PHILADELPHIA | THE LAUREL @ 1911 Walnut | 604 FT | 48 FLOORS

[Human Scale]

I have seen the thin brick veneers on other buildings too, although it is nice to see 10 Rit has full sized bricks in its panels. The thin brick veneer panels come in the same size but the bricks are about a quarter the regular thickness. Kinda makes me think of fake plastic plants.. If you can't do the real thing, do something else. Like instead of a fake plant, put a sculpture there, duh.

[Foosh]

This looks like a building I. New York that's almost done as well.

[kraggman]

Originally Posted by PHL10

Here's a good summary from Brad Maule:

http://phillyskyline.com/bldgs/10rittenhouse/hardhat/

Interesting. Thank You !!

[techchallenger]

Originally Posted by PHL10

No I'm not. Do you just guess at things and state them as fact?



They are full bricks, laid into panels in a factory. You can criticize the technique but not the materials. Because it's not 1920, we can't have masons hand laying bricks 30 stories up anymore.

I don't guess, no. I must have gotten that from this review:
http://articles.philly.com/2010-01-2...ectural-merits

I apologize for the 1/2 in. misinformation. I do stand by my opinion that brick panels 'look cheap'. All I see are the seams. Maybe they could have laid the brick conventionally for the first two or three stories? It's just my opinion though and even if I won the Powerball I would never be a prospective buyer at 10 Rittenhouse anyway. I'm glad you like the design and/or construction and I am genuinely glad the building was constructed and exists, though I do mourn for Rindelaub's Row. By the way, to you, PHL10, and everyone else in the community please don't ever mistakenly perceive my 'tone' on here to be contentious. I may be pithy and/or sarcastic at times, but my posts are never intended to be mean-spirited.

[Philly-Drew]

If I won the powerball I would definitely have 10 Rittenhouse on my list of where will I live next. Good points above about the quality materials used in the construction of this building and going through Brad Maul's hard hat tour again was great.

[RonnieStevens]

Southern Land Company files hardship application with the Philadelphia Historical Commission to raze the Rittenhouse Coffee Shop, Warwick Apartment House, and Blair Funeral Home.

http://hiddencityphila.org/2015/11/d...sansom-street/

[blorkishdork]

Oh Boo them. This is a massive plot, they can easily rehab those buildings and build something fantastic. If I were the zoning committee, I would allow them to build bigger if they rehabbed the older buildings.

[boxbot]

Originally Posted by RonnieStevens

Southern Land Company files hardship application with the Philadelphia Historical Commission to raze the Rittenhouse Coffee Shop, Warwick Apartment House, and Blair Funeral Home.

http://hiddencityphila.org/2015/11/d...sansom-street/

Unacceptable. Those buildings are deserving of protection.

[techchallenger]

Shameful, indeed.

"the company cites an environmental report by the engineering firm Pennoni Associates, which states that the cost of remediation for the three buildings (removing asbestos-contaminated material, lead based paint, pigeon guano, and mold blooms) would require an estimated total cost of $1,610,000 (Rittenhouse Coffee Shop: $49,030, Warwick: $1,455,470, Baird Funeral Home: $105,500)."

I wonder how much will they spend arguing over this with their Rittenhouse neighbors and the city?

[McBane]

Originally Posted by blorkishdork

Oh Boo them. This is a massive plot, they can easily rehab those buildings and build something fantastic. If I were the zoning committee, I would allow them to build bigger if they rehabbed the older buildings.

Agree completely. "How many units do you [Southern] have to build in order to mitigate the expense of rehabbing these two buildings and incorporating them into your new project?"

From OUR perspective, building taller AND saving these two beauties would be a mega win-win.

The question is: is there anyone on these committees with enough foresight to consider such "bold" ideas?

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by McBane

Agree completely. "How many units do you [Southern] have to build in order to mitigate the expense of rehabbing these two buildings and incorporating them into your new project?"

From OUR perspective, building taller AND saving these two beauties would be a mega win-win.

The question is: is there anyone on these committees with enough foresight to consider such "bold" ideas?

Let's hope that this is the gambit that Southern Land has in mind (which it very well may be).

[pay homage]

Originally Posted by boxbot

Unacceptable. Those buildings are deserving of protection.

I know this is blasphemy but if SLC's design for the new structure was an out-of-this-world game-changer would it be a travesty to just raze those old buildings?

Nothing is happening with them now and preservation may hinder progress...

Just a thought.

