, feel free to go back in that thread and you can find the posts where I said I'd rather the boyd continued to sit vacant for another decade than be demolished for a shiny new tower just on the off chance it would be restored one day.

But instead they oked the demo and down it went. But the plan they came up with to replace it really is great and that's what I was talking about. I didn't say it was great to demolish the boyd, I said that project is great and it is. It preserves as much of the boyd as was feasible while also creating a handsome tower. And what I really love about the project is the respect it shows sansome st which is actually a HUGE improvement over the boyd. As nice as that theater's interior was, it's sansom st side was ugly as hell and really made that street feel more like an alley.

Unlike movie theaters, apartment buildings are still en vogue and assuming people will still need places to live, they likely won't be going out of style anytime soon. Also an argument that says we already demolished a better building so we might as well demolish these is senseless. Philadelphia has demolished incredible works of art by world renowned architects, if the standard for not demolishing a building is that it has to be better than any building we've demolished in the past, then you might as well permit the destruction of any building in the city.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by UPenn18

It's interesting how similar these two projects are (the other being 1910 Chestnut). Not only are they along the same block of Sampson, but both developments are on oddly shaped lots with historic structures on them, and developers are adding lots of ground floor retail topped by tall (but not that tall), glass apartment towers. I can see why the Boyd entrance would be saved in the case of 1910 Chestnut, as it truly was unique. The Warwick is certainly cool, but I'm not sold on the idea of it being unique enough to be saved if it means we'll get a less-than spectacular development here. Economic development is a legitimate public purpose after all, perhaps enough to justify demoing the Warwick. Given that the towers face each other along Sampson, I wouldn't be surprised if SLC and Pearl have discussed ways their developments can complement each other so as to make their investments more valuable.

Agreed. I don't think the Warwick should be preserved at all costs. I do however believe that if you're aiming to inject life on Sansom St and compliment that Boyd Tower, SLC would be really hard pressed to create a streetscape as architecturally interesting as the buildings they are looking to demolish.

If it can't work, it can't work. But SLC's strategy is wrong IMHO. Show us what you want to build and make it so impressive that we forget all about these buildings. Instead they want to get the right to demolish the buildings without even showing us what Sansom St will look like without them.

If this was a great urban project that replaced the Warwick and the Funeral home with an equally impressive street presence on Sansom while also building a nice tower then you could talk me into getting on board. But getting rid of these buildings for whatever is behind Door Number 2 sounds like a pretty unappealing option, especially considering we already saw what was behind Door Number 1 and it was a fucking driveway.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by allovertown

How's this for a compelling argument? It's historically designated and you're legally required to. Also, you have no business deciding which buildings are and aren't historic.

There is a reason why the law includes a financial hardship exemption. $1.6 million should not qualify, but if it's closer to $30 million to restore use as Summers posits, that legitimately could make a project not viable and ensure a vacant lot remains so for decades. It's for the historical commission to sort out. Not us armchair quarterbacks. The only thing that bothers me is the inkling that their was a bait and switch here. But I suppose the historical commission will investigate and grill SLC on the time trajectory on their changes in plans and assess when they knew or reasonably should have known building restoration was not viable in relation to their promises to restore the buildings. At least that's what should happen.

[hammersklavier]

Argh.

Well here's the deal.

Preservationists: Before you spout off complaining how historical preservation is always on the defensive in Philadelphia, I'd like remind you what happened with 40th and Locust and with the Dilworth House on Washington Square. Why did the former building get destroyed? Why has the latter sat moldering and abandoned on one of the city's premier squares for longer than I've been here? Especially when both sites have had projects on them that would have incorporated the existing buildings, had they gone through.

Preservationists, why are you always on the defense? Well, perhaps you need to look no further:


Developers: Please stop building crap in this town. I'm not talking about you guys (yet), SLC, but I'm thinking about 1900 Chestnut 2.0 (why did you think you could pull one over on us, Pearl?), the Mt. Sinai project (exist excellent project rehab, enter a suburban subdivision shoved on a city block), and SoKo Lofts (apartment project + public amenities = what gets sold; apartment project - public amenities = what gets approved). I'm not one of those kinds of guys who throws a fit every time a Harman Deutsch metal bay goes up, but we live in the city, thank you, and while gated subdivisions may have a place somewhere, they -- and the superblocks they sit on -- certainly don't have one here.

Oh okay, is that my Four Minutes' Hate for the day? 'Cos that's what this thread's turning into.

[MikeNigh]

I'm not understanding how the neighbors could have a problem with the height actually. Obviously a tower was going to go here. The taller they make it the less flattened out it can be. All the nearby towers are about 300-400' ? Why would it matter if a new tower was taller than that because it's not going to be less.

[Arch+Eng]

Originally Posted by MikeNigh

I'm not understanding how the neighbors could have a problem with the height actually. Obviously a tower was going to go here. The taller they make it the less flattened out it can be. All the nearby towers are about 300-400' ? Why would it matter if a new tower was taller than that because it's not going to be less.

Views & Sunlight

[Boku]

Originally Posted by Justin7

Nor will you, because your interest is not what is best for the city of Philadelphia but what is best for your wallet. Fortunately, unless you plan on breaking the law, you are not the one who needs to be convinced.

I'm not sure my eyes can roll back further than they are right now.