PHILADELPHIA | Lowrise/General Developments Thread

[McBane]

Originally Posted by blorkishdork

Although I do wish the OCCA was still around to prevent these awful row homes from being built or improve their design, especially the ones across from the betsy ross house.

I don't recall OCCA (or any NIMBY org for that matter) ever protesting a townhouse project for being ugly or anti-urban. In fact, the opposite is true - townhomes or really any project that does not include 1:1 parking has always been opposed. I'm glad OCCA is dead and gone.

[cafeguy]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

I think it's nice to see Old City getting some infill in a vernacular and type that isn't common there (ie. modern rowhomes). In my opinion, it's a super nice neighborhood that for some reason always felt a little too transient to me. Perhaps because most of the dwellings are apartments, etc. That's why I like seeing these lots being consumed to a certain extent by rowhomes and not more dense form. 205 Race is the obvious, very positive exception.

That being said, as a former resident of Old City, I always thought the OCCA was a terrible civic. Richard Thom and his friends had a vision for Old City that I thought was not in line with the people who lived there (i.e. they wanted it to be more 'ye olde' williamsburg' and less brooklyn williamsburg (or dumbo) and they ran that organization like an exclusive club with no room for disagreement. I mean, for god's sake, they used to have their meetings DURING THE DAY. Who can attend a meeting during the day?

In many ways...the NLNA and now Fishtown and South Kensington Civics are far more progressive. And frankly, it shows, I think.

Anways...I digress.

My question is now...with all of this small infill in Old City, how many empty lots are even left? I think it would be interesting for somebody to start doing a sort of census of empty/underused lots in neighborhoods between Girard and Washington. Certainly between Vine and South.

I started thinking about this with respect to Northern Liberties. There is so much new construction happening simultaneously in Northern Liberties right now that it is hard to see, but in reality, the number of underused lots being consumed simultaneously right now will leave the neighborhood looking completely different in even 9 months. In other words, I don't think there as many soft sites left in NoLibs as people assume, because right now, the vast majority of them in NoLibs at least, are construction sites...and when something is a construction site as opposed to a finished project, it still sort of looks underused. Certainly between 95 and 5th Street (the core of the neighborhood), Girard and Spring Garden, there will be virtually no soft sites left in NoLibs in 9 months. I can think of 4 major soft sites:

1. the old Ortliebs Brewery at 3rd and Poplar (already has a proposal on the table for housing)
2. the UniPro Building on 2nd above Wildey
3. Bart's parking lot behind the SuperFresh
4. Bart's triangle across from the SuperFresh

That's a sea change from even a year ago, when there were so many more.

1. Has anyone heard of plans for anything other than the Ortliebs site, which I think we're all aware of?
2. After this rash of construction in Old City is up. In a similar vein, what will be left? Maybe a surface lot on Front below Market and the Gulf Gas Station on 2nd? I would probably include the site at 4th and Race...of which the current proposal looks terrible (bring back the Aloft).

I bring this up, because the point I'm making is that once these sites are consumed, it's easy to think that development will slow in these pockets, but I think it will have the opposite effect in a way. I think it will put pressure inward in a few zones and you'll start seeing much more tear down activity (which is frankly great for the core of the city).

Callowhill will become an obvious zone for densification (between Spring Garden and Vine)
Poplar/Spring Arts will become another obvious spot for densification.

But you'll also start to see more 1 story buildings and mediocre homes come down. It hasn't gotten much attention, but I can think of two mediocre/not historic homes in Northern Liberties that have been recently demolished on other wise in tact blocks and replaced by much higher quality/well designed/notable infill. Sort of one off projects, probably initiated by individual owners who bought the cheap poorly maintained homes for the property, hired an architect and contractor, and just wiped the lot clean to start over.

I suspect we're going to see MUCH more of this in the future.

I think we are years away from seeing more tear-downs. Bart's parcels (which includes ortliebs) can support SOOOOOO much apartment and townhomes to handle the demand. Plus, we have SOKO lofts and Liberty square coming on board that will add an additional 500 units. Building pressure will grow in Olde Kensington over the next 5-10 years. I would consider that callowhill, olde kensington, east poplar, lower kensington, norris square, and the rest of fishtown and northern liberties would need to be filled to capacity before its financially smart to do more tear downs and buildings. People don't mind living in those neighborhoods so when met with decent affordability in the next neighborhood north, those ones fit the bill for cool, convenient, urban living.

oh...and you forgot the lumber yard at 3rd and girard.

