HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2020, 1:15 PM
DudeGuy's Avatar
DudeGuy DudeGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Center City Philadelphia
Posts: 281
Just as an aside, Top Tomato has a pretty decent happy hour if you're into that kind of thing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2020, 1:39 PM
Jayfar's Avatar
Jayfar Jayfar is offline
Midrise
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilliesPhan View Post
Demo permits were issued for 1101-03, 1105, and 1107 Walnut yesterday, December 15th:

ZP-2020-010048
Dec 15, 2020

1101 WALNUT ST, Philadelphia, PA 19107-4918
ARD 1105 WALNUT LLC 1

For the complete demolition of an existing one (1) story building
Now add in a demo permit for 140 S. 11th St, adjacent to Wendy's. Here's what happened, according to a public facebook comment from Paul Steinke of the Preservation Alliance:

"The original apartment tower design was rejected by the FAA due to Jefferson’s nearby helipad. So the developer gobbled up several more adjacent properties to allow a lower, squatter project. Now more layers of WashWest history will be lost in favor of yet another cookie cutter apartment building."


https://www.facebook.com/permalink.p...24365942293214
__________________
Philadelphia Industrial & Commercial Heritage
A public Facebook group to promote appreciation of Greater Philadelphia's industrial and commercial history and advocate for historic preservation and adaptive re-use.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2020, 7:47 PM
PurpleWhiteOut PurpleWhiteOut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 697
Wow, that's really disappointing. I wish they could at least leave the facades. I didn't see that coming
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2020, 10:49 AM
SEFTA's Avatar
SEFTA SEFTA is offline
Philly Pholly
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,246
I'm surprised they would allow a helipad when it would impede development of surrounding properties
__________________
Smart Cities
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2020, 3:14 PM
PHLtoNYC PHLtoNYC is offline
Chris
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,951
A rare occasion where I do not want a project happen. Losing two perfectly fine buildings, the one on Walnut is very nice looking too, and the replacement is a cheap midrise.

Options in my mind...

1. Tear down the Wendy's and build a 4-5 story brick building (similar to the Shirt Corner replacement on Market), it would fill that corner nicely. Leave the adjacent buildings alone.

2. If the current demo plan were to move forward, the replacement tower should be an A+ design with A+ materials.

3. Leave the corner as is, renovate the Wendys into a nice restaurant and build this cheap tower nearby. There is not shortage of ugly parking garages or parking lots in that area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2020, 3:31 PM
reparcsyks reparcsyks is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHLtoNYC View Post
A rare occasion where I do not want a project happen. Losing two perfectly fine buildings, the one on Walnut is very nice looking too, and the replacement is a cheap midrise.

Options in my mind...

1. Tear down the Wendy's and build a 4-5 story brick building (similar to the Shirt Corner replacement on Market), it would fill that corner nicely. Leave the adjacent buildings alone.

2. If the current demo plan were to move forward, the replacement tower should be an A+ design with A+ materials.

3. Leave the corner as is, renovate the Wendys into a nice restaurant and build this cheap tower nearby. There is not shortage of ugly parking garages or parking lots in that area.
Option 4:

Tear down the Wendy's and build a 4-5 story brick building (similar to the Shirt Corner replacement on Market), it would fill that corner nicely. Leave the adjacent buildings alone and build this cheap tower nearby. There is not shortage of ugly parking garages or parking lots in that area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2020, 3:57 PM
City Wide City Wide is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHLtoNYC View Post
A rare occasion where I do not want a project happen. Losing two perfectly fine buildings, the one on Walnut is very nice looking too, and the replacement is a cheap midrise.

Options in my mind...

1. Tear down the Wendy's and build a 4-5 story brick building (similar to the Shirt Corner replacement on Market), it would fill that corner nicely. Leave the adjacent buildings alone.

2. If the current demo plan were to move forward, the replacement tower should be an A+ design with A+ materials.

3. Leave the corner as is, renovate the Wendys into a nice restaurant and build this cheap tower nearby. There is not shortage of ugly parking garages or parking lots in that area.

#4. reopen the Wendy's and make 1000's happy.
#5. build tower over existing, and reopened Wendy's
this could go on for a long time!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2020, 7:11 PM
Vince_ Vince_ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 154
It just doesn't get any more frustrating than things like this. Philadelphia's unique and priceless architecture is being destroyed when the area is still scattered with surface parking lots. Here are 4 just in a 2 block radius (not even counting the Jefferson lot and Disney hole). https://imgur.com/a/8V8xEkq

I don't blame the developers, I blame the city for its terrible preservation rules.

Lets not forget the handsome rowhomes 2 blocks away that are being left neglected so they can deem them unstable and demolish them (2 of the rowhomes here are already demolished, the rest will be in coming years)

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2020, 7:16 PM
allovertown allovertown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by reparcsyks View Post
Option 4:

Tear down the Wendy's and build a 4-5 story brick building (similar to the Shirt Corner replacement on Market), it would fill that corner nicely. Leave the adjacent buildings alone and build this cheap tower nearby. There is not shortage of ugly parking garages or parking lots in that area.
Yes please. Tearing down these buildings (other than the wendy's of course) would be a damn shame.

