PHILADELPHIA | Lowrise/General Developments Thread

[volguus zildrohar]

Yes, it's humming along...

November 6

[Redddog]

Originally Posted by McBane

At least the National doesn't follow that script that so many buildings follow - boring and safe architecture, red brick, and meant to blend in and not be seen. For example, that new development at 4th and Race or that PMC building on Arch Street. Neither are offensive but could they be any more boring of a design? I know I shit on red brick all the time but it's almost always incorporated into super bland/conservative designs. That since-redesigned low rise proposed for 9th and Washington was red brick but it was done in an interesting way.

This town was built in the 1700s. What the hell else are they supposed to build with?

I understand the allure of interesting architecture - we all do if we hang out on a site like this.

But in OLD CITY, right next to Elfreths Alley, this design looks ridiculous. The building at 218 Arch is, to me, 1000 times nicer, more appropriate and more congruent with it's surroundings than this huge, ugly ass plastic and tile mess.

[PHL10]

Originally Posted by Redddog

This town was built in the 1700s. What the hell else are they supposed to build with?

I understand the allure of interesting architecture - we all do if we hang out on a site like this.

But in OLD CITY, right next to Elfreths Alley, this design looks ridiculous. The building at 218 Arch is, to me, 1000 times nicer, more appropriate and more congruent with it's surroundings than this huge, ugly ass plastic and tile mess.

I see what you are saying but this effect can be pretty cool too:



(credit: http://www.ocfrealty.com/naked-philly)

[McBane]

Originally Posted by Redddog

This town was built in the 1700s. What the hell else are they supposed to build with?

I understand the allure of interesting architecture - we all do if we hang out on a site like this.

But in OLD CITY, right next to Elfreths Alley, this design looks ridiculous. The building at 218 Arch is, to me, 1000 times nicer, more appropriate and more congruent with it's surroundings than this huge, ugly ass plastic and tile mess.

But it's not 1700 anymore. Should Philadelphians have continued to build in the colonial-style in 1800? 1900? When would it end? What makes any city interesting is architectural diversity but how can that be achieved when closed minded folks insist on building everything to match their surroundings? If no one had the balls to deviate from the dominant surrounding architecture, we wouldn't have such beloved buildings as our City Hall, the PSFS building, the Bellevue, Liberty Place, etc. All had detractors whining that these buildings didn't "fit".

Do you see Philadelphia as a thriving, modern metropolis or Willamsburg Virginia?

I'm not necessarily saying the National is this amazing architectural gem but dismissing it altogether because it's different comes of as parochial.

[Redddog]

Originally Posted by PHL10

I see what you are saying but this effect can be pretty cool too:



(credit: http://www.ocfrealty.com/naked-philly)

Agreed. And that's what 218 Arch looks like - a combination of old world materials (which it isn't. It's only a facade style) and neo-industrial style. It works extremely well in the setting. The National looks like a suburban inpatient psyche ward.

[blart]

Wed., 11/7
Germantown Ave, just off of Girard-

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by McBane

But it's not 1700 anymore. Should Philadelphians have continued to build in the colonial-style in 1800? 1900? When would it end? What makes any city interesting is architectural diversity but how can that be achieved when closed minded folks insist on building everything to match their surroundings? If no one had the balls to deviate from the dominant surrounding architecture, we wouldn't have such beloved buildings as our City Hall, the PSFS building, the Bellevue, Liberty Place, etc. All had detractors whining that these buildings didn't "fit".

Do you see Philadelphia as a thriving, modern metropolis or Willamsburg Virginia?

I'm not necessarily saying the National is this amazing architectural gem but dismissing it altogether because it's different comes of as parochial.

A lot of people disagree with you. And I do as well in part. Yes, I think architectural diversity makes great cities as a general matter and we can have it in most areas. And we do. The juxtaposition of old and new on East Market, for example, with the two new towers, City Hall, and the Loews looks terrific.

That said, there are designated historic districts in amazing cities throughout the world, and those areas are about creating a sense of place and cohesiveness. New buildings are supposed to blend into that and there are regulations ensuring they do. Old City is and should be such a place. It's a small slice of the city. Modern style buildings have a place most everywhere else. I'd say maintenance of historic districts in Philadelphia particularly important since I find most of our modern buildings mediocre, certainly most of our residential buildings, because of budgets and value engineering while Philly was a top city creating superior architecture in ages past. We have some superior buildings like the Bridge, but we rarely knock it out of the park, so small slices of the city where we did should be protected and preserved.

