PHILADELPHIA | Lowrise/General Developments Thread

[cafeguy]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

Yes, it was bad, but this is much worse. There are many other design/material alternatives out there other than this, but they would have cost more than a couple thousand dollars which is what it seems was probably this guy's budget. Shameful.

If you are unwilling to pay the cost of properly respecting the street with your building, you should not be allowed to own street-facing property on a major street in Center City.

A bit classist right?

I hate vinyl as much as the next guy, but if thats what fit the budget, then thats what fit the budget. As for wigs and beauty supplies... who the fuck are all of you to hate on a store that obviously is used very often. Understand that hair shops like this are to some people what boutique whatever shops are to you.

Philly is a city for ALL people....even lower income, not fancy looking wig shops like these.

As for the vinyl...yeah, I wish the owner consulted regarding the material and design, but if this is the material he/she could afford and they thought it looked nice because they aren't aware of aesthetics...then be unhappy about the decision, but keep your vitriol to yourselves! Otherwise... start a kickstarter for the owner to help pay for a better facade.

[1487]

Originally Posted by cafeguy

A bit classist right?

I hate vinyl as much as the next guy, but if thats what fit the budget, then thats what fit the budget. As for wigs and beauty supplies... who the fuck are all of you to hate on a store that obviously is used very often. Understand that hair shops like this are to some people what boutique whatever shops are to you.

Philly is a city for ALL people....even lower income, not fancy looking wig shops like these.

As for the vinyl...yeah, I wish the owner consulted regarding the material and design, but if this is the material he/she could afford and they thought it looked nice because they aren't aware of aesthetics...then be unhappy about the decision, but keep your vitriol to yourselves! Otherwise... start a kickstarter for the owner to help pay for a better facade.

Oh boy, can't wait to see the reaction to this post!

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by cafeguy

A bit classist right?

I hate vinyl as much as the next guy, but if thats what fit the budget, then thats what fit the budget. As for wigs and beauty supplies... who the fuck are all of you to hate on a store that obviously is used very often. Understand that hair shops like this are to some people what boutique whatever shops are to you.

Philly is a city for ALL people....even lower income, not fancy looking wig shops like these.

As for the vinyl...yeah, I wish the owner consulted regarding the material and design, but if this is the material he/she could afford and they thought it looked nice because they aren't aware of aesthetics...then be unhappy about the decision, but keep your vitriol to yourselves! Otherwise... start a kickstarter for the owner to help pay for a better facade.

I don't think people are being elitist in suggesting that the city adopt some standards that would benefit "aesthetically unaware" property owners. There's a public, as well as a private, dimension to property ownership. I'm as right-wing as they come and recognize that.

[1487]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

Initiation of this pointless argument was not unexpected.

As I have stated before, I believe that the City should have minimum design standards, particularly on important downtown streets, that restrict the use of certain low-end materials. This happens in many places. Note the absence of construction of this type on major thoroughfares in most first class cities. It is not accepted. In Philadelphia, our policy-makers are generally so visionless and, yes, lacking in intelligence, that they are incapable of contemplating, let alone instituting, a reasonable, practical policy in this regard.

I won't engage further in this unnecessary and uninteresting debate with Mr. Serial Devil's Advocate, though.

Obviously you are totally out of touch with the realities of what our elected leaders should be spending their time on. Your desire for some sort of central control over all design and facade issues is ridiculous and outside the jurisdiction of elected officials. It has nothing to do with them being less intelligent than you (shocking, I know) and everything to do with the fact that private building owners have quite a bit of latitude in deciding how their properties are to look. I mean the suggestion is so absurd it's hard to believe you are serious.

[1487]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

I don't think people are being elitist in suggesting that the city adopt some standards that would benefit "aesthetically unaware" property owners. There's a public, as well as a private, dimension to property ownership. I'm as right-wing as they come and recognize that.

First of all, how in the world would you mandate and enforce something like this? Secondly, the unintended consequence is that many owners would simply not upgrade their buildings if they could not or would not spend the money required to achieve some elitist vision of what buildings should look like in CC. Also, who is to say it would only be limited to CC? Why not regulate finishes citywide? Do you propose you fine building owners who maintain buildings that fall short of some subjective requirement for facade quality?

[1487]

Originally Posted by Londonee

If this building was built on Regent's street in London - it would be national news. It's that appalling and on one of the city's most important, and visible commercial thoroughfares. Not sure if you've heard, but London is a fairly major city?



This is nonsense, no one is suggesting that. Center City proper is only 2sq miles, having specific zoning overlays within this area was and should still be common practice - particularly on visible commercial corridors 1 block from Independence Hall. Sorry to break the news to you, but every major city does this.

a zoning overlay is not a set of rules that tell people how to reskin a building. Hopefully people understand that. But I could be wrong. You folks seem to be confused about what the government can and cannot mandate in terms of aesthetics.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by 1487

First of all, how in the world would you mandate and enforce something like this? Secondly, the unintended consequence is that many owners would simply not upgrade their buildings if they could not or would not spend the money required to achieve some elitist vision of what buildings should look like in CC. Also, who is to say it would only be limited to CC? Why not regulate finishes citywide? Do you propose you fine building owners who maintain buildings that fall short of some subjective requirement for facade quality?

