PHILADELPHIA | 626 N. Deleware Avenue | 198 FT | 16 FLOORS

[mcgrath618]

Title: 626 N. Deleware Avenue
Project: Residential, Car Showroom
Architect: Cosica Moos
Developer: None
Location: 600 Block of North Deleware Ave
District: North Philadelphia
Neighborhood: The Riverfront
Floors: 16 floors
Height: 198 feet

Just barely enough for a skyscraper!




http://www.phila.gov/CityPlanning/pr...ON_reduced.pdf
I had a dyslexia moment could a mod please fix the spelling of "Delaware" in the title

[summersm343]

Love this project! Thank you for creating a thread! Well done

[wanderer34]

It's modern, but it's unimpressive. Especially considering that the city is growing...

[Nova08]

Originally Posted by wanderer34

It's modern, but it's unimpressive. Especially considering that the city is growing...

Can we consider where this is going. I mean this is the current landscape

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9600...7i13312!8i6656

[Redddog]

Originally Posted by Nova08

Can we consider where this is going. I mean this is the current landscape

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9600...7i13312!8i6656

Noooooo! Not my gas station chicken! Nooooooo.......

[McBane]

Originally Posted by wanderer34

It's modern, but it's unimpressive. Especially considering that the city is growing...

Huh? How does population growth have anything to do with a building's design?

[Stg4100]

Originally Posted by Redddog

Noooooo! Not my gas station chicken! Nooooooo.......

Samw thing I thought. I going to miss late night chicken.

[phishtown]

Originally Posted by Stg4100

Samw thing I thought. I going to miss late night chicken.

Actually in the overhead renders it looks like this will be behind the gas station.

[Castle]

Originally Posted by McBane

Huh? How does population growth have anything to do with a building's design?

Dude, at least give him credit for not crying about the unbuilt ACC in one of his posts.

[mcgrath618]

CDR had some things to say:
http://www.phila.gov/CityPlanning/pr...%20Reviews.pdf
Mostly, they want the building shorter and with a separate cafe rather than a cafe built into the car showroom.

[Scottydont]

This project is planning on having 149 parking spots in the structure. The requirement is 15....I dont understand why they're recommending less parking

[City Wide]

Originally Posted by Scottydont

This project is planning on having 149 parking spots in the structure. The requirement is 15....I dont understand why they're recommending less parking

Where do you see that request? The RCO would like more of the available parking spots open to the public and/or to tenants, and a bunch of noise about the café, and the usual desire that the developer use high grade materials, but I didn't see what you are referring to.

[El Duderino]

Originally Posted by Scottydont

This project is planning on having 149 parking spots in the structure. The requirement is 15....I dont understand why they're recommending less parking

That feedback was for the 5th and Bainbridge project, not this one.

[Nova08]

Originally Posted by City Wide

Where do you see that request? The RCO would like more of the available parking spots open to the public and/or to tenants, and a bunch of noise about the café, and the usual desire that the developer use high grade materials, but I didn't see what you are referring to.

Originally Posted by El Duderino

That feedback was for the 5th and Bainbridge project, not this one.

I think it was this comment that infers fewer parking spaces

The RCO representative recommended removing a level of parking to get the project closer to the allowed maximum height

[McBane]

Originally Posted by mcgrath618

CDR had some things to say:
http://www.phila.gov/CityPlanning/pr...%20Reviews.pdf
Mostly, they want the building shorter and with a separate cafe rather than a cafe built into the car showroom.

I feel like a broken record but....with all the red tape and committee reviews that developers must go thru, is there not a single city representative looking at these projects thru an economic lens? You know, someone who might say, "Hey I know this exceeds FAR coverage and height requirements but all the extra apartments/condos will net the city $xyz in additional income a year." For a city with as many fiscal problems as Philadelphia has, it might be wise to start to consider the cost of constantly requesting developers build less units. Just sayin.

[cjPhilly]

The cafe comments are bit silly. I'm all for building a high-quality, urban public realm, but you also have to face reality. This thing is sandwiched between a gas station and a bus parking lot/maintenance facility. Hopefully this won't always be the case, but a LOT more needs to happen in this area before a single coffee shop starts to make that much of a difference.

