HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2021, 2:07 PM
JohnIII JohnIII is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 381
I can claim no detailed information on this project of course but I walked into downtown early this morning and simply visualized it. if this tower is around 750' it would stick out from almost any direction; it would be the tallest condo tower in the city and it would be close to the height of Mellon Tower.

No matter the height the tower will stand out really nice and if its say 750' when you come over the South Street Bridge it will appear a good deal taller than that.

I'm very excited to see how this will play out as well as wondering if Philadelphia will even begin condo towers of a good height in other parts of downtown away from Rittenhouse Square?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2021, 2:37 PM
mcgrath618's Avatar
mcgrath618 mcgrath618 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Clark Park, Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 3,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnIII View Post
I'm very excited to see how this will play out as well as wondering if Philadelphia will even begin condo towers of a good height in other parts of downtown away from Rittenhouse Square?
There are still sites near the square that could support a tower this big, like 20th and Walnut, and maybe even the NW corner of 18th and Spruce. Even the Boyd’s parking lot on Chestnut. When those are filled in I’m sure we’ll start to see some more outward movement. I’d love to see something tall and skinny around Washington Square or Logan Circle.
__________________
Philadelphia Transportation Thread: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=164129
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2021, 4:33 PM
JohnIII JohnIII is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcgrath618 View Post
There are still sites near the square that could support a tower this big, like 20th and Walnut, and maybe even the NW corner of 18th and Spruce. Even the Boyd’s parking lot on Chestnut. When those are filled in I’m sure we’ll start to see some more outward movement. I’d love to see something tall and skinny around Washington Square or Logan Circle.
I completely agree; Washington Square and Logan Square would be great; even still further development of the area between Callowhill and Spring Garden area is mostly lots and could literally support massive growth for high rise condos and stores as well as Center City West beyond 30th Street.

I wonder which will awaken first
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2021, 12:57 PM
City Wide City Wide is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,613
Do we know if this will be a condo building and not just more apartments? Condo units generally have more sq.footage per unit than apartments and so the unit count goes down, not up like this did a couple of weeks ago. Of course the building could have both types of units.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2021, 1:53 PM
Jayfar's Avatar
Jayfar Jayfar is offline
Midrise
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by City Wide View Post
Do we know if this will be a condo building and not just more apartments? Condo units generally have more sq.footage per unit than apartments and so the unit count goes down, not up like this did a couple of weeks ago. Of course the building could have both types of units.
I think Pearl Properties does rental apartments only, but I could be wrong.
__________________
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
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2021, 2:57 PM
thoughtcriminal thoughtcriminal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: philadelphia
Posts: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEFTA View Post
This shows it at 660'
This is quite a jump.
Very impressive if this is true.
I hope so.

Proposals shown in red;
-115 S 19th Street
-1826 Chestnut Street
-1810 Chestnut Street
-2012 Chestnut Street

Philadelphia -115 S 19th Street 6-10-21 -1826 Chestnut Street -1810 Chestnut Street -2012 Chestnut Street

Philadelphia -115 S 19th Street 6-10-21 -1826 Chestnut Street -1810 Chestnut Street -2012 Chestnut Street 3
SEFTA - based on current speculation that this building is now 67 stories / 777 feet tall, would you be able to update this to reflect those numbers? would be interested to see what that would look like.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2021, 4:24 PM
SEFTA's Avatar
SEFTA SEFTA is offline
Philly Pholly
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,047
I was going to wait for a confirmation of some kind.
But here it is at 777"
It's almost freakish that thin
Which makes me a little skeptical
"Billionaires Row"

Rittenhouse Square -777' -6-23-21

Rittenhouse Square -777' -6-23-21 b

Rittenhouse Square -777' -6-23-21 c

Rittenhouse Square -777' -6-23-21 d
__________________
Smart Cities

Last edited by SEFTA; Jun 23, 2021 at 4:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2021, 7:18 PM
thoughtcriminal thoughtcriminal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: philadelphia
Posts: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEFTA View Post
I was going to wait for a confirmation of some kind.
But here it is at 777"
It's almost freakish that thin
Which makes me a little skeptical
"Billionaires Row"
Thanks for the update!
I like it, I hope they do it.
This is no Philly Special, for sure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2021, 2:11 AM
allovertown allovertown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEFTA View Post
I was going to wait for a confirmation of some kind.
But here it is at 777"
It's almost freakish that thin
Which makes me a little skeptical
"Billionaires Row"
Yea it really does look wild. Has a very 432 Park Avenue vibe, although obviously much shorter.