Perhaps this medium gives the wrong impression, but you seem overly combative when people express opinions that you do not hold. That undermines the effect of some excellent observations that you make at other times. I don't think that it is crazy to recognize that plenty of municipalities have restrictions with respect to building materials (i.e. brick vs. wood - which Penn pushed from the beginning, thanks to the great London fire) and exterior renovations (think of any number of historic districts). This building may not have any historical value, but it wouldn't be crazy for the city to proscribe vinyl siding in certain commercial corridors. Private property is sacrosanct, but properties are not islands unto themselves. Beyond the policy discussion, its perfectly OK for people to say "that's ugly" when they see cheap siding and asymmetrical stock windows on a major thoroughfare, and to express concern for its impact on the area and property values. I don't have the time or inclination to get into a lengthy debate over this, so you may have the last word if you're so inclined.

[UrbanRevival]

I think some rationalizing is in order, here.

I completely agree that aesthetics and finishing materials are definitely important (at least at a basic level on what should be excluded), but even as far as Philadelphia's major/prestigious commercial corridors, I don't think this comes close to being the worst offender. For example, let's not forget the suburban-style Wendy's atrocity on Walnut street: https://goo.gl/maps/ANFRQrC9MmP2. Nevermind the many drive-in/auto-oriented uses on Broad Street. I'm sure everyone can think of far greater offenses on a grand scale of urban aesthetics.

I also agree that people over-estimate political bandwidth, and not to mention constitutionality, of trying to legislate and enforce something like building materials. I can't think of one large city that would not have at least 50 more pressing policy issues to consider. One can decry the lack of intelligence of Philadelphia's elected officials, but the fact of the matter is that an all-too-high poverty rate or violent crime issues are infinitely more important to policy-makers, as well as the general public. This design-obsessed forum frankly only represents a very small, niche subset of the population.

That being said, I think there is a middle ground here. While it is important for property owners to consider the context of their surroundings and respect the existing built environment, I don't think there should be an unintended consequence of precluding non-design-conscious but otherwise well-intentioned small business owners from having a place in Center City.

There are certainly programs in place already that provide grants for small business owners to improve their facades, which is a great start. It'd be great if something like that could be expanded. Additionally, the idea of crowdsourcing something like this is fantastic. I'm sure if there was a citizens group that approached businesses like this pragmatically to help them improve their facades in a much more context-sensitive way, they would be very receptive. Again, the property owner likely did not mean to cause offense, and would prefer to do something much better, and it is 99% likely this is purely a financially-based outcome.

Lambasting people for their lack of care, sensitivity or intelligence will not help the effort for better design. Why not come up with a workable, rational solution?

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by 1487

a zoning overlay is not a set of rules that tell people how to reskin a building. Hopefully people understand that. But I could be wrong. You folks seem to be confused about what the government can and cannot mandate in terms of aesthetics.

As an attorney, I think that I have a pretty good grasp of what authority government does and doesn't have (even if the government likes to push the boundaries). Let's say just say that it lies somewhere between no authority (which you suggest) and absolute authority (which nobody is arguing).

[wondertwinalpha]

It looks like the city issued a permit violation for the facade in mid-September.
It also looks like 708 & 710 Chestnut were combined into one lot at some point.

708 CHESTNUT ST PHILADELPHIA, PA

CASE NUMBER
502827
CASE GROUP
DISTRICT CENTER CITY
CASE LOCATION
N/A
DATE ADDED
September 17, 2015
DATE UPDATED
September 16, 2015
STATUS
OPEN
RESOLUTION DATE
N/A
PRIORITY
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
VIOLATIONS
VIOLATION CODE VIOLATION TYPE VIOLATION DATE STATUS LOCATION
A-203.1/1 UNAPPROVED MAT'L ETC September 16, 2015 Not Complied 710 Chestnut Street Facade
A-203.3/1 UNAPPROVED MAT'L OR ASSEM September 16, 2015 Not Complied Facade
A-302.10/2 PERMB- WORK NOT SAME AS PERMIT September 16, 2015 Not Complied Facade

http://www.phila.gov/data/Pages/defa...ils&eid=502827

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by wondertwinalpha

It looks like the city issued a permit violation for the facade in mid-September.
It also looks like 708 & 710 Chestnut were combined into one lot at some point.

708 CHESTNUT ST PHILADELPHIA, PA

CASE NUMBER
502827
CASE GROUP
DISTRICT CENTER CITY
CASE LOCATION
N/A
DATE ADDED
September 17, 2015
DATE UPDATED
September 16, 2015
STATUS
OPEN
RESOLUTION DATE
N/A
PRIORITY
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
VIOLATIONS
VIOLATION CODE VIOLATION TYPE VIOLATION DATE STATUS LOCATION
A-203.1/1 UNAPPROVED MAT'L ETC September 16, 2015 Not Complied 710 Chestnut Street Facade
A-203.3/1 UNAPPROVED MAT'L OR ASSEM September 16, 2015 Not Complied Facade
A-302.10/2 PERMB- WORK NOT SAME AS PERMIT September 16, 2015 Not Complied Facade

http://www.phila.gov/data/Pages/defa...ils&eid=502827

Go city! Hopefully we get a better facade because this is trash. I would settle for the typical brick facade if we can't get something more modern over this trash.

