PHILADELPHIA | 2301 Walnut Street | 145 FT | 12 FLOORS

[mcgrath618]

Originally Posted by TempleGuy1000

"Prime corner" that I have been picking up endless amount of trash on for the last decade.

I'm sorry guys, I love Philadelphia with every fiber of my being. This block needs to have warm bodies on it paying taxes. To say "oh I will take an empty parking lot for 5 years" is an entitled take that I just cannot agree with.

Thethe funny thing about Philly is I lived in North Philly. In Rittenhouse. In Fitler Square. And Now East Passyunk. I have been privileged for the last decade to live on blocks that had sidewalk sweeping multiple times a week. I don't know if anywhere was truly cleaner than the other. Some neighborhoods just have more people who give a damn and will clean it up. A vacant lot ain't it.

Neither is one of the ugliest proposals I've ever seen for Philly.
We're better than this. We are a city that is worth something. We should be rejecting these awful structures (I hesitate to call this a building) in favor of something better.

[UrbanRevival]

Originally Posted by TempleGuy1000

"Prime corner" that I have been picking up endless amount of trash on for the last decade.

I'm sorry guys, I love Philadelphia with every fiber of my being. This block needs to have warm bodies on it paying taxes. To say "oh I will take an empty parking lot for 5 years" is an entitled take that I just cannot agree with.

Philadelphia doesn't need more mediocre development that really adds nothing to the neighborhood. There's plenty of that to go around. It needs and deserves better. You'd never see a proposal like this in the core high-end neighborhoods in Boston, NYC, DC, or Chicago. What is it with the defeatism in Philadelphia? That's just something I'll never understand.

I'd also take issue with your use of the word "entitled." The only "entitled" party here is a developer that is trying to make a quick buck, without any regard or care for the integrity of the neighborhood.

Literally no one is being aggrieved by holding a developer accountable to do better.

[therealdawk]

Not to pile on but this looks like a Wilmington type project.

[TempleGuy1000]

Originally Posted by UrbanRevival

Philadelphia doesn't need more mediocre development that really adds nothing to the neighborhood. There's plenty of that to go around. It needs and deserves better. You'd never see a proposal like this in the core high-end neighborhoods in Boston, NYC, DC, or Chicago. What is it with the defeatism in Philadelphia? That's just something I'll never understand.

I'd also take issue with your use of the word "entitled." The only "entitled" party here is a developer that is trying to make a quick buck, without any regard or care for the integrity of the neighborhood.

Literally no one is being aggrieved by holding a developer accountable to do better.

You and I have wildly different opinions on what "makes a neighborhood better" and what adds to it or not. But it's all good. I'm on a skyscraper forum and it's a low-rise average building. It's not "defeatism" to acknowledge reality and the cost per sq ft is not close to being the same in those cities versus ours. Nor is the demand to pay $3500 a month for a 1br the same. And like I said in the first response, there are thousands of apartments in the pipeline in the immediate area around that will be more expensive in more designed buildings.

[gjrip]

Just chiming in again to dump on this garbage project. Terrible.

[PHLtoNYC]

Originally Posted by TempleGuy1000

You and I have wildly different opinions on what "makes a neighborhood better" and what adds to it or not. But it's all good. I'm on a skyscraper forum and it's a low-rise average building. It's not "defeatism" to acknowledge reality and the cost per sq ft is not close to being the same in those cities versus ours. Nor is the demand to pay $3500 a month for a 1br the same. And like I said in the first response, there are thousands of apartments in the pipeline in the immediate area around that will be more expensive in more designed buildings.

No insult meant, but this reads like a comment from 1995.
Even with a lower cost vs. return ratio, developers still produce handsome projects in Philadelphia (you should know that), see countless examples around the city, like 2204 Walnut (across the street).

I won't repeat the above points, but I'm shocked you are on board with this mess. If this passes as a good project in your view, then what will you not be satisfied with?

[TempleGuy1000]

I mean, I never said it was a good design. I literally said it was just growing on me and that saying "I will take a vacant lot for 5 years" is crazy to me. It's not good this block is vacant. You guys seem more passionate about it then me, so you guys should write the powers that be about your concerns.

[PHLtoNYC]

Originally Posted by TempleGuy1000

I mean, I never said it was a good design. I literally said it was just growing on me and that saying "I will take a vacant lot for 5 years" is crazy to me. It's not good this block is vacant. You guys seem more passionate about it then me, so you guys should write the powers that be about your concerns.