[cafeguy]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Topping off the Sugarhouse Casino Expansion



http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelp...-fishtown.html

So, sugarhouse was forced to give something back to the neighborhood with its approvals. That's this $500K, right? How come other large developments are not required to do something like this as well? Of course, on a smaller scale. I'm looking at places like point breeze...maybe some portion of the transfer tax following the sale of a home that is developed in a ful city block or something going directly to a neighborhood group that is charged with using the money to do something good for the neighborhood...better lighting, library updates, i dunno.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by Londonee

I agree and the OCCA is a good example of a civic association that actually retarded development progress based on their own myopic point of view. It's no coincidence that construction is slowly and surely creeping back to Old City now that the OCCA has been dead for 2 years. Good riddance.

Hear hear!

The thought of Richard Thom fuming away helplessly in his suburban basement while development occurs without his imprimatur makes me smile.

Yes, sone of these new developments are uninspired. But OCCA did little if anything to encoyrage quality projects. Its primary goal was to thwart [i]any[/i ] development.

[blorkishdork]

Originally Posted by McBane

I don't recall OCCA (or any NIMBY org for that matter) ever protesting a townhouse project for being ugly or anti-urban. In fact, the opposite is true - townhomes or really any project that does not include 1:1 parking has always been opposed. I'm glad OCCA is dead and gone.

I just wanted to clarify that I'm glad that the OCCA in it's old form is dead. Does Old City currently have an active civic association or RCO etc.?

As for tear-downs, I don't see that happening quite as much especially not in the peripheral areas of Center City (Queen Village, Northern Liberties, etc.). I'm shocked how many empty lots there are in Queen Village, I have this perception that QV is a built-out neighborhood, but there is still plenty of room to grow.

[PhiLaw]

Originally Posted by cafeguy

So, sugarhouse was forced to give something back to the neighborhood with its approvals. That's this $500K, right? How come other large developments are not required to do something like this as well? Of course, on a smaller scale. I'm looking at places like point breeze...maybe some portion of the transfer tax following the sale of a home that is developed in a ful city block or something going directly to a neighborhood group that is charged with using the money to do something good for the neighborhood...better lighting, library updates, i dunno.

Because we believe in a concept, borrowed from the British and refined by the US, called "private property." It's the reason East Germany had to put up a wall to keep people from traveling West, and that Hong Kong has to keep Mainlanders from crashing their borders and not visa versa.

Those among us with a long view of things understand it's a horrible idea to commandeer the managerial functions of corporations with the use of zoning laws.

Sorry a rare outburst from me these days. On my way to the coffee machine

[apetrella802]

Originally Posted by cafeguy

I think we are years away from seeing more tear-downs. Bart's parcels (which includes ortliebs) can support SOOOOOO much apartment and townhomes to handle the demand. Plus, we have SOKO lofts and Liberty square coming on board that will add an additional 500 units. Building pressure will grow in Olde Kensington over the next 5-10 years. I would consider that callowhill, olde kensington, east poplar, lower kensington, norris square, and the rest of fishtown and northern liberties would need to be filled to capacity before its financially smart to do more tear downs and buildings. People don't mind living in those neighborhoods so when met with decent affordability in the next neighborhood north, those ones fit the bill for cool, convenient, urban living.

oh...and you forgot the lumber yard at 3rd and girard.

C
Old city is unique because it has characteristics that can be seen in a palimpsest, that is to say it has evolved from multiple overlays of building history so remnants from the early 18th c. residential architecture coexist with early 19th c. Mercantile buildings and late 19th/early20th c. Commercial, light industry and now early 21st c. Residential buildings. I am using a kindle while I await my new laptop so it's torture to type otherwise I would include Dec of palimpsest

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by PhiLaw

Because we believe in a concept, borrowed from the British and refined by the US, called "private property." It's the reason East Germany had to put up a wall to keep people from traveling West, and that Hong Kong has to keep Mainlanders from crashing their borders and not visa versa.

Those among us with a long view of things understand it's a horrible idea to commandeer the managerial functions of corporations with the use of zoning laws.

Sorry a rare outburst from me these days. On my way to the coffee machine

I wish they were even rarer.

The suggestion that pushing large private projects to contribute to their surrounding neighborhoods is akin to communism is among the most absurd things I've ever read.