The problem is, that while the shirt corner building looks simple architecturally, constructing something like that is anything but. No corners were cut, all the brick was hand laid. And although the first floor is not solid stone (the building is built atop a steel frame) the "panels" they used were very substantial in order to achieve that look. And all the stone above the first floor, the lintels, the details, is solid masonry work. Custom windows, custom cornice work. Lots of skilled craftsmen were hired to build that building with first rate materials. It looks great, and could stand for 100s of years if properly cared for.

Which is great for the shirt corner, but you don't normally get craftsmanship like that in this city. And normally it needs to be sort of imposed on a developer due to historic preservation standards, etc. What can they do to force the developer's hand here? They've already got the demolition permits. What leverage is left to get them to not demo these buildings or building a tower with quality materials, or to get them to do anything besides what they plan to do?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2020, 8:08 PM
PhillyDreamsReturns PhillyDreamsReturns is offline
User Since 2002
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 61
Respectfully, I don’t understand how people complain about neglected buildings being torn down for new construction. Nobody, including those saddened to see these rowhomes go, are putting in money to revitalize them. Why complain that someone ELSE isn’t fitting the bill? If I’m misinterpreting you Vince then I’m sure you’ll put me in my place, but I see this pov often in other media and am confused by it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2020, 9:07 PM
PurpleWhiteOut PurpleWhiteOut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyDreamsReturns View Post
Respectfully, I don’t understand how people complain about neglected buildings being torn down for new construction. Nobody, including those saddened to see these rowhomes go, are putting in money to revitalize them.
IIRC Wills Eye Hospital owned the row homes and neglected them on purpose to tear down for an expansion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2020, 9:26 PM
aprice1828 aprice1828 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyDreamsReturns View Post
Respectfully, I don’t understand how people complain about neglected buildings being torn down for new construction. Nobody, including those saddened to see these rowhomes go, are putting in money to revitalize them. Why complain that someone ELSE isn’t fitting the bill? If I’m misinterpreting you Vince then I’m sure you’ll put me in my place, but I see this pov often in other media and am confused by it.
It's called demolition by neglect. And by simply saying "the building is no longer worth saving", a city is only not only encouraging demo by neglect, it's also discouraging more expensive preservation projects.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2020, 9:46 PM
City Wide City Wide is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyDreamsReturns View Post
Respectfully, I don’t understand how people complain about neglected buildings being torn down for new construction. Nobody, including those saddened to see these rowhomes go, are putting in money to revitalize them. Why complain that someone ELSE isn’t fitting the bill? If I’m misinterpreting you Vince then I’m sure you’ll put me in my place, but I see this pov often in other media and am confused by it.
The City requires the property owner to pay for and maintain the public sidewalk in front of their house, you know the public good and all that. If you don't, the City can give you all sorts of tickets, and/or do the work and then bill you. How much different is maintaining the front, the public face so to speak, of your house? The City already has laws covering doors and windows. Likewise if you have a front yard, you have to keep it neat and tidy.

I think your notion that 'we the citizens' can't express an opinion about something that effects the public good, as defined by the public through the City Council, unless that citizen steps forward and puts hard cash down to back up their opinion, to be flat out wrong.