[City Wide]

Originally Posted by McBane

I feel like a broken record but....with all the red tape and committee reviews that developers must go thru, is there not a single city representative looking at these projects thru an economic lens? You know, someone who might say, "Hey I know this exceeds FAR coverage and height requirements but all the extra apartments/condos will net the city $xyz in additional income a year." For a city with as many fiscal problems as Philadelphia has, it might be wise to start to consider the cost of constantly requesting developers build less units. Just sayin.

Somewhat related, when a project needs zoning variances and/or other special allowances from L&I or City council I wish that part of the discussions as to why those requests should be granted very much included the question 'what does the public get out of granting those requests?' McBane puts it in terms of additional income for the City but I'd like to see more trade offs, like ok Mr. developer you want to build a 20 story apartment building where the code only allows to build a 10 story building, how many of those additional units are you willing to make available to tenants on limited income, or how much money or will you be willing to contribute to the local public school/park/rec center/etc.?
If the City controls to some degree who can build what, and where, then granting permission to build outside of those established limits should be worth something and not be 'free'. I think that the design of the building should be considered as part of those negotiations.

[iheartphilly]

^
Doesn't the city have affordable housing? I mean developers can cater to various buyers. Like 500 Walnut, that's all luxury. Do we want to throw in for those with limited income, like they do with the proposed "The Laurel @Rittenhouse Square" and have a "poor door" for those tenants. I say if variances are need, then the benefit should be for all not just the limited income folks that are renting or buying. Let economics dictate how and what should be built. Developers take all the risk don't they?

[El Duderino]

Originally Posted by City Wide

Somewhat related, when a project needs zoning variances and/or other special allowances from L&I or City council I wish that part of the discussions as to why those requests should be granted very much included the question 'what does the public get out of granting those requests?' McBane puts it in terms of additional income for the City but I'd like to see more trade offs, like ok Mr. developer you want to build a 20 story apartment building where the code only allows to build a 10 story building, how many of those additional units are you willing to make available to tenants on limited income, or how much money or will you be willing to contribute to the local public school/park/rec center/etc.?
If the City controls to some degree who can build what, and where, then granting permission to build outside of those established limits should be worth something and not be 'free'. I think that the design of the building should be considered as part of those negotiations.

I believe that is called a "bribe".

In all seriousness, those things you described are built into the zoning code - this particular project is already claiming height allowances for affordable units and for a green roof, yet they are still looking for additional height beyond that. I think it sets a pretty dangerous precedent if we allow developers to just clearly pay out to ANY group (even if it's a "good" cause) in return for the ability to do what they want beyond what is permitted.

[City Wide]

Originally Posted by El Duderino

I believe that is called a "bribe".

In all seriousness, those things you described are built into the zoning code - this particular project is already claiming height allowances for affordable units and for a green roof, yet they are still looking for additional height beyond that. I think it sets a pretty dangerous precedent if we allow developers to just clearly pay out to ANY group (even if it's a "good" cause) in return for the ability to do what they want beyond what is permitted.

Granted any official 'exchange' could be ripe for problems, but presently the unofficial exchange happens (bribes, personal favors, etc.) and the City doesn't directly benefit and every now and then people go to jail. It just seems to me that more and more projects aren't being built 'by right', and as long as the City is handing out candy I'd like the City to get something back, directly.

This project wants, amount other things as you say, permission to cover the site 100% where code say less, like 85% or 90%. Personally I could care less, but if the City approves that 100% coverage unless there's some cost involved for the developer the next project down the street is going to rightfully want the same deal, which really is a great deal; the City is giving away something for nothing.

Isn't this the situation that is presently playing itself out with 200 Race St.? I believe The Bridge development right across the street from what's being proposed at 200 Race, received beyond any bonus for green roofs and LEED building practices, permission to build more units and taller then allowed. Now how can the City reasonably say no to a similar request for a building 60' away?

PMC built that complex down near the Delaware River and received a bonus for including a certain number of limited income apartments, then turned around and found a method where they could legally buy their way out of that requirement. So, in other words the bonus they received had a monetary value, why not just make that policy both more expensive and transparent and cover more items?