[mcgrath618]

Being an architect, I may be able to contribute something to this conversation.
Architecture as a whole is beginning to take a major shift back to modernism and away from postmodernism. People are beginning to realize that art should imitate life, not imitate art, and that when you put effort into something you will get something good out of it.
We can see this beginning to come back in architecture and interior design, but not as heavily as in architecture. People like old 20th century designs, like in clocks and lamps. I've noticed in Target and Home depot that a lot of interior decor is reflective of early 20th century modernism. The clocks are analog. The lamps are cast iron or even faux bronze. They all have intricate designs on them.
As for architecture, we have two perfect examples of this trend already constructed. Though vastly different, the two buildings represent the same ideals of beauty and perfection: The Alexander and the Comcast Technology Center. The Alexander was designed to literally look like -- nay -- BE an early 20th century building. They used traditional materials with new modern techniques, and spared no expense. The result? They've revitalized a whole street and have turned a profit on apartment rentals. On the other hand, the CTC is a more postmodern interpretation of Art Deco. The building tapers to a point. That's a huge nod to Art Deco and the days of old. The building has setbacks, and the chevrons on the east and west sides give off an Art Deco vibes.
Experts are calling this new wave "Neo Deco."
All of this is to say that as it becomes more and more mainstream, smaller projects will get the same treatment. I've already started to see buildings on Girard that are brand new looking like they were built 70 years ago. Same with these overbuilds on Walnut.
TL;DR old architecture is coming back, don't worry. The National, while different, was designed with a clear purpose and will prove itself over time. But we needn't worry about that for too much longer with this new wave.

[Redddog]

Originally Posted by McBane

...I'm not necessarily saying the National is this amazing architectural gem but dismissing it altogether because it's different comes of as parochial.

I'm dismissing it because it's but-ass ugly.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

A lot of people disagree with you. And I do as well in part. Yes, I think architectural diversity makes great cities as a general matter and we can have it in most areas. And we do. The juxtaposition of old and new on East Market, for example, with the two new towers, City Hall, and the Loews looks terrific.

That said, there are designated historic districts in amazing cities throughout the world, and those areas are about creating a sense of place and cohesiveness. New buildings are supposed to blend into that and there are regulations ensuring they do. Old City is and should be such a place. It's a small slice of the city. Modern style buildings have a place most everywhere else. I'd say maintenance of historic districts in Philadelphia particularly important since I find most of our modern buildings mediocre, certainly most of our residential buildings, because of budgets and value engineering while Philly was a top city creating superior architecture in ages past. We have some superior buildings like the Bridge, but we rarely knock it out of the park, so small slices of the city where we did should be protected and preserved.

When you say "...most of our modern buildings" are mediocre, do you mean buildings constructed today or buildings constructed in the modern style?

If you mean most buildings constructed today, then I agree. Most are mediocre, regardless of whether they were designed to in the traditional or contemporary style. The Bridge and the Alexander are two standout examples. But I still think we've seen more successes with modern styles (FMC, Comcast 1, Cira, St. James) than with traditional styles (1100 Chestnut, any others?). Of course, there have been countless misses in both styles...

I think that shortcuts (e.g., cheaper materials) on traditional-style buildings tend to be easier to identify because we have such an amazing stock of beautiful old buildings. Personally, I'd rather have an uninspired glass box than a cheaply constructed traditional building but you're right, I'm probably in the minority.

[iheartphilly]

Re:the National

The cheap look gray square/rectangle cladding must be a Philly special. It's on a lot of cheap looking new construction buildings for a reason. It looks cheap and saves the developer money. Even on 500 Walnut, it looks cheap for such a high end project. And, it is probably on half a dozen other projects in the city. With the exception of a handful of newer building as you all have mention (FMC, Evo, Cira Center-I look at them with all their angles as one) Alexander, CTC, 1213 Walnut (honorable mention), and maybe a few other noteworthy ones, the rest are meh. The upshot is that all the construction is making the city livelier and the city and skyline is growing. To be realistic, Philly is holding its own as one of the biggest US cities, but don't compare it to the world's alpha cities in terms of architectural design. We are pretty conservative when it come to that whether it is due to economic factors or lack of notoriety.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by McBane

When you say "...most of our modern buildings" are mediocre, do you mean buildings constructed today or buildings constructed in the modern style?

