PHILADELPHIA | 115 S. 19th Street | 611 FT | 54 FLOORS

[TK2001]

[TK2001]

Originally Posted by PHL10

Like this, right?

Yea, seems like it

[Plokoon11]

Originally Posted by PHL10

Like this, right?

I remember when waterfront square had more buildings and the core tops were supposed to be covered. Too bad the economy crashed.

Strange that there is a parapet. You would have thought they would cover the mech.

[Jayfar]

Originally Posted by TK2001

Yea, seems like it

Here's the whole pdf for that version, which has plans stamped approved 11/01/21:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/eclipse-doc...021-002518.pdf

[TK2001]

https://phillyyimby.com/2022/01/phil...nter-city.html

[JohnIII]

There are a few things I like about this project my friends.

1. It has good height so it affects the skyline from the east, south, and west; it helps extend the skyline out.

2. With its good height it gives Philadelphia a Millionaires Row; it really helps solidify it.

3. This tower with its height adds scale to the skyline; when you look at downtown Philadelphia from the south especially you don't see Comcast Tech at 1121, Comcast at say 975, and Liberty One at 945; and then a drop to the 500's or 400's which is significant; now there is more scale to the taller towers and this takes away the argument that trophy towers between 800- 1,200 feet often face whenever they come; nobody can say they won't be in scale.

4. Lastly; I've been a skyline lover for a while; we won't say how long; but I remember when they built in the 1980's the 2 towers that stood out were Liberty One and Blue Cross/Fred di Bona Tower; with this tower, the Laurel, and W; we are seeing in Philadelphia history in the making; it is typical to see at 50 story; 600 foot tower and few cities in American can actually say that (New York, Chicago, Houston, and maybe Los Angeles.)

If we were more Pro Business in Philadelphia this could actually be the norm and it pains me we aren't.

[TK2001]

Hopefully you have pics from the 80's, would love to see different perspectives of their construction

[Mayormccheese]

This site seems to have a small footprint for its height (for a Philadelphia tower anyway). If this tower is successful it would make it an easier sell for developers to build with density on small lots. It could be a game changer.

[kool-ski]

It appears there may be some movement on the Chestnut Street side of this project!

PERMIT: ZP-2022-000233
ZONING

FOR THE RELOCATION OF LOT LINES TO CREATE TWO (2) LOTS (PARCEL A AND PARCEL B) FROM EXISTING ONE OPA ACCOUNT (1822 CHESTNUT ST-PREMISES E)

https://eclipse.phila.gov/phillylmsp...ctId=429796629

[Jawnadelphia]

How much would it really cost to add a decorative crown to the top of this building to cover up the mechanical core - 30 feet of concrete on top is such an eye sore and looks cheap tbh.

[gjrip]

Originally Posted by JohnIII

There are a few things I like about this project my friends.

1. It has good height so it affects the skyline from the east, south, and west; it helps extend the skyline out.

2. With its good height it gives Philadelphia a Millionaires Row; it really helps solidify it.

3. This tower with its height adds scale to the skyline; when you look at downtown Philadelphia from the south especially you don't see Comcast Tech at 1121, Comcast at say 975, and Liberty One at 945; and then a drop to the 500's or 400's which is significant; now there is more scale to the taller towers and this takes away the argument that trophy towers between 800- 1,200 feet often face whenever they come; nobody can say they won't be in scale.

4. Lastly; I've been a skyline lover for a while; we won't say how long; but I remember when they built in the 1980's the 2 towers that stood out were Liberty One and Blue Cross/Fred di Bona Tower; with this tower, the Laurel, and W; we are seeing in Philadelphia history in the making; it is typical to see at 50 story; 600 foot tower and few cities in American can actually say that (New York, Chicago, Houston, and maybe Los Angeles.)

If we were more Pro Business in Philadelphia this could actually be the norm and it pains me we aren't.

Miami too I would say. But yeah absolutely spot on.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by JohnIII

There are a few things I like about this project my friends.

1. It has good height so it affects the skyline from the east, south, and west; it helps extend the skyline out.

2. With its good height it gives Philadelphia a Millionaires Row; it really helps solidify it.

3. This tower with its height adds scale to the skyline; when you look at downtown Philadelphia from the south especially you don't see Comcast Tech at 1121, Comcast at say 975, and Liberty One at 945; and then a drop to the 500's or 400's which is significant; now there is more scale to the taller towers and this takes away the argument that trophy towers between 800- 1,200 feet often face whenever they come; nobody can say they won't be in scale.

4. Lastly; I've been a skyline lover for a while; we won't say how long; but I remember when they built in the 1980's the 2 towers that stood out were Liberty One and Blue Cross/Fred di Bona Tower; with this tower, the Laurel, and W; we are seeing in Philadelphia history in the making; it is typical to see at 50 story; 600 foot tower and few cities in American can actually say that (New York, Chicago, Houston, and maybe Los Angeles.)

If we were more Pro Business in Philadelphia this could actually be the norm and it pains me we aren't.

in philly and nationwide I dont expect to see many commercial skyscrapers of significant size being built based on current trends. I think residential and medical towers will make up most of what we are likely to see in Philly going forward. In fact, one could argue that the rise of telework will benefit Philly and lead to more immigrants from more expensive east coast cities. Now would be the time for Philly to launch ad campaigns to attract DC and NYC residents who can telework.