It's growing on me. Particularly this shot:

If they can landscape it nicely, it will be a nice addition to the neighborhood.

Reads like a positive endorsement .
I suggested financially reasonable design changes that would turn this pile of crap into something decent. Figured it would be well received.

But agree to disagree. We shall see what the Civic Design Review suggests.

[iheartphilly]

It's prime real estate based on the location and proximity to Rittenhouse Square and all the developments to the West, UPenn, and Schuylkill Banks. CDR should critique the hell out of it to the point of a re-design and better materials. Furthermore, it's a desirable location to live with close proximity to all things one wants in city living.

This is the developer: https://www.trammellcrow.com/. They can do better. The company is a subsidiary of CBRE Group, Inc. A Dallas, Tx public-traded company worth over 27B.

[TempleGuy1000]

I shouldn’t have said it wasn’t prime real estate because it is a prime corner. It’s just that Rite Aid never treated it that way. Which is why I kinda view anything as an improvement. But knowing the company is just an arm of CBRE makes me want to see them up the ante on the design. I didn’t know that before.

[allovertown]

I'm generally of the opinion that any development is better than a parking lot. There always needs to be an exception to prove the rule though. This is miserable. Just terrible.

I very much hope this lot is developed soon, but not like this.

[reparcsyks]

Originally Posted by TempleGuy1000

I mean, I never said it was a good design. I literally said it was just growing on me and that saying "I will take a vacant lot for 5 years" is crazy to me. It's not good this block is vacant. You guys seem more passionate about it then me, so you guys should write the powers that be about your concerns.

See The Laurel. The lot it sits on went through numerous bad ideas before the right developer came along and gave it the jewel it deserved. I’d take 3-4 years of an eyesore in exchange for a well-designed 300 footer here over the egg that TC wants to lay here.

[Justin7]

A couple of questions: What highway exit is this and will there be an Applebee's in the parking lot?

[McBane]

Originally Posted by reparcsyks

See The Laurel. The lot it sits on went through numerous bad ideas before the right developer came along and gave it the jewel it deserved. I’d take 3-4 years of an eyesore in exchange for a well-designed 300 footer here over the egg that TC wants to lay here.

The 3+ blocks separating the site of the Laurel and 23rd and Walnut marks a huge difference. The Laurel has a beautiful view of the Square. 23rd and Walnut is a hop skip and a jump away but it's next to a gas station, a bunch of shabby buildings, and is at the point of Walnut Street where it begins to resemble a highway (bridge to Univ City).

Indeed there are certain locations where excellence is a must. The site of the Laurel definitely fits that. But I agree w/ Templeguy that 23rd and Walnut is not one of those locations. I'm not defending this pile of trash either, don't get me wrong. But demanding that nothing but an exceptionally designed high rise be built at this specific location - and willing to wait years for that possibility - is not a sentiment I agree with either. Of course in theory, I would not mind waiting 3-4 years for a nicer, taller project but it could also end up being 10 years and we get another crappy design. Let's not pretend either that this design is an exception - most of what's going up is pretty average anyway.

But don't despair fellas, there's still the Sunoco station on 22nd where a sleek high rise could end up being built one day.

[PHLtoNYC]

Originally Posted by McBane

The 3+ blocks separating the site of the Laurel and 23rd and Walnut marks a huge difference. The Laurel has a beautiful view of the Square. 23rd and Walnut is a hop skip and a jump away but it's next to a gas station, a bunch of shabby buildings, and is at the point of Walnut Street where it begins to resemble a highway (bridge to Univ City).

Indeed there are certain locations where excellence is a must. The site of the Laurel definitely fits that. But I agree w/ Templeguy that 23rd and Walnut is not one of those locations. I'm not defending this pile of trash either, don't get me wrong. But demanding that nothing but an exceptionally designed high rise be built at this specific location - and willing to wait years for that possibility - is not a sentiment I agree with either. Of course in theory, I would not mind waiting 3-4 years for a nicer, taller project but it could also end up being 10 years and we get another crappy design. Let's not pretend either that this design is an exception - most of what's going up is pretty average anyway.

But don't despair fellas, there's still the Sunoco station on 22nd where a sleek high rise could end up being built one day.

I wouldn't describe many of the buildings near 23rd & Walnut as "shabby". Most are handsome brownstones in need of some TLC (and the sidewalks are a mess). When I read shabby, I think of Market East.

