HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2019, 3:09 PM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Bala Cynwyd
Posts: 3,525
Hard to tell from those renderings, but I think I like it. Somewhat classical styling that fits the Square reasonably well, but an avant garde roof with a nice departure in shape.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2019, 4:18 PM
McBane McBane is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,146
So they're not razing the Dilworth House. And it doesn't even look like a fascadectomy. It just looks like they're building the tower behind it and quietly altering the back to forge the house and the tower together. I fail to see what the hoopla is all about given how much the Dilworth House is being preserved.

The tower's design itself is good. But I personally don't like how the tower and house are so separated. A better example is the St. James, which also incorporates a Starbucks into the historic townhome at its base. In the developer's efforts to placate NIMBYs, it seems like a lost an opportunity to put something to help energize the Square, like a cafe or restaurant space. Washington Square is not Rittenhouse Square, but why can't it strive for more engagement with the public realm?

Regardless, between the Dilworth's House preservation, the design that minimizes the tower's presence (to a fault), and the modest height, the developers really conceded a lot. I think it's time for the NIMBYs to shut up and move on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2019, 6:38 PM
Larry King Larry King is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 914
Big fan of this project, there's no reason why historic commission shouldn't approve.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2019, 6:55 PM
wanderer34's Avatar
wanderer34 wanderer34 is offline
FLY EAGLES FLY...
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Philadelphia/San Francisco
Posts: 1,115
McBane, I don't think that attaching a modernist design to a neocolonial house as the Dilworth House is a feasible idea. The St James is attached to a pretty sturdy turn of the century masonry building, which is why it's successful. I would've loved to have seen the Dilworth House tower a just bit more taller (200+ ft), but whatever is going to help with the city's density, I'm all for it.
__________________
PHILLY JUMP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IyKMqA4P1E
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2019, 7:31 PM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Bala Cynwyd
Posts: 3,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBane View Post
So they're not razing the Dilworth House. And it doesn't even look like a fascadectomy. It just looks like they're building the tower behind it and quietly altering the back to forge the house and the tower together. I fail to see what the hoopla is all about given how much the Dilworth House is being preserved.

The tower's design itself is good. But I personally don't like how the tower and house are so separated. A better example is the St. James, which also incorporates a Starbucks into the historic townhome at its base. In the developer's efforts to placate NIMBYs, it seems like a lost an opportunity to put something to help energize the Square, like a cafe or restaurant space. Washington Square is not Rittenhouse Square, but why can't it strive for more engagement with the public realm?

Regardless, between the Dilworth's House preservation, the design that minimizes the tower's presence (to a fault), and the modest height, the developers really conceded a lot. I think it's time for the NIMBYs to shut up and move on.
Not sure this one is about the NIMBYs. They wanted amenity space for the residents. Without the ability to build much taller in this spot (I think), the best place for that was the existing structure so all the tower floors can be residential units. As a general matter, I'd like to see more restaurants and retail on and around Washington Square too and so would its residents. It's turning the corner a bit with the Curtis Center. And they are trying to market this building on 6th for retail as well. https://www.google.com/maps/place/60...!4d-75.1511114 Talulahs Garden has been a good addition.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2019, 10:15 PM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Bala Cynwyd
Posts: 3,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartphilly View Post
^
I like it. Build it. It's gonna be in the millions for each unit is my guess. Washington West is great in having a park right in your front yard, and a lot quieter than Rittenhouse Square if that's your thing.
Has to be. Full floor units with potentially a bi-level penthouse (or someone at least buys it as such). Would love to know unit size, but I'd think these start no lower than $2 million.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2019, 3:11 AM
City Wide City Wide is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,278
I'm not into height boners, but this is one building that would benefit from 50 to 100' of vertical. It looks very stubby to me
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2019, 5:04 AM
Milksteak Milksteak is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by City Wide View Post
I'm not into height boners, but this is one building that would benefit from 50 to 100' of vertical. It looks very stubby to me
Agreed....Washington Square Park is probably my favorite place in the city, is there a reason they aren’t going higher? I can’t imagine a place like this would have trouble selling.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2019, 6:18 AM
allovertown allovertown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milksteak View Post
Agreed....Washington Square Park is probably my favorite place in the city, is there a reason they aren’t going higher? I can’t imagine a place like this would have trouble selling.
It's honestly weird how short it is. I think it looks like a good solid design and they're completely preserving the Dilworth house. Preserving historic architecture and producing well designed buildings is unfortunately all too often used as a bargaining chip in Philadelphia. Normally developers go the extra mile in exchange for something like a taller building so they can sell more units.

