SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Proposals (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=361)
-   -   PHILADELPHIA | 115 S. 19th Street | 611 FT | 54 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=244190)

mcgrath618 Oct 10, 2020 3:50 AM

PHILADELPHIA | 115 S. 19th Street | 611 FT | 54 FLOORS
 
About time Philly got some skinny 'scrapers

Title: 115 S 19th Street
Architect: DAS
Developer: Pearl
Location: 113-121 South 19th Street, Philadelphia, PA
District: Center City
Neighborhood: Rittenhouse Square
Floors: 54
Height: 611 FT

https://i.imgur.com/kZleW6Z.png?1

https://i.imgur.com/xsFKvIx.png

https://i.imgur.com/mEELmZ6h.png

CDR Submission

McBane Oct 10, 2020 4:14 AM

Great height and a nice tower. It's just a shame they decided to plop that attractive tower on that boring base. It's an overused formula where a contemporary tower is set back on a traditional, 3-4 story, red brick base in some sort of lame attempt to blend in and downplay the tower's presence.

If the base matched the tower and it wasn't set back, this building would be so much better. Even if zoning required the setback, why not extend the design and materials from the tower down to the base?

This is obviously 1000% better than what's there now and will be a great addition to the skyline. The overall design could be a bit more imaginative.

NYC2ATX Oct 10, 2020 5:24 AM

ANOTHER 500-foot+ residential tower for Philly?! This whole area is going gangbusters.

GtownFriend Oct 10, 2020 5:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McBane (Post 9069336)
If the base matched the tower and it wasn't set back, this building would be so much better.

Those are existing buildings, not something the architect dreamed up. They are
keeping the fronts and demoing the rear portions.

allovertown Oct 10, 2020 7:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McBane (Post 9069336)
Great height and a nice tower. It's just a shame they decided to plop that attractive tower on that boring base. It's an overused formula where a contemporary tower is set back on a traditional, 3-4 story, red brick base in some sort of lame attempt to blend in and downplay the tower's presence.

If the base matched the tower and it wasn't set back, this building would be so much better. Even if zoning required the setback, why not extend the design and materials from the tower down to the base?

This is obviously 1000% better than what's there now and will be a great addition to the skyline. The overall design could be a bit more imaginative.

You're always outing yourself as a suburbanite :haha:

Just kidding, but as GtownFriend mentioned, these buildings have been here forever. To be fair to you, in the rendering they look a bit different because they're all unpainted but currently most of these buildings are painted like an off white and the second one from the corner is the florist by rittenhouse square that has had a mural of flowers on the front for the past few years: https://goo.gl/maps/teNvtuqACBgfck517

Keeping them isn't even an architectural choice. They're historically protected or at least the 19th street facing part of them is.

thoughtcriminal Oct 10, 2020 12:20 PM

I don't think this will win any design awards, but it is a nice looking building. And you're right, it is time Philly had some skinny skyscrapers. There are a number of buildings in the city that are twice as wide and half as tall as I think they should be, like the Kennedy House:
https://www.emporis.com/images/show/...9th-street.jpg
Such a waste of real estate, but most of them were built before 1Lib broke the City Hall height limit.
Also, retaining the houses at the base annoys me. I don't know whether they are historically significant or anything, but I think it separates the base from the tower. They are at two different scales, and they do not really talk to one another. It reminds me of the Hearst Tower in NYC, where they have the original historical building retained at the base then the Foster-designed tower built on top of it. A weird marriage.
https://i1.wp.com/ylo.wpengine.com/w...ts-tower-1.jpg

Justin7 Oct 10, 2020 1:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McBane (Post 9069336)
It's just a shame they decided to plop that attractive tower on that boring base.

ffs. Have you ever been here?

This is a huge win.

Also: No parking!

Plokoon11 Oct 10, 2020 1:14 PM

This is awesome looking! Nice height too!

iheartphilly Oct 10, 2020 1:37 PM

Interesting choice of cladding color combo. No blue glass...yay! Building will stand out.

summersm343 Oct 10, 2020 1:49 PM

Hell yeah! Build it. Looks awesome.

Jawnadelphia Oct 10, 2020 1:53 PM

Yeah, to echo above, I'm not sure McBane has ever been to Philly. That corner in particular is one of the most photographed spots because you get great Victorian/Philly architecture (old, historically protected) with the modernity of One Liberty towering over it. This is the "best of both worlds" (RIP EVH) - these beautiful buildings are preserved, and a very tall, slender tower will rise above.