In the case of the row that's owned by the hospital, they are actively avoiding taking care of the properties, and have been for years, demolition by neglect. If they had requested a demo permit when they first bought the properties they would have been challenged, so they are backdooring the whole process, and have the money to play the waiting game. So, that's ok with you but being part of a public interest/public pressure group isn't, unless that group wants to bankroll their opinions?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2020, 12:14 AM
sirexcaliber's Avatar
sirexcaliber sirexcaliber is offline
lost philadelphian soul
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Albq,NM
Posts: 32
What I don't understand is that a lot of people in this group have an under standing of development, and when the question comes up about demolishing old structures. whether the structures have been standing neglected or not. Does the cost of attempting to preserve the façade of a structure add to the overall cost of a project, over the cost of straight up demo. if so then this would be the reason for demolishing old structures rather then preserving them. Also if these old structure have no historic or architectural significance other than them being old. There is no reason for the developers of these properties to hold on to the old structures. I hate to see old properties go to, but do you think New York and Chicago would look the way they do if those cities held on to every downtown low rise property. Sometime you have to remove the old for the sake of progress, but that depends on what's going to replace the old structures, just my opinion
__________________
“You have to live, live, live life is a banquet and most poor suckers are starving to get to the table.” Auntie Mame
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2020, 12:20 AM
Jayfar's Avatar
Jayfar Jayfar is offline
Midrise
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardeza View Post
glad there is finally some movement on this, although i agree it doesnt make sense that the building with top tomato would be coming down
As I wrote in another discussion: Ironically, 1107 Walnut's second floor tenant — above Top Tomato Bar & Pizza — is Cecil Baker + Partners, Philadelphia's King of Overbuilds and who, at least several years ago, had an ownership interest in the building, according to the deed history. His firm isn't the architect for this project though.
__________________
Philadelphia Industrial & Commercial Heritage
A public Facebook group to promote appreciation of Greater Philadelphia's industrial and commercial history and advocate for historic preservation and adaptive re-use.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2020, 4:24 AM
SEFTA's Avatar
SEFTA SEFTA is offline
Philly Pholly
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirexcaliber View Post
What I don't understand is that a lot of people in this group have an under standing of development, and when the question comes up about demolishing old structures. whether the structures have been standing neglected or not. Does the cost of attempting to preserve the façade of a structure add to the overall cost of a project, over the cost of straight up demo. if so then this would be the reason for demolishing old structures rather then preserving them. Also if these old structure have no historic or architectural significance other than them being old. There is no reason for the developers of these properties to hold on to the old structures. I hate to see old properties go to, but do you think New York and Chicago would look the way they do if those cities held on to every downtown low rise property. Sometime you have to remove the old for the sake of progress, but that depends on what's going to replace the old structures, just my opinion
The difficulty is who determines whether the buildings are historically significant. This is not NY or Chicago and shouldn't be. This is Philadelphia.
Jewelers Row should have never happened. San Francisco has gone out of it's way to preserve old building facades, building above and behind the walls. I find it takes on a movie set atmosphere.
There aren't really any current proposals that I have any objection to. There was a proposal at 1700 Race Street I would not like to see happen because there are very handsome historic buildings there. (What happened to that project).
The most terrible thing is allowing developers to tear down buildings before the project is absolutely going to happen, being left with a hole and minus some beautiful historic structures. This must end, and that the city CAN stop!
__________________
Smart Cities
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2020, 4:53 AM
City Wide City Wide is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirexcaliber View Post
What I don't understand----- --------Does the cost of attempting to preserve the façade of a structure add to the overall cost of a project, over the cost of straight up demo. -------------------- I hate to see old properties go to, but do you think New York and Chicago would look the way they do if those cities held on to every downtown low rise property. Sometime you have to remove the old for the sake of progress, but that depends on what's going to replace the old structures, just my opinion
I can't give any any hard figures, but I'm 99% sure the added cost to save a 3 to 4 story façade, over the cost of demo w/o saving it, is considerable. But if you add that extra cost into the cost of lets say an $80M tower, then that is much different.
To save a façade to have to brace the exterior, not such a hard job, but also brace the interior of the front wall, which means installing steel I-beams from cornice right down at least 12' into the ground below the basement, then tie the inside bracing to the outside bracing. Now you can start demo. And then work around those braces for the next 2+ years while you build your tower.

If the proposed tower at 19th & Sansom goes ahead (fingers crossed) we'll be able to see both a front and a side of a corner property saved and feathered into serving as a base for tower.
Façade saving is something the City should encourage. The same way a developer can gain certain rights by including certain uses, the City could help preserve the unique feel that is common in much of CC. Saving many of the common facades in CC would help us avoid becoming another NYC or Chicago. Sure theres alot of good to say about those Cities, but they ain't Philly. We need to learn what we've got thats good and build on it.

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=244190
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2020, 5:38 AM
sirexcaliber's Avatar
sirexcaliber sirexcaliber is offline
lost philadelphian soul
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Albq,NM
Posts: 32
If the city was to put new rules in the zoning of developments. where any developer who wants to build upward where old two, three, and maybe four storied structures now stand. they tell developers yeah you can build but you are going to have to preserve the façade of the buildings. then some developers my want something in return for the changes. If this were to happen you most likely would see this at first until it becomes the norm.

the worst case scenario is you get a developer who will hedge on saving the façade and do a half ass job of doing it to where after the project is done and it looks crappy he could go back in and remove the façade for what he originally wanted.
__________________
“You have to live, live, live life is a banquet and most poor suckers are starving to get to the table.” Auntie Mame
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2020, 1:42 PM
Justin7 Justin7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyDreamsReturns View Post
Respectfully, I don’t understand how people complain about neglected buildings being torn down for new construction. Nobody, including those saddened to see these rowhomes go, are putting in money to revitalize them. Why complain that someone ELSE isn’t fitting the bill? If I’m misinterpreting you Vince then I’m sure you’ll put me in my place, but I see this pov often in other media and am confused by it.
Never considered this. Good idea. I'm going to buy one of these buildings now and fix it up. Someone delete this thread. Project is cancelled.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2020, 9:39 PM
SEFTA's Avatar
SEFTA SEFTA is offline
Philly Pholly
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,246
Remember
There are many developers that purposefully neglect a building just so, then everyone will have no objection to that "eyesore" being torn down.
Chances are, especially Center City, if there's a building being neglected, it's a developer wanting to have it torn down.
__________________
Smart Cities
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:44 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.