[iheartphilly]

happens more often than not. even developers have to make "money" donation to local government which oversees and grants the permitting of a development project.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by cafeguy

I think we are years away from seeing more tear-downs. Bart's parcels (which includes ortliebs) can support SOOOOOO much apartment and townhomes to handle the demand. Plus, we have SOKO lofts and Liberty square coming on board that will add an additional 500 units. Building pressure will grow in Olde Kensington over the next 5-10 years. I would consider that callowhill, olde kensington, east poplar, lower kensington, norris square, and the rest of fishtown and northern liberties would need to be filled to capacity before its financially smart to do more tear downs and buildings. People don't mind living in those neighborhoods so when met with decent affordability in the next neighborhood north, those ones fit the bill for cool, convenient, urban living.

oh...and you forgot the lumber yard at 3rd and girard.

i dunno. i think south of girard and north of girard will become different markets.

and the difference between say, northern liberties/bella vista/graduate hospital and say, rittenhouse/fitler/society hill is that the quality of the native structures in the later is much higher quality and or historic. you can't just easily tear down any house in one of those neighborhoods without much protestation. nor should you be able to.

on the other hand, with the exception of a few pockets, alot of the existing structures in the former are quite mediocre...with low ceilings, small windows, poor materials (vinyl siding, etc)...yet, it's still and becoming and even more central location.

finally, when i think of the person who would rather go through the process of tearing down a home to build a new one...i'm not thinking of the person who would move into a bart blatstein development. i'm thinking of a relatively affluent person, perhaps moving from the burbs (empty nester) who doesn't want somebody else's cookie cutter product, but would rather build their own.

those are the people who would buy a mediocre $230K vinyl sided house in NoLibs or Hawthorne or Bella Vista and replace it with something much more modern, but unique.

mark my words...you're gonna see it happen more. two of them went up in that pocket of nolibs by girard above barts parcel. it's not even prime northern liberties and it happened almost without me noticing.

but those houses are particularly cheap for nolibs because it's not prime nolibs AND they're particularly poor looking in their current condition (thinking hope/allen/oneil streets). that general area.

[JLKim]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

(thinking hope/allen/oneil streets). that general area.

There seems to be a lot of new home development happening just north of girard on hope street, howard, and surrounding streets. I think that area just west of the MFL will continue to improve as its proximity to the MFL, Frankford ave, and Northern Liberties is pretty great.

Speaking of that area. Does anyone know if the northern corners of Mascher and Girard are still moving forward? http://www.ocfrealty.com/naked-phill...mascher-girard

[Eigenwelt]

Does anyone have a better rendering of the apartments proposed for 9th and Washington? The photo here is quite hard to make out any real detail. I think I'm digging the undulating brownstone look though. Just wish I could see it clearer.

http://planphilly.com/articles/2015/...and-washington

[Boku]

Originally Posted by Eigenwelt

Does anyone have a better rendering of the apartments proposed for 9th and Washington? The photo here is quite hard to make out any real detail. I think I'm digging the undulating brownstone look though. Just wish I could see it clearer.

http://planphilly.com/articles/2015/...and-washington

http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelp...change-at.html

[MikeNigh]

^ imo looks good. They're definitely giving an effort. Tough to fit into a hood like that.

[Insoluble]

Originally Posted by Boku

(IMG cut)

http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelp...change-at.html

Wow, that's actually rather nice. I hope they are able to actually go through with that design, having the walls undulate like that can't be cheap. I have some thoughts on this project after reading the articles.

* It sounds as though they are going to try to get councilman Squilla to change the zoning to CMX3 so that this can be by right. More of a push should be made to just re-zone Washington Ave on the whole to CMX3 (or some other medium density mix) so that we won't have to pass what equates to spot zoning bills for projects like this to happen. A lot of council people are reluctant to move ahead with re-zoning, but I feel like there are enough progressively minded constituents in Squilla's district that he could be coerced into making this happen.

* As for potential NIMBY push-back, I think this project will be okay with them despite it's height due to the ridiculous amounts of parking they are including (it sounds like it's even more than 1:1). I'm disappointed at the excessive parking that's being bundled with this project (which sits at the intersection of two buss lines, is walking distance from pretty much any amenity you can think of and is an easy bike ride to center city). But I'll get over it if it allows the project to be built as proposed (with parking underground). The NIMBY height argument is also somewhat neutered due to the fact that a 5 story retirement home was built just around the corner from this a year or two ago. If that can get a pass, so should this.