I do agree that it seems unlikely. But unless there was some sort of error with the new reported square footage of this project, what else could be the result? There is virtually zero wiggle room on this site for increased square footage to translate into anything besides increased height. No where for it to go except up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2021, 2:03 PM
Jawnadelphia's Avatar
Jawnadelphia Jawnadelphia is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Phila., PA
Posts: 2,690
My only skepticism is that, if I'm not mistaken, Pearl Properties tallest building from ground up to date is The Harper at 272 feet. So now they will be taking things waaaay higher, at least to 567 feet (or taller as you all are speculating)-- very bold. Cautiously optimistic here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #111  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2021, 2:07 PM
rb233541 rb233541 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 20
Is there any possibility that the increased square footage now includes the retail spaces where tobox and hats in the belfry were on Chestnut? I'm fairly certain they were part of the parcel, but I don't recall seeing them reflected on the renderings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #112  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2021, 2:23 PM
thoughtcriminal thoughtcriminal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: philadelphia
Posts: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by rb233541 View Post
Is there any possibility that the increased square footage now includes the retail spaces where tobox and hats in the belfry were on Chestnut? I'm fairly certain they were part of the parcel, but I don't recall seeing them reflected on the renderings.
there is going to be increased retail, but they already accounted for that:
ZONING PLAN (L&I PERMIT PRE-REQUISITE)

Dwelling Units (Each): 215 vs. 183

Building GFA (Square Feet): 353,226 vs.257,694

Commercial Area (Square Feet): 30,180 vs. 20,201

Property Frontage (Linear Feet): 300

CDR Required (PCC 14-304(5)): Yes

so it's only 10,000 sf more, and already included in the calculation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #113  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2021, 2:40 PM
JohnIII JohnIII is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 381
I am cautiously optimistic; from an engineering standpoint its possible and if such a building is built here it would give downtown a very nice feel; only a few feet shorter than Mellon Tower.

A tower in this location at 777' will make the Bell Atlantic Tower, Mellon Tower FMC and even Liberty 2 Tower look almost typical for downtown in terms of height; just think FMC is 730' Mellon Tower is about 790' Bell Atlantic Tower I think is about 740' or close to it so you have a very cosmopolitan feel and for this reason and more I hope it gets done.

If a tower at 777' is built in this location it can make Rittenhouse Square feel more exclusive an it would create an overall trend upward for the city in general because I'm thinking here about this; as a skyscraper enthusiast if this is built then for condos and offices to have an iconic buildings status in or near the Business District would require the same, near or equal to that height or taller in order to standout in that location. I would also require something not as tall but in a range of 400-700' in another location downtown and this could spread out the skyline even further for other skyscrapers to be built and add more bulk to the skyline over all so this tower at 777' overall could add upward momentum. I hope it gets done.

But of course this is only if this project reaches 777'
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #114  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2021, 2:59 PM
City Wide City Wide is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jawnadelphia View Post
My only skepticism is that, if I'm not mistaken, Pearl Properties tallest building from ground up to date is The Harper at 272 feet. So now they will be taking things waaaay higher, at least to 567 feet (or taller as you all are speculating)-- very bold. Cautiously optimistic here.
Plus, as its been pointed out, Pearl is, or has been in the business of renting out apartments, and building them is a method of obtaining product. So, if building taller is alot more expensive, then the apartments in this building aren't going to be cheap! I'll take two! And to think that most of us were thrilled with the first set of plans.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #115  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2021, 3:03 PM
allovertown allovertown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by rb233541 View Post
Is there any possibility that the increased square footage now includes the retail spaces where tobox and hats in the belfry were on Chestnut? I'm fairly certain they were part of the parcel, but I don't recall seeing them reflected on the renderings.
I never heard or saw anything that the Hats in the Belfry building or any other on Chestnut is included in this project. This project is blocked off from Chestnut by the proposed overbuild of the CVS next door, and then there's also another proposed overbuild further west on this block where Freeman's Auction House was on Chestnut as well.

So if this project included the Hats in the Belfry building, it would create a weird footprint where this project would surround the CVS on the corner. I don't think adding that property would give them any real space to actually add to the footprint of the tower, even if it was included. And this can't just be added ground floor retail. The discrepancy we're talking about here is 100,000 square feet. This whole block is probably less than 100,000 square feet, so adding a building here or there to the footprint just isn't getting you close.

If the square footage numbers are accurate then I think we're definitely getting a 750+ foot tower. I don't see any other way that amount of space is incorporated into this project. It wouldn't be the first time numbers like this were simply inaccurate though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #116  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2021, 3:24 PM
Justin7 Justin7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 708
Sorry if this has been addressed, but I'm a little confused regarding parcel ownership. According to Atlas:

[RED] 113-119 19th St. are owned by "113-119 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP" - Tower

[BLUE] 121 19th St. as well as 1821 and 1823 Sansom are owned by "19TH & SANSOM CORP." -

- 121 19th St. (corner building) - largely untouched, tower balconies above
- 1823 Sansom - actual parcel address 1824 Chestnut - (Cavanaugh's) - 1 story loading bay and small portion of tower
- 1821 Sansom - actual parcel address 1822 Chestnut - (Kim's Cleaners) - not part of original plan?

