| It is our hope that this can become a place to discuss the comings and goings of our neighborhood; a forum to dialogue about the events and affairs that shape our common future and a platform for us to reaffirm our love for this community. Please note that this is an almost completely unmoderated message board. Read & post accordingly. Before creating a new thread we suggest that you first search this forum using the space below, and to the right. Please don't feed the trolls |
NorthernLiberties.org - A Community Bulletin Board - Northern Liberties, Philadelphia
|
||
| Return to Website | ||
| Viewing Page 2 of 3 (Total Posts: 82) |
| Author | Comment |
DubArchitect
IP: 76.99.37.143 Oct 17th, 2007 - 10:44 PM |
It is Erdy McHenry. I think people should come to the zoning meeting next week and see/decide for themselves. |
hi
IP: 71.185.91.125 Oct 18th, 2007 - 12:06 AM |
Seriously... just plow it over and stick a supermarket with a small stripmall. Maybe a Starbucks or a Dunkin' Donuts, and a Wawa...all with lots of free parking. |
DDR
IP: 72.244.68.97 Oct 18th, 2007 - 9:15 AM |
Thanks, Matt. It should be an interesting meeting. |
lutton
IP: 71.242.28.62 Oct 18th, 2007 - 10:22 AM |
>>Perfect spot for a Wegman's I'd love that too, but that's not Wegmans business plan. They do not build this deeply in the urban core. >>The water mains started breaking WAY before all the building began Um, huh? You might want to pull out the calendar again. The first major watermain break was after the major rain fall incident...Liberties Walk was well under way then (I know this because the second section - btwn American and Bodine - was fully dug out and foundations in place...they all filled up like a giant lake!), as were a number of smaller two and four house projects around the 3rd & Wildey vicinity--the exact location of the water main break... you do the math... |
lutton
IP: 71.242.28.62 Oct 18th, 2007 - 12:03 PM |
|
beer
IP: 66.173.161.10 Oct 18th, 2007 - 12:45 PM |
isn't that like a 45 floor building that is also no where near in scale |
A Man Called Flint
IP: 38.98.198.49 Oct 18th, 2007 - 1:11 PM |
No, it's 25 stories, but the graphic is out of scale with the rest of the building, around 1.5:1 off I'd guess. |
lutton
IP: 71.242.28.62 Oct 18th, 2007 - 1:57 PM |
I'm not claiming the ratio is perfect, but I did try to measure it against other building in the picture. Is Boone School 4 stories or 5? If 4, then the height scale is almost right on. If 5 then it's about 20% to big. (but not 50%) The fact that somebody thought it was almost twice that many stories should give pause... Even at 25 stories, this is going to be at least 5 to 6 times the height usually permited for houses in the city... |
cc
IP: 148.177.1.210 Oct 18th, 2007 - 2:38 PM |
What an ugly building! I can't imagine our city would allow a developer to come into MY neighborhood and build a brand new high rise on a plot of abandond trash-strewn land! They didn't even ask me about it! To make matters worse, they're going to build retail space under the residences so the Girard Corridor might actually become a shopping destination for the city. Can you imagine?! They want strangers to walk through MY neighborhood and spend their money in MY community. And in the process, 10 or 12 houses of long-time residents might get some water in their basements! This is just too much!! I'm going to circulate a petition immediately to keep that plot of land empty and useless.