* I'm really hoping that this is a harbinger of what's to come for Washington Ave. east of Broad. I've noticed some smaller 4 to 5 story projects around here recently, but most of the talk about densification of Washington has been focused on Broad & Washington or further West.

[McBane]

I like that design. Washington Ave is a wide commercial corridor. No reason why you can't build at least five stories here.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by Insoluble

Wow, that's actually rather nice. I hope they are able to actually go through with that design, having the walls undulate like that can't be cheap. I have some thoughts on this project after reading the articles.

* It sounds as though they are going to try to get councilman Squilla to change the zoning to CMX3 so that this can be by right. More of a push should be made to just re-zone Washington Ave on the whole to CMX3 (or some other medium density mix) so that we won't have to pass what equates to spot zoning bills for projects like this to happen. A lot of council people are reluctant to move ahead with re-zoning, but I feel like there are enough progressively minded constituents in Squilla's district that he could be coerced into making this happen.

* As for potential NIMBY push-back, I think this project will be okay with them despite it's height due to the ridiculous amounts of parking they are including (it sounds like it's even more than 1:1). I'm disappointed at the excessive parking that's being bundled with this project (which sits at the intersection of two buss lines, is walking distance from pretty much any amenity you can think of and is an easy bike ride to center city). But I'll get over it if it allows the project to be built as proposed (with parking underground). The NIMBY height argument is also somewhat neutered due to the fact that a 5 story retirement home was built just around the corner from this a year or two ago. If that can get a pass, so should this.

* I'm really hoping that this is a harbinger of what's to come for Washington Ave. east of Broad. I've noticed some smaller 4 to 5 story projects around here recently, but most of the talk about densification of Washington has been focused on Broad & Washington or further West.

I actually don't mind all of the parking as it will be underground, though I totally agree that's it's entirely unnecessary.

Considering parking seems to be what most nimbys in the area are most concerned about, I actually really like that the developer included such a surplus of it. It will hopefully allow them to build a denser more urban building than they would have otherwise been able to. And although the real problem with parking in areas like this is the fact that so many households have 2-3 cars in neighborhood where most only require one at most, the fact remains that parking is a problem in this area. By not only ensuring the every new resident has a parking spot but also providing dozens more to the public, this project should hopefully be embraced by the community.

I'm actually sort of surprised they were able to make the numbers work on this one.

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by allovertown

I actually don't mind all of the parking as it will be underground, though I totally agree that's it's entirely unnecessary.

Considering parking seems to be what most nimbys in the area are most concerned about, I actually really like that the developer included such a surplus of it. It will hopefully allow them to build a denser more urban building than they would have otherwise been able to. And although the real problem with parking in areas like this is the fact that so many households have 2-3 cars in neighborhood where most only require one at most, the fact remains that parking is a problem in this area. By not only ensuring the every new resident has a parking spot but also providing dozens more to the public, this project should hopefully be embraced by the community.

I've heard anecdotes from my south philly brethren: 5 cars is not crazy for a single household. One friend even knows someone who has 7 cars for a house - which is INSANE. I know another s philly family that has 2 cars but just uses one car to save a spot for the other one (when the main car, leaves, they roll back the holder car a few feet so that it's effectively taking up 2 spaces).

It's a failure on the PPA's part. 2 Cars per household, if you want a 3rd, you need to make a very real case of need (livelihood, handicap) and then be charged $500 for the pass.

[Eigenwelt]

Thanks Boku!

I'm very down with that design. I'd personally prefer a little more texture around the windows but in general it's a good looking building. Referencing the New York Little Italy vernacular was a smart way of adding height and density and still feeling appropriate; and the Gaudi-esque undulations give it a modernity through worldliness without having to be overtly modern in design.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by Eigenwelt

Thanks Boku!

I'm very down with that design. I'd personally prefer a little more texture around the windows but in general it's a good looking building. Referencing the New York Little Italy vernacular was a smart way of adding height and density and still feeling appropriate; and the Gaudi-esque undulations give it a modernity through worldliness without having to be overtly modern in design.

Agreed. IMO, I see no reason that "modern" design should be wholly disconnected from what preceded it. An architect friend calls designs that reflect organic development (evolution rather than revolution) the "other modern."