[kingtut]

Originally Posted by cardeza

in philly and nationwide I dont expect to see many commercial skyscrapers of significant size being built based on current trends. I think residential and medical towers will make up most of what we are likely to see in Philly going forward. In fact, one could argue that the rise of telework will benefit Philly and lead to more immigrants from more expensive east coast cities. Now would be the time for Philly to launch ad campaigns to attract DC and NYC residents who can telework.

Not so sure about that Philly just came off of a record breaking year of V.C..$ 8.1 billion raised and Penn alone received near a billion in research grants. That
s a lot of capital, which will be used to hire many researchers, making 6 figure salaries. Philly already has the nick name as the cradle of cures.
I can see a tower being built in or near 30th street topping out at 600 to 700 hundred ft.

[JohnIII]

Originally Posted by cardeza

in philly and nationwide I dont expect to see many commercial skyscrapers of significant size being built based on current trends. I think residential and medical towers will make up most of what we are likely to see in Philly going forward. In fact, one could argue that the rise of telework will benefit Philly and lead to more immigrants from more expensive east coast cities. Now would be the time for Philly to launch ad campaigns to attract DC and NYC residents who can telework.

I'm not sure we shouldn't expect many commercial towers because I don't know the future; the trends could suggest it now but in a year or even 6 months who knows what will happen but I see your point.

I do certainly agree Telework benefits Philadelphia because now many can work from Philadelphia which is a cheaper city to live in and with a good metropolitan feel. Philadelphia could gain residence from New York and Washington and this was a trend that has started before 2020 and can increase; already there seems to be a home shortage for new arrivals.

In a slightly different topic that isn't directly related to 115 S 19st Street but may be reflective with respect to its construction is the following. We know based on history that in 1950 Philadelphia had just over 2 million inhabitants; we also know that many have left Philadelphia either by moving out of the city and death due to age and crime. Many who have left Philadelphia simply moved into the suburbs because as the population of the city shrinks from 1950 to 2000 the suburbs have grown massively so that the metropolis all and all has grown. But now in Philadelphia we have a housing shortage; over 10,000 apartments are being built not including what has been built; and of course now we have 115 S 19th Street.

Philadelphia is growing we can see that but if the housing capacity is as short as it is in a city that could accommodate 2 million people; and in a city when many don't fill out the census; I wonder if Philadelphia has far more people than we think? When I look at history, current construction, and people moving into Philadelphia the math seems to not add up. Is 115 S 19th Street a sign that things are better that we may see?

[PHL10]

Originally Posted by JohnIII

Philadelphia is growing we can see that but if the housing capacity is as short as it is in a city that could accommodate 2 million people; and in a city when many don't fill out the census; I wonder if Philadelphia has far more people than we think? When I look at history, current construction, and people moving into Philadelphia the math seems to not add up. Is 115 S 19th Street a sign that things are better that we may see?

In that time of peak population, most of the Northeast and places like Andorra and the Oak Lanes (1/3 of the the City's land area?) weren't yet built-out. Not getting back above 2 million one day shouldn't be due to limited space and housing in my opinion.

[700 Level]

Originally Posted by PHL10

In that time of peak population, most of the Northeast and places like Andorra and the Oak Lanes (1/3 of the the City's land area?) weren't yet built-out. Not getting back above 2 million one day shouldn't be due to limited space and housing in my opinion.

The other variable to consider when making comparisons to prior decades: average household size. It has been steadily shrinking. So for the same population level, you need more units today. It makes sense that there is demand for incrementally more apartments today as household size shrinks and people are more likely to remain single through their twenties and even thirties.

[PHL10]

Originally Posted by 700 Level

The other variable to consider when making comparisons to prior decades: average household size. It has been steadily shrinking. So for the same population level, you need more units today. It makes sense that there is demand for incrementally more apartments today as household size shrinks and people are more likely to remain single through their twenties and even thirties.

Oh, I agree 100%. We need denser housing to hit the same density numbers if that makes sense.

[JohnIII]

You know; I totally agree and hadn't thought about that; the Northeast wasn't built out the way it is now and families were a lot bigger in the 1950's because it wasn't uncommon to have 3 or more children and I knew one family from back them who had 10 children and lived in North Philadelphia at the time. I never thought of that.

[City Wide]

Originally Posted by PHL10

Oh, I agree 100%. We need denser housing to hit the same density numbers if that makes sense.

I wonder how the density of CC today, river to river, Girard to Washington Ave. compares historically to other parts of the City. Maybe not just in numbers of people, but also number of units.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by PHL10

In that time of peak population, most of the Northeast and places like Andorra and the Oak Lanes (1/3 of the the City's land area?) weren't yet built-out. Not getting back above 2 million one day shouldn't be due to limited space and housing in my opinion.

east oak lane is very old, most large houses are from early 20th century. West Oak lane is newer, but still mostly built before 1950. Cedarbrook to the west of that was built after ww2 in early 50s.