PHILADELPHIA | 8th & Race | 185 FT | 12 FLOORS | CANCELLED

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by summersm343

I'm fine with any development that incorporates the roundhouse into a larger overall redevelopment of the block, but keeping the roundhouse as-is with it's surface lots, wall facing Race Street, and overall anti-urban form? No thank you.

The Roundhouse isn't as antiurban as its detractors make it out to be. I think the condos across the street, the Mint, and the two ginormous Federal buildings between 6th and 7th north of Market are even more antiurban than the Roundhouse. The Roundhouse's problems are fixable, and it has that big parking lot behind it to build a nice new annex on.

I'm generally in the camp that we should save the Roundhouse if at all possible. Yes, it has its problems in its current layout, but so did the Rohm & Haas building until they put that La Colombe in on the corner. It needs significant renovations, but I can easily see the benefit that comes from having its iconic facade (whether you think it's ugly or not, I think we can agree it is iconic) be one's address, and there is decent space for about four or six commercial parcels, two with outdoor space, available on an opened-up ground floor.

I guess the point is to see what could be rather than what is, to see things, that is, as a developer.

But I wouldn't die on the hill of saving the Roundhouse if that's what it took to redevelop this generally-very-ugly block. What I am willing to die on here, is that, if an arena came to this block, it would have to be paid for with Harris Blitzer's dime. No subsidy nonsense. (Also, if what they're really looking to do is sell the team, then that's a compromise they'd probably be willing to make: let the new ownership group have to actually sink money into realizing the plans!).

[PurpleWhiteOut]

One positive project that will hopefully be the precedent for this is the proposed International House project. I'm also a fan of Brutalism, but there were also a lot of weird anti urban designs of the time. There are certainly ways of fixing this with annexes to the street, proper landscaping, and activation. Since it's already set up as essentially offices, I think it would be a good candidate for reuse as an office building rather than residential.

I also wouldn't be too sad to see it go, but like others have said, the streets here are basically highways, and taking down the walls and opening up the plaza might even be more urban friendly than bringing the building to the street in this case. A road diet would be great here

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

The Roundhouse isn't as antiurban as its detractors make it out to be. I think the condos across the street, the Mint, and the two ginormous Federal buildings between 6th and 7th north of Market are even more antiurban than the Roundhouse. The Roundhouse's problems are fixable, and it has that big parking lot behind it to build a nice new annex on.

I'm generally in the camp that we should save the Roundhouse if at all possible. Yes, it has its problems in its current layout, but so did the Rohm & Haas building until they put that La Colombe in on the corner. It needs significant renovations, but I can easily see the benefit that comes from having its iconic facade (whether you think it's ugly or not, I think we can agree it is iconic) be one's address, and there is decent space for about four or six commercial parcels, two with outdoor space, available on an opened-up ground floor.

I guess the point is to see what could be rather than what is, to see things, that is, as a developer.

But I wouldn't die on the hill of saving the Roundhouse if that's what it took to redevelop this generally-very-ugly block. What I am willing to die on here, is that, if an arena came to this block, it would have to be paid for with Harris Blitzer's dime. No subsidy nonsense. (Also, if what they're really looking to do is sell the team, then that's a compromise they'd probably be willing to make: let the new ownership group have to actually sink money into realizing the plans!).

Unfortunately most of the other anti-urban buildings in the area aren't going anywhere. To me, that makes it all the more critical that something is done here that starts to reverse that trend.

To be clear, I've never been against rehabbing the roundhouse as opposed to replacing it. I just think getting the exterior of the roundhouse where it needs to be from an urbanist perspective and readying the interior for another use will be very costly. And considering the roundhouse isn't very big, it makes me skeptical that anyone could undertake such a project and expect to turn a profit. So I just don't see it happening. But happy to be proven wrong.