[boxbot]

Originally Posted by pay homage

I know this is blasphemy but if SLC's design for the new structure was an out-of-this-world game-changer would it be a travesty to just raze those old buildings?

Nothing is happening with them now and preservation may hinder progress...

Just a thought.

It's a big lot. At the very least the facades should be preserved, but hopefully the whole buildings. There's no denying building taller costs more money (if they're allowed to change the zoning) and preservation costs money, but $1.6m to save these gems is a drop in the bucket. Castleway paid something like $36m for the lot alone prior to the crash. I'd have to think SLC paid similar money. It's not like they wouldn't be occupied if they weren't tied up with this project.

[hammersklavier]

Castleway also wanted to raze those buildings when they bought that property.

I would rather see what the redevelopment plans are before we let Southern Land raze those buildings. That said, they're not exactly on a primary street, and were never more than background buildings, so losing them is not that big a loss if the redevelopment is substantively superior.

This is a policy drum I'll pound: demolition should be contingent on a known redevelopment plan. (SLS is the best example -- the redevelopment plan was well-known before demolition started.) Southern Land doesn't have one out yet, so they shouldn't be seeking a raze permit.

[BenKatzPhillytoParis]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

Castleway also wanted to raze those buildings when they bought that property.

I would rather see what the redevelopment plans are before we let Southern Land raze those buildings. That said, they're not exactly on a primary street, and were never more than background buildings, so losing them is not that big a loss if the redevelopment is substantively superior.

This is a policy drum I'll pound: demolition should be contingent on a known redevelopment plan. (SLS is the best example -- the redevelopment plan was well-known before demolition started.) Southern Land doesn't have one out yet, so they shouldn't be seeking a raze permit.

Exactly. And...I'm not inclined to be a pessimist, but this company has never built a "game-changer" project. I would not want these buildings to be razed for anything I've seen SLC build in the past. In any case, hopefully they are approaching this site differently.

[cafeguy]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

Castleway also wanted to raze those buildings when they bought that property.

I would rather see what the redevelopment plans are before we let Southern Land raze those buildings. That said, they're not exactly on a primary street, and were never more than background buildings, so losing them is not that big a loss if the redevelopment is substantively superior.

This is a policy drum I'll pound: demolition should be contingent on a known redevelopment plan. (SLS is the best example -- the redevelopment plan was well-known before demolition started.) Southern Land doesn't have one out yet, so they shouldn't be seeking a raze permit.

The 1900 Chestnut building is going to put entrances and retail along sansom street RIGHT here, i am pretty sure. Thus, the opportunity to put these buildings to good use is very VERY strong. Saying its an "off street" is like saying that sansom between 15th and 16th had no potential ten years ago.

[Larry King]

No way the buildings on sansom should come down. We have historic designations for a reason, I have faith that SLC will be unsuccessful in this attempt.

[UrbanRevival]

Originally Posted by Larry King

No way the buildings on sansom should come down. We have historic designations for a reason, I have faith that SLC will be unsuccessful in this attempt.

Agree completely. An "either-or" proposition of only demolishing the Sansom structures will enable development is absurd. No one should fall for this false dilemma and pander to developers' pure desire to maximize profit--it doesn't require much imagination to think of how those structures could be incorporated into a new development. The "hardship" hurdle should be much, much higher.

It's also disingenuous for SLC to purport to "respect and work with the community" and then move to literally destroy part of that very community.

In addition, Philly is not like it was 20 years ago. This is one of the most prime real estate lots in the city, and residential demand in Rittenhouse is likely at its highest in history. The "development at all costs" mantra is completely inappropriate; the city has much more leeway now to be picky.

[Frontst17]

I think especially with our new world heritage designation, we should preserve as much of our beautiful old architecture as possible. Shouldn't be hard to incorporate this. I don't expect a company from Nashville to quite understand but I hope they learn

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by cafeguy

The 1900 Chestnut building is going to put entrances and retail along sansom street RIGHT here, i am pretty sure. Thus, the opportunity to put these buildings to good use is very VERY strong. Saying its an "off street" is like saying that sansom between 15th and 16th had no potential ten years ago.

I think you're missing the point.

Preservation for its own sake, blind to economic realities, will lead to demolitions. That's what happened to 40th and Pine, where Penn offered a fantastic proposal that incorporated the existing structure and the community refused despite the community's land use making no economic sense. Now the building's gone. I sense that something similar will happen to Dilworth House the way the Society Hill civic association's being recalcitrant.