If you mean most buildings constructed today, then I agree. Most are mediocre, regardless of whether they were designed to in the traditional or contemporary style. The Bridge and the Alexander are two standout examples. But I still think we've seen more successes with modern styles (FMC, Comcast 1, Cira, St. James) than with traditional styles (1100 Chestnut, any others?). Of course, there have been countless misses in both styles...

I think that shortcuts (e.g., cheaper materials) on traditional-style buildings tend to be easier to identify because we have such an amazing stock of beautiful old buildings. Personally, I'd rather have an uninspired glass box than a cheaply constructed traditional building but you're right, I'm probably in the minority.

I mean buildings built today more than the particular style. But there aren't too many buildings built to replicate former styles. Alexander is one, and I agree it's excellent. I'd also rather have an uninspired glass box than a third rate replica, but I do think in designated areas (there aren't that many) we need to be insisting on facedectomies and more stringent preservation measures. The St. James is actually an example of that.

[Boku]

Fashion District Philadelphia officially has an opening date

https://www.phillyvoice.com/fashion-...pping-vendors/

After more than three years of planning and construction, Fashion District Philadelphia has an official opening date set for Sept. 19, 2019.

Work on the former Gallery mall has taken over much of the area around its address at 1101 Market St. in the years since the concept was first announced in summer 2015. Though much of the exterior work and space booking has been completed, officials told Philly Mag that the retail center still has about 10 months to go before opening.

A reported 85 percent of the Fashion District Philadelphia space, accounting for approximately 700,000 square feet, has been leased. Developers for the project, which is priced between $400 and $420 million, are confident they will meet the Sept. 19 start date.

Vendors confirmed for the new space include City Winery, an urban winery and concert venue. There will also be a Dallas BBQ location, an AMC theatre, and an unnamed artisanal Italian market, among several other concepts.

Burlington Stores, Century 21, and Tiffany's Bakery are currently open at the space.

[Urbanthusiat]

Originally Posted by Boku

unnamed artisanal Italian market

One Eataly please.

[Nova08]

Originally Posted by Boku

Fashion District Philadelphia officially has an opening date

https://www.phillyvoice.com/fashion-...pping-vendors/

Unamed artisanal Italian Market - Eataly?

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

That said, there are designated historic districts in amazing cities throughout the world, and those areas are about creating a sense of place and cohesiveness. New buildings are supposed to blend into that and there are regulations ensuring they do. Old City is and should be such a place.

In general, I agree that some historic neighborhoods should have their architectural identity preserved. Society Hill is such a place, some of the Victorian neighborhoods in West Philly are another. But I am sorry, I just don't understand why you think Old City is an example of this type of place. What exactly do you find homogenous and cohesive about old city architecture?Old city is one of the most architecturally diverse neighborhoods in the city, incredibly diverse really, if Old City doesn't have a building built from every decade in US history, I'm sure they're damn close. Every style of architecture imaginable. What does an old city building look like? People should be able to continue building diverse architecture in Old City. Just as they have for 200+ years.

And I walked by her national again today and I won't make any apologies for liking it. Not great, feels kind of cheap, but overall I like it. Once you concede there is no way to change the tile base, I like how they worked with it.

[Parkway]

Originally Posted by Boku

Fashion District Philadelphia officially has an opening date

https://www.phillyvoice.com/fashion-...pping-vendors/

That's almost 5 years to the day after K-Mart closed in what was supposed to be the opening salvo of a fairly quick renovation. Wasn't Phase I (back when the project had phases) slated for a late 2016 opening?

[PHL10]

Originally Posted by allovertown

, if Old City doesn't have a building built from every decade in US history, I'm sure they're damn close. Every style of architecture imaginable. What does an old city building look like? People should be able to continue building diverse architecture in Old City. Just as they have for 200+ years.

Great point.

[McBane]

^ +1

[Aaamazarite]

New design for 3.0 University Place. I'm told they're close to being pre-leased enough to start construction.