PHILADELPHIA | Liberty on the River | 2 towers | 254 & 254 FT | 23 & 23 FLRS - Page 4

SEFTA · #61 Posted **Jun 13, 2017, 9:06 PM**

This project was put together on the back of a napkin

summersm343 · #62 Posted **Jun 16, 2017, 11:59 PM**

Ten Tower Delaware River Project On Hold, For Now

Read more here:
http://www.ocfrealty.com/naked-phill...n-hold-for-now

jjv007 · #63 Posted **Jun 17, 2017, 5:49 AM**

Shocking.

SEFTA · #64 Posted **Jun 17, 2017, 5:06 PM**

good

Knight Hospitaller · #65 Posted **Jun 17, 2017, 5:11 PM**

Darn. I'm sure they could've pulled off nine.

Mr Saturn64 · #66 Posted **Jun 17, 2017, 5:34 PM**

I don't get it. Why are so many people in this city (other cities too, but Philly seems to have it worst) so opposed to seeing their city grow? What do they have to gain from objecting to every new project proposed in the city? If NIMBYs in Philly weren't so bad, we'd have one of the best collections of skyscrapers in the whole country, and yet we have so many people that are content to settle from blandness and mediocrity.

jjv007 · #67 Posted **Jun 17, 2017, 9:01 PM**

As much as people deride this project, it was flawed in execution but not so much in scale necessarily. The current waterfront plan is garbage and reflects regressive thinking.

jsbrook · #68 Posted **Jun 18, 2017, 1:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Saturn64

I don't get it. Why are so many people in this city (other cities too, but Philly seems to have it worst) so opposed to seeing their city grow? What do they have to gain from objecting to every new project proposed in the city? If NIMBYs in Philly weren't so bad, we'd have one of the best collections of skyscrapers in the whole country, and yet we have so many people that are content to settle from blandness and mediocrity.

The two have nothing to do with each other. You can be very pro-development (as I am) and recognize what a clusterf**k this project is. And how bad an idea it would be to amend the entire zoning overlay with no thought and no input from relevant and informed constituencies just for this project that almost certainly will not be built remotely as planned. Whether the zoning overlay should be changed more generally to allow for more height by the river and otherwise is a different issue and should get some careful thought, and that's what's going to happen. That's not off the table and I welcome that discussion. Philly does not have the worst NIMBYs either and our skyline is as much constrained by economic realities as NIMBYism.

jsbrook · #69 Posted **Jun 18, 2017, 1:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjv007

As much as people deride this project, it was flawed in execution but not so much in scale necessarily. The current waterfront plan is garbage and reflects regressive thinking.

Well, there are going to be discussions about amending the overlay for that area. And there should be. But it should not be changed for one seriously flawed project that is basically a pretty drawing done on the back of a napkin. Add 400 feet to each of the proposed towers and that drawing is equally realistic as this one. Spot zoning and amendments to an entire overlay without careful thought for one project is always a bad idea and the enemy of sound development. But particularly in a case like this.

SEFTA · #70 Posted **Jun 18, 2017, 2:47 PM**

Well said JSBrook.

City Wide · #71 Posted **Jun 18, 2017, 4:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Saturn64

I don't get it. Why are so many people in this city (other cities too, but Philly seems to have it worst) so opposed to seeing their city grow? What do they have to gain from objecting to every new project proposed in the city? If NIMBYs in Philly weren't so bad, we'd have one of the best collections of skyscrapers in the whole country, and yet we have so many people that are content to settle from blandness and mediocrity.

I don't think your take on the effect so called NIMBY's has had is correct, but lets say you are right-----where would all the businesses and tenants have come from for all the skyscrapers you think would have been built? NIMBY's only get 'organized' on a case by case basis, theres no central group to turn to if one wants to stop a project. Look at all the issues surrounding Toll's project on jewelers row-----not that many people are in favor of the present project, but even then the opposition has to raise money and go to court and hope for the best.

Sure there have been a few tall buildings that haven't been built because of opposition of one form or another, but really, if some body had wanted to build an office tower at X and they were stopped I'm quite sure if they had wanted to they could have easily found another site to build on.

This is part of the problem when developer want to be's run out some pie in the sky proposal, such as this one, and apparently just because they have a concept drawing they think the world is going to bend over backwards for them. I don't think anyone gave this proposal 1 in a 100 chance of actually being built; direct your frustration elsewhere

jjv007 · #72 Posted **Jun 18, 2017, 8:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsbrook

our skyline is as much constrained by economic realities as NIMBYism.

+1. While I do believe as many others that projects are sometimes stalled by meaningless NIMBYism, a robust economy can render nimbys somewhat irrelevant. Philly's economy is solid but not bursting at the seams type so NIMBYism is magnified because of the limited number of projects announced.

Flyers2001 · #73 Posted **Jun 19, 2017, 8:11 PM**

Yeah, I prefer the empty lot of sh*t that's there now. Thank god!

SEFTA · #74 Posted **Jun 19, 2017, 10:05 PM**

From what I've seen of the unbuilt proposals of the past, most deserved to be killed and I'm glad of it. It's a proud city that does NOT say yes to every proposal. We do have things to protect and there are proposals that just don't deserve to be built. There's a reason these rules and parameters are set up. That's why Philly is starting to look so damned good. Building towers just for the sake of towers is not a plan. There are places that towers would work and places where they will not, or should not, let alone 10 of them. It wreaks! and I don't mean just the design.

skyscraper · #75 Posted **Jun 20, 2017, 10:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyers2001

Yeah, I prefer the empty lot of sh*t that's there now. Thank god!

are those the only options, or do you think we should hold out for something better?

summersm343 · #76 Posted **Jul 17, 2017, 2:09 PM**

Cry me a River: Central Delaware advocates debate changes to waterfront zoning, height limits

Read more here: http://planphilly.com/articles/2017/...-height-limits

Flyers2001 · #77 Posted **Jul 17, 2017, 2:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyscraper

are those the only options, or do you think we should hold out for something better?

Depends, how long is too long?

Philly-Drew · #78 Posted **Jul 18, 2017, 1:53 AM**

This project was a friggin' joke from the beginning. I'm sure the developer had no real intent on building this project. It's a classic case of queueing up an asset, then selling it.

vegeta_skyline · #79 Posted **Aug 28, 2017, 7:49 AM**

That is a lot of new density will do a lot in terms of redeveloping the waterfront.

Boku · #80 Posted **Nov 10, 2017, 7:03 PM**

You'll be shocked to hear the "developer" of this ludicrous proposal is pretty much a scam artist.

Developer's path to Philadelphia waterfront littered with failed projects

http://www.philly.com/philly/busines...-20171110.html