|
lutton
IP: 71.242.28.62 Oct 18th, 2007 - 4:22 PM |
dude, nobody said that...now you're just making crap up, because you don't really have legitimate muck to rake in fact, you're proving a point...now that tower has sat on this chunk of land for years, floated three other proposals, and basically allowed a dirt pile to exist, keeping tax revenues down and new businesses away, we're the ones who must jump for joy at whatever they throw out this time? Sorry, Tower has had ample opportunity to offer proposals and develop that site. We don't have to be excited if they put lipstick on a pig. Listen, I haven't seen the proposal (hint, hint, Tower, maybe some PR would be a good idea?) but I know that a building that tall is out of character for that vicinity. I thought the previous proposal with more standard houses around the perimeter and a few mid-height towers was an intriguing concept. What happened to that one? |
Matt Ruben
IP: 76.99.31.139 Oct 18th, 2007 - 4:25 PM |
I think lutton's mockup is based on the building design for Waterfront Square, which IMHO is very unattractive, and I imagine not at all what Erdy McHenry will come up with. Lutton's also right that the height would be pretty jarring. Minimum floor-to-floor height is 10 feet, more usually 11, plus a taller first floor, plus roof mechanicals. So we're talking a 250-300 foot building. If you have 404 residences, you've got to figure an average of 700-800 square feet per unit, plus at least 10 percent common space. Divide that among 24 floors (figure no residences on the first floor), and you've got about 17 units per floor on average, or about 14,000 square feet per floor. That means the building has a 100ft x 140 ft footprint (or perhaps 200 x 70), which is pretty massive. Again referencing the Hoboken project, they're looking at something like 240 units per tower, with an average tower height of about 40 stories. These towers are tall and thin, although still pretty massive given their overall scale. Even factoring in a larger-size average unit, the Hoboken towers would each occupy only half the footprint of Tower's proposal. Finally, the previous proposal for this site - with three 18-story towers in the middle of the site - was warmly received, but the Hancock St. neighbors were naturally wary of being too close to overwhelming buildings. This new proposal is about 40 percent taller, but it could also be positioned farther away from existing residences because it'd be just one building rather than three. It should be an interesting meeting... Best, Matt |
lutton
IP: 71.242.28.62 Oct 18th, 2007 - 4:39 PM |
I did another mockup, this time overlaying the waterfront square image from the same source (live.com maps) as the Schmidts site image. So the scale should be pretty accurate. if anyone want to play with the images, here they are: Waterfront Square property Waterfront Square, building only Schmidt's site the composite, reduced 50% for display ![]() the composite, full size and here are the links to the map site: http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=qntbq88r4yfh&style=o&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=7120179&encType=1 and http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=qnv62p8r4jzw&style=o&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=7120079&encType=1 |
cc
IP: 148.177.1.210 Oct 18th, 2007 - 5:04 PM |
Lutton, I'm not looking to troll on here and stir things up for no reason. I simply cannot understand why people are so down about a project that could completely transform what is now more or less still a ghetto. And what exactly are the critics balking about? That 25 floors is too high? Why? Who cares? I just don't get it. I could understand this discussion if multiple developers were fighting over the plot and wanted to construct vastly different structures. For a long time it has been, and remains to this day, an empty plot of land. |
3rd&Brown
IP: 209.64.25.3 Oct 18th, 2007 - 6:30 PM |
To me, it comes down to design and ground level interaction with the street. If it is a well designed building (and Erdy McHenry tends to do good things in this regard) and say, right at 2nd & Girard with huge amounts of greenspace behind, it could be cool. I don't know. It could be a really nice gateway to the neighborhood. It could also be a travesty. We're not designers. I do get annoyed with the no no no crowd simply because of height. I'd rather live near a beautifully designed building which has a healthy amount of height than 400 poorly designed a crappy 35 foot tall houses with no open space. And Lord knows, there are plenty of crappy houses to go around in this 'hood. |
lutton
IP: 76.99.23.221 Oct 18th, 2007 - 7:12 PM |
>>Who cares? Obviously, we do. This neighborhood has spent a lot of time and money to study and research urban revitalization. We have numerous members of committees and boards dedicated to bringing the best possible developments to fruition here. (and we have supported a number of interesting and breathtaking proposals, BTW, so we're certainly not NIMBYs...) It's not some random crap shoot, and thinking along the lines of 'gee, that developer sure seems nice, I'm sure he has our best interests at heart' is bound to come back and bite us in the rump. I would say who cares about someone who's attitude is 'who cares?' |
cc
IP: 69.141.178.224 Oct 18th, 2007 - 7:29 PM |
So what do you propose? The neighborhood fight this project tooth and nail, holding out for the mythical "perfect project" that never comes? Maybe if NL/Fishtown is really lucky the self-taught and self-proclaimed urban experts will support a project by 2025. |
Mike
IP: 67.151.120.182 Oct 18th, 2007 - 7:40 PM |
Lutton you are missing cc's central point, and quite frankly your bloviating is tiresome. Your posts at first were tolerable but now you are acting as if you are the savior of NL and I don't remember there being a vote, besides LC is the savior.