I feel like they could say preserving the Dilworth is only economically feasible if they build 2 or 3 times higher and they probably get away with it. I mean you can see in the renderings how Penn Mutual and Independence Sq tower over it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2019, 7:57 AM
PurpleWhiteOut PurpleWhiteOut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 74
Yeah I think that's exactly why it's so ridiculous that NIMBYs are trying to block it. It's surrounded by taller buildings
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2019, 11:43 AM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Bala Cynwyd
Posts: 3,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milksteak View Post
Agreed....Washington Square Park is probably my favorite place in the city, is there a reason they aren’t going higher? I can’t imagine a place like this would have trouble selling.
I think there are about 6 overlays on this particular parcel that limit height and impose other restrictions. But I do think they could add a few floors. The project approved for this spot in 2007 by the Historical Commission was 16 stories. The floor plans are also a bit odd and scrunched with some tiny bedrooms and a very skinny and shallow master suite on many of the floors. The setbacks off 6th and Randolph are great and make for some amazing terraces for the bi-level penthouse unit. But I'm not really sure why they could not build flush against the Athenaeum all the way through the building (and after the Athenauem ends) instead of setting back after the first 4 floors or so in that direction. The building is about 42 feet wide fronting 6 street and steps back throughout, ending up only 32 feet wide (after the 4th floor) fronting Randolph Street. Would afford some better layouts if they had/had been about to maintain the same width throughout.

Last edited by jsbrook; Feb 14, 2019 at 12:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2019, 4:31 PM
SEFTA's Avatar
SEFTA SEFTA is offline
PhillyPholly
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 542
Popular area!

CC 2-28-19 f
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2019, 5:08 PM
iheartphilly's Avatar
iheartphilly iheartphilly is offline
Philly Rising Up!
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: motherEarth
Posts: 2,324
^
Nice, job well done! And, it would be nice if the proposal move forward and we get something.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2019, 5:45 AM
PurpleWhiteOut PurpleWhiteOut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 74
https://www.philly.com/real-estate/h...-20190412.html
The historical commission gave approval for the project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2019, 2:05 PM
iheartphilly's Avatar
iheartphilly iheartphilly is offline
Philly Rising Up!
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: motherEarth
Posts: 2,324
^
Very good to see this go forward.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2019, 6:00 PM
Londonee Londonee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Fitler Square (via London)
Posts: 1,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleWhiteOut View Post
https://www.philly.com/real-estate/h...-20190412.html
The historical commission gave approval for the project.
It's a bummer it won't be a Venturi building in the end. Would have been one of their final commissions, certainly one of their last in the city too...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted May 4, 2019, 12:17 AM
GtownFriend GtownFriend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Boulder CO
Posts: 460
From PlanPhilly:

Society Hill’s Dilworth House condo tower wins final city approval

http://planphilly.com/articles/2019/...-city-approval
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2019, 7:17 PM
mcgrath618's Avatar
mcgrath618 mcgrath618 is online now
Exhausted Drexel Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: University City, Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,595
Still floating around...
__________________
Philadelphia Transportation Thread: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=164129
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2019, 8:24 PM
mcgrath618's Avatar
mcgrath618 mcgrath618 is online now
Exhausted Drexel Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: University City, Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,595
Walked by the site today, literally no change since I had last been there... over a year ago. Even the renovations on the house itself seem to have come to a complete halt.

She might be dead.
__________________
Philadelphia Transportation Thread: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=164129
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
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 3:52 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.