[PhiLaw]

Minimum architectural and aesthetic standards can be worked into a comprehensive plan for a city. An example would be the many suburban municipalities with "all-brick ordinances."

The one caveat is not to cut off the nose to spite the face. If it takes X amount of dollars to do a build/renovation/other, and a developer can sell for Y amount of dollars, caution must be taken not to compel building standards that don't align with the difference between X and Y. If X gets to high in proportion to Y due to minimum standards, supply will inevitably diminish. Sort if like the minimum wage.

An EXTREME example would be in poor countries. We all know that building codes and minimum standards prevent thousands of deaths caused by natural disasters. But poor countries learned not to implement these standards too quickly, because their citizens could not afford the higher prices. Same idea.

[br323206]

Let's also not forget that elected officials respond to constituents and to special interests. People that are passionate about getting design standards written into a zoning code (i.e. form based code) are a small minority and a quite voice. In contrast, every time you propose limiting what people can do with their property a large number of loud voices show up in opposition, including residents and building interests.

So not having design standards doesn't necessarily make elected officials dumb, it makes them responsive to their constituents and (unfortunately) moneyed interests (which line up in this case, but not always).

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by 1487

a zoning overlay is not a set of rules that tell people how to reskin a building. Hopefully people understand that. But I could be wrong. You folks seem to be confused about what the government can and cannot mandate in terms of aesthetics.

Ummmm...You may have heard of form-based zoning? That's exactly what it's supposed to do--regulate based on appearance instead of use:

http://formbasedcodes.org/definition

Originally Posted by summersm343

Go city! Hopefully we get a better facade because this is trash. I would settle for the typical brick facade if we can't get something more modern over this trash.

I was wondering about that -- generally these kinds of projects don't get approved in the first place if they're that fugly.

[Cro Burnham]

Double post

[loverboie]

Originally Posted by wondertwinalpha

It looks like the city issued a permit violation for the facade in mid-September.
It also looks like 708 & 710 Chestnut were combined into one lot at some point.

708 CHESTNUT ST PHILADELPHIA, PA

CASE NUMBER
502827
CASE GROUP
DISTRICT CENTER CITY
CASE LOCATION
N/A
DATE ADDED
September 17, 2015
DATE UPDATED
September 16, 2015
STATUS
OPEN
RESOLUTION DATE
N/A
PRIORITY
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
VIOLATIONS
VIOLATION CODE VIOLATION TYPE VIOLATION DATE STATUS LOCATION
A-203.1/1 UNAPPROVED MAT'L ETC September 16, 2015 Not Complied 710 Chestnut Street Facade
A-203.3/1 UNAPPROVED MAT'L OR ASSEM September 16, 2015 Not Complied Facade
A-302.10/2 PERMB- WORK NOT SAME AS PERMIT September 16, 2015 Not Complied Facade

http://www.phila.gov/data/Pages/defa...ils&eid=502827

Thank you for this, I am glad the city stepped up.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by cafeguy

A bit classist right?

I hate vinyl as much as the next guy, but if thats what fit the budget, then thats what fit the budget. As for wigs and beauty supplies... who the fuck are all of you to hate on a store that obviously is used very often. Understand that hair shops like this are to some people what boutique whatever shops are to you.

Philly is a city for ALL people....even lower income, not fancy looking wig shops like these.

As for the vinyl...yeah, I wish the owner consulted regarding the material and design, but if this is the material he/she could afford and they thought it looked nice because they aren't aware of aesthetics...then be unhappy about the decision, but keep your vitriol to yourselves! Otherwise... start a kickstarter for the owner to help pay for a better facade.

Classist . . .

You are a very cool dude, i know from all your many other great posts, but this post has more straw men than all of Nebraska.

The fact is this building is a travesty and shouldn't be where it is.

Thank god it appears the City actually does seem to have a say about this. We'll see how it plays out.

[relnahe]

I think some of you overreact and overreach when talking about some "Philly shrug" and the city not caring what gets built. There are guidelines against a lot of uses in center city so I knew this project would get violation papers and not given the proper permits.

[cjPhilly]

Calling that thing a "turd" would be mighty generous.

I'm willing to give building owners some leniency in terms of material choices for single-family homes, but something like this, on a major, downtown, commercial street is deserving of all the scorn that can be heaped on it.

I don't think the owners did themselves any favors either, in terms of location, considering they are half a block from the Center City District's offices. I certainly wouldn't be surprised in the least if they prodded the City into action on this one. And rightfully so!

[Tlphila]

http://planphilly.com/articles/2015/...ivine-lorraine

Great news!!