I'm a realist and never suggested The Laurel 2.0. I said add balconies, no metal panels, and somehow improve the shape. Should be a fair set of standards for a new high-rise in Center City (but agree, this "design" is sadly no exception these days).

To your last point, Dranoff owns the Sunoco lot so definitely potential for something nice, and the 2204 Walnut proposal will be another boost for this stretch (if it moves forward).

[McBane]

Originally Posted by PHLtoNYC

I wouldn't describe many of the buildings near 23rd & Walnut as "shabby". Most are handsome brownstones in need of some TLC (and the sidewalks are a mess). When I read shabby, I think of Market East.

Agreed but this is really semantics. Shabby, in need of TLC, rough around the edges, whatever. But the point remains.

And to reiterate, I'm in no way defending this pile of garbage. In fact, I already let the developer and BLT know (likewise, yelling at the wind lol). I just wouldn't go as far as to say that I'd rather have nothing than this. And my reasoning is two-fold:

1) I don't think this specific stretch of Walnut is a premium location (the overall neighborhood is very desirable but this particular stretch is just "okay")
2) This project is cheap/bad but most everything else going up in town is pretty average/meh (e.g., Chubb, 1100 Walnut)

In short, I don't think holding out for something better will in fact yield something that's so much better to the extent it's worth holding out for (and b/c nothing is guaranteed)

[Broadcastthatboom]

I think the size and scaling of this project is perfectly fine for this area (I used to live around here and it really is a different vibe on this block stretch compared to if you just go a few blocks over closer to the square). And a 12-story complex is so much better than an empty lot.

It's only the design and build quality that is sorely lacking, this project would be a 'meh' at best over in places like Callowhill, North Philly and such, but with projects going up in those areas that seem so much higher caliber in quality (not even talking about size), this one is just ugly to look at.

[Justin7]

Originally Posted by McBane

The 3+ blocks separating the site of the Laurel and 23rd and Walnut marks a huge difference. The Laurel has a beautiful view of the Square. 23rd and Walnut is a hop skip and a jump away but it's next to a gas station, a bunch of shabby buildings, and is at the point of Walnut Street where it begins to resemble a highway (bridge to Univ City).

Indeed there are certain locations where excellence is a must. The site of the Laurel definitely fits that. But I agree w/ Templeguy that 23rd and Walnut is not one of those locations. I'm not defending this pile of trash either, don't get me wrong. But demanding that nothing but an exceptionally designed high rise be built at this specific location - and willing to wait years for that possibility - is not a sentiment I agree with either. Of course in theory, I would not mind waiting 3-4 years for a nicer, taller project but it could also end up being 10 years and we get another crappy design. Let's not pretend either that this design is an exception - most of what's going up is pretty average anyway.

But don't despair fellas, there's still the Sunoco station on 22nd where a sleek high rise could end up being built one day.

"This prime location isn't as nice as a nearby area so why even try?"

Originally Posted by McBane

1) I don't think this specific stretch of Walnut is a premium location (the overall neighborhood is very desirable but this particular stretch is just "okay")

Holy shit, man. Do you have any ideas as to what could make this stretch better than just "okay"?

Go stand at 23rd and Walnut. Look at the other three corners.

[Knight Hospitaller]

The "better than" argument is understandable, but short-sighted. Five years is a blink of an eye in the life of the city. I'd rather think long term and delay gratification than settle for "constructed blight" that will last even longer than an empty lot in a prime location. Look how long it took to get the Laurel. The proposed PHA garage/movie theatre on that site would've been "better than" the ugly vista that we had to endure for more than a decade, but would've been there for decades more.

[McBane]

^ I understand this sentiment and generally agree. But as I've said before, I don't think you can compare 23rd and Walnut to 19th and Walnut. The site of the Laurel is one of the most premium lots in the entire city, if not the entire region. It was certainly worth waiting for the best proposal. We can go back and forth about how nice 23rd and Walnut is but I'm hopeful we can at least acknowledge it's not on the same level as 19th and Walnut.

Then there's the entirely different question about length of time for blight. 19th and Market was a notorious hole in the middle of our CBD for decades and what eventually got built there is so mediocre but also a relief. We have big dreams for Disneyhole and 13th and Market which have been eyesores for a long time; but eventually we might have to accept mediocrity if we're ever to see anything get built. Yet even still, these sites pale in comparison to the site of the Laurel.