[Nanyika]

In the first place, I think it is mistaken to identify the Roundhouse with the "Brutalist" style. Brutalism generally made use of blocky or angular masses of exposed (often roughened) concrete or other materials; exposed heating ducts, elevator shafts, and other services; and frequently an asymmetrical or seemingly haphazard shape. If anything, the Roundhouse is the antithesis, the polar opposite, of that. It is perfectly symmetrical, rounded, not particularly massive, and with a delicate veneer of concrete and glass. Rather than Brutalism, the Roundhouse reflects a style within the Modernist period that tried to produce a counterpoint to the unadorned blocks that were common in those days. The Visitors Center in Love Park comes out of the same tendency.

I would side with the people on this board who think that an attempt should be made to save the building. Historically, it has merit as one of the diminishing examples of the Philadelphia School of architecture and as a very significant representative of the "Reform Era" in the city's political and social life (1950s-'60s). In practical terms, as others have pointed out, the building is perfectly serviceable for a number of uses. It is generally in good repair both inside and out, although the antiquated HVAC system needs replacing.

The architects designed the building, with its front steps and plaza, to hopefully be welcoming to the public. Unfortunately, the eight-foot wall surrounding the building and the blocked-in ground story gave the building the feel of a fortress, and the front entrance was soon discontinued. As others have pointed out, tearing down the wall and opening the ground story would do wonders to make the building more accessible to the sidewalk, and I think it would make its architectural qualities far more evident. We should also note that the roof can be used as a gathering place (beer garden? outdoor restaurant?).

Alternatively, if the parking lot were used for a new Sixers area, the Roundhouse might be incorporated into the building as an entry space for snack bars, tickets, and other services. I suspect, however, that any plans for an arena in that area would probably have to contend with strong opposition from interests in Chinatown.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by Nanyika

Historically, it has merit as one of the diminishing examples of the Philadelphia School of architecture and as a very significant representative of the "Reform Era" in the city's political and social life (1950s-'60s).

Most people disagree but to me, this - in and of itself - is not a compelling reason to save a building that otherwise has few redeeming urban qualities. And this isn't just specific to the Roundhouse - but any building that is protected for weak reasons such as academic explanation above but which detract from the urban experience. Other examples include Robinson's Department Store and the Health Center on South Broad.

If the RH or any of these other "historic" buildings can be re-used in a way that activates the street, improves their aesthetics, and makes the pedestrian experience more pleasant, then by all means, great. But historic preservation, to me at least, doesn't negate a building that detracts from the cityscape.

I get it that I'm probably in the minority but I view historic preservation as a means to an end, which should be attractive and diverse buildings that add energy to the streetscape and adhere to urban design principles.

[summersm343]

New project evolving at Chinatown's 8th and Vine site once slated for Equal Justice Center

Pennrose Properties has dramatically revamped its plans for a highly visible site at 8th and Vine streets in Philadelphia's Chinatown neighborhood after plans for the development of an Equal Justice Center fell through.

The Philadelphia real estate company is now exploring developing an affordable senior housing project on a portion of what is now a surface parking lot.

“Pennrose notified us that they are no longer moving forward with their project and so PRA canceled all of their rights and reservations to the site,” said Jamila Davis, a spokeswoman for the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority, or PRA. “Pennrose has been working with the community on a proposal to build a standalone affordable senior housing building on part of the site, utilizing their recent tax credit award.”

The redevelopment authority board would need to approve a new redevelopment agreement for the smaller project on just a portion of the parcel, Davis said. “For the remainder of the site, PRA is not planning to put out another RFP at this time because the community stakeholders requested that we work with them on a community-driven planning process,” she said.

In addition to the Equal Justice Center, the development called for 55 affordable housing units for senior citizens, another building containing market rate rentals, a small hotel, retail space and 181-space parking area.

Read more here:
https://www.bizjournals.com/philadel...-and-vine.html

[DudeGuy]

Originally Posted by summersm343

New project evolving at Chinatown's 8th and Vine site once slated for Equal Justice Center



Read more here:
https://www.bizjournals.com/philadel...-and-vine.html

I feel like what's happened on this lot is an illustration of what happens when the city tries to mediate the development of a site. This is a prime parcel at the intersection of multiple transit nodes, and the developers aren't able to get anything off the ground because of restrictions put in place during the procurement process.