And I'm happy Pearl is not going blue-glass, also this tower has a more definite crown that the Harper is lacking. The bronze trim should give the tower a classy touch. I think this one resembles the slender RAMSA towers in NYC and Chicago of recent years (obv. porcelain tile here vs. limestone in NY/Chicago, but I'll take it).

I wonder if SLC/The Laurel people's heart skipped a beat seeing this, as it does partially block some views The Laurel will have looking towards Center City. Hell, this thing is only 32 feet shorter.

thoughtcriminal Oct 10, 2020 3:26 PM

so what do you think Inga will hate about it?

mcgrath618 Oct 10, 2020 3:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McBane (Post 9069336)
Great height and a nice tower. It's just a shame they decided to plop that attractive tower on that boring base. It's an overused formula where a contemporary tower is set back on a traditional, 3-4 story, red brick base in some sort of lame attempt to blend in and downplay the tower's presence.

If the base matched the tower and it wasn't set back, this building would be so much better. Even if zoning required the setback, why not extend the design and materials from the tower down to the base?

This is obviously 1000% better than what's there now and will be a great addition to the skyline. The overall design could be a bit more imaginative.

Could there have been a worse first comment on this thread?

Also, as someone else noted, NO PARKING!!!!!!!

Londonee Oct 10, 2020 4:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jawnadelphia (Post 9069465)
Yeah, to echo above, I'm not sure McBane has ever been to Philly. That corner in particular is one of the most photographed spots because you get great Victorian/Philly architecture (old, historically protected) with the modernity of One Liberty towering over it. This is the "best of both worlds" (RIP EVH) - these beautiful buildings are preserved, and a very tall, slender tower will rise above. .

And catty-corner is Sophy Curson something of a mid-century, old money Rittenhouse Square landmark which is also highly photographed.

I’m assuming apartments since it’s Pearl? Would love to see them offer a few condos for sale.

allovertown Oct 10, 2020 6:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Londonee (Post 9069597)
And catty-corner is Sophy Curson something of a mid-century, old money Rittenhouse Square landmark which is also highly photographed.

I’m assuming apartments since it’s Pearl? Would love to see them offer a few condos for sale.

Apartments are generally their MO but this is a great location and the entire upper half of building will have units with balconies looking out on Rittenhouse Square. Wouldn't be surprised if this project had some condos. Maybe apartments lower half, condos upper half?

chris08876 Oct 10, 2020 7:41 PM

https://aws1.discourse-cdn.com/busin...495222dcf.jpeg
https://aws1.discourse-cdn.com/busin...528dd23d41.png

TK2001 Oct 11, 2020 2:43 PM

https://phillyyimby.com/2020/10/567-...nter-city.html

Jayfar Oct 11, 2020 3:12 PM

Note that three of the buildings — 121 S. 19th St, 1822 and 1824 Chestnut St — are protected historic buildings on the Philadelphia Register and won't be substantially altered. In fact the Chestnut St buildings (minus non-historic later additions extending to Sansom St) were designated this year with no opposition from Pearl Properties.

1822 Chestnut St nomination: https://www.phila.gov/.../1822-Chest...nomination.pdf

1824 Chestnut St nomination:https://www.phila.gov/.../1824-Chest...nomination.pdf

JohnIII Oct 11, 2020 5:24 PM

This tower is nice; great height; slender build; very elegant. This tower really has an Art Deco feel in a way; in a way it looks almost International Style as well.

I wonder if this tower as any lighting scheme at night? What is the true impact of the tower on the scene in total?

I do believe this tower will fill in a gap in the skyline when you look down Chestnut street between Liberty 2 and the FMC/Philly Stock Exchange Tower; this also moves the skyline west of 18 street from 500' to closer to 600' in comes cases the Blue Cross Building will be an average height now because we'll now see 2 other towers close to the same height.

hammersklavier Oct 12, 2020 4:57 AM

Has anybody noticed something else awesome? On the application form (in wee tiny letters on some of the paperwork) it states this project is by right. I'm sure somebody's gonna sue once they realize this thing's getting going, but nobody can stop it for some stupid persnickety reason (mah pahking waaa), woo!


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.