Are 113-119 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and 19TH & SANSOM CORP. essentially a single entity at this point? The bulk of the building is obviously going on the 113-119 owned land. Perhaps someone here with experience in these matters could help to clarify.

The previous plan from the CDR last Sept. did not include parking and did not include the Kim's Cleaners site at all. There is also room on the Cavanaugh's site to widen the tower. It seems possible that this will be expanding East rather than up. I don't see any way to fit parking without the Kim's site. And as noted, these parcels stretch all the way to Chestnut.

(Sorry for the huge image, but the large size is needed to read the print.)

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #117  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2021, 5:19 PM
PHLtoNYC PHLtoNYC is offline
Chris
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: New York city
Posts: 1,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by City Wide View Post
Plus, as its been pointed out, Pearl is, or has been in the business of renting out apartments, and building them is a method of obtaining product. So, if building taller is alot more expensive, then the apartments in this building aren't going to be cheap! I'll take two! And to think that most of us were thrilled with the first set of plans.
I may have missed, but is this all apartments, or a mix? I would imagine a condo/apartment mix would be wiser (similar to The Laurel).

Very exciting project either way though!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #118  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2021, 1:59 PM
thoughtcriminal thoughtcriminal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: philadelphia
Posts: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin7 View Post
Sorry if this has been addressed, but I'm a little confused regarding parcel ownership. According to Atlas:

[RED] 113-119 19th St. are owned by "113-119 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP" - Tower

[BLUE] 121 19th St. as well as 1821 and 1823 Sansom are owned by "19TH & SANSOM CORP." -

- 121 19th St. (corner building) - largely untouched, tower balconies above
- 1823 Sansom - actual parcel address 1824 Chestnut - (Cavanaugh's) - 1 story loading bay and small portion of tower
- 1821 Sansom - actual parcel address 1822 Chestnut - (Kim's Cleaners) - not part of original plan?

Are 113-119 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and 19TH & SANSOM CORP. essentially a single entity at this point? The bulk of the building is obviously going on the 113-119 owned land. Perhaps someone here with experience in these matters could help to clarify.

The previous plan from the CDR last Sept. did not include parking and did not include the Kim's Cleaners site at all. There is also room on the Cavanaugh's site to widen the tower. It seems possible that this will be expanding East rather than up. I don't see any way to fit parking without the Kim's site. And as noted, these parcels stretch all the way to Chestnut.

(Sorry for the huge image, but the large size is needed to read the print.)

The first page of this thread from Oct 2020 shows a site plan identical to the one you are showing. The heavy black line is the property border, same as what you are showing. So I don't think the building footprint is getting any larger.
[IMG][/IMG]
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #119  
Old Posted Jun 26, 2021, 12:39 PM
Justin7 Justin7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 708
Quote:
Originally Posted by thoughtcriminal View Post
The first page of this thread from Oct 2020 shows a site plan identical to the one you are showing. The heavy black line is the property border, same as what you are showing. So I don't think the building footprint is getting any larger.
That's the same image. The heavy black line is not the proposed building footprint. The property footprint is in fact larger than the proposed building footprint. The tower footprint is even smaller. There is room to add square footage without getting taller. Though this doesn't address my question of ownership.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #120  
Old Posted Jun 26, 2021, 2:13 PM
Londonee Londonee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Fitler Square (via London)
Posts: 1,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by allovertown View Post
I never heard or saw anything that the Hats in the Belfry building or any other on Chestnut is included in this project. This project is blocked off from Chestnut by the proposed overbuild of the CVS next door, and then there's also another proposed overbuild further west on this block where Freeman's Auction House was on Chestnut as well.

So if this project included the Hats in the Belfry building, it would create a weird footprint where this project would surround the CVS on the corner. I don't think adding that property would give them any real space to actually add to the footprint of the tower, even if it was included. And this can't just be added ground floor retail. The discrepancy we're talking about here is 100,000 square feet. This whole block is probably less than 100,000 square feet, so adding a building here or there to the footprint just isn't getting you close.

If the square footage numbers are accurate then I think we're definitely getting a 750+ foot tower. I don't see any other way that amount of space is incorporated into this project. It wouldn't be the first time numbers like this were simply inaccurate though.
There are permitting documents hanging in the Hats/Belfry and the pop-up retail shop window. I never bothered to look, always just figured it’d be one of those 6-7 story overbuilds that have been happening all up and down Walnut/Chestnut over the last 5 years....
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 8:45 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.