|
Lara
IP: 72.94.103.239 Oct 18th, 2007 - 8:22 PM |
Great design can make an incredible contribution to the area. Erdy McHenry is an award winning firm and can pull this one off--they also recently moved their office to the old warehouse next to the dog park. Yes, a 25 story tower seems odd and difficult to imagine, but we should give the proposal a fair chance. As an architect/design professional I truly understand the time and effort involved in this process. It is only fair for us to be open-minded and rational. |
Matt Ruben
IP: 76.99.31.139 Oct 19th, 2007 - 1:08 AM |
3rd and Brown, I count only two brief comments that seem specifically negative on the issue of the height: "Uh, do we want something that huge/tall there?" (GG); and "Even at 25 stories, this is going to be at least 5 to 6 times the height usually permited for houses in the city..." (lutton). I don't think that constitutes a "no no no crowd." The majority of comments in this thread (including lutton's) concern parking, stormwater management, infrastructure, and market conditions (can they fill a 404-unit project, can they build/manage it well enough to sell out/rent it, etc.), as well as general discussion and inquiry. Lutton's mockups are indeed sobering. The Tower proposal almost certainly will include a much more attractive exterior design, and it may very well be located on or closer to the corner of 2nd and Girard. But however nicely it might articulate with the street level on the first floor, there's still (a) the absolute height in an area where nothing is currently taller than 73 feet and 99 percent of the buildings are 35 feet or shorter; and (b) the massing. It's one thing for a building to be really wide or really tall. But when it has both a lot of height and a large footprint, it can look as it does in lutton's image - totally out of scale, like a house for giants. I'm not saying that's how it will look, and I've no doubt there might be cool ways of dealing with the issue of massing - that's why everyone wants to see the proposal at the meeting. I just don't think raising questions about the basic parameters of a 25 story, 400+ unit building (particularly one that wouldn't be on Delaware Avenue and east of the I-95 overpass) makes one a naysayer. Best, Matt |
Michael
IP: 192.154.91.225 Oct 19th, 2007 - 8:09 AM |
OH MY GOD! How about everyone just shows up at the meeting to find out what is going on rather than imagining what will happen, posting mock-ups that are inaccurate, and complaining? Wait until we have some actual information. |
Da Douche!
IP: 70.110.202.76 Oct 19th, 2007 - 8:39 AM |
Yeah everybody, let's keep discussion of real estate business at the official forum only. This guy invoked the Lord's name and all. It's serious now. |
Michael
IP: 192.154.91.225 Oct 19th, 2007 - 8:51 AM |
Douche--tell the truth...are you really Gossip Girl? |
Europa109
IP: 66.92.53.2 Oct 19th, 2007 - 9:35 AM |
CC if you can't understand other peoples concerns about the height of this building, you are an idiot. |
DM
IP: 159.53.78.142 Oct 19th, 2007 - 10:29 AM |
I, for one, am very worried about my view of beautiful I-95 being blocked. Heavens to betsy. On another note, I blame the republicans. My favorite part of the illustrations was that they were titled Luttonsquare. That was hysterical. However, my biggest worry is that the building will fall over and if it's tall enough, it might land on my house. Is there buildingfallingover insurance I can purchase? D PS I will definitely attend the zoning meeting. I'll wear a nametag that says DM if everyone else on the board wears their moniker as well. Michael (yeah, like that's your real name) are you in? |
Build it and they will come?
IP: 168.220.102.116 Oct 19th, 2007 - 12:49 PM |
I agree with 3rd & Brown regarding well-designed, tall buildings vs. ill- conceived low-story traditional architecture. In fact, taller buildings can be more ecologically sound in many ways. A major concern is where Tower plans on finding so many residents to fill 400+ apts/condos, especially when there are so many new units being constucted throughout the neighborhood. In case no one else has noticed, Tower had begun construction on 3rd St. and Orianna St. and now that construction is grown over with weeds. I wouldn't call that a good sign of things to come. Even C.C. supports the fact Phila. is losing population, not gaining, and I don't believe that it's due to lack of suitable housing for professionals. Also, again, I share Lutton's concern regarding lack of planning for run-off and adequate upgrades in infrastructure, especially if Tower does manage to fill 400+ units. |
Dylan
IP: 64.80.201.133 Oct 19th, 2007 - 12:52 PM |
I'm not sure if this is a fair height comparison, but here is the tall building (River-something) at 4th & Washington. |
Mark
IP: 71.187.74.151 Oct 20th, 2007 - 7:15 AM |
"This neighborhood has spent a lot of time and money to study and research urban revitalization" This must be why Northern Liberties keeps shoving retail onto every new project on every street but leaves 2ND Street crumbling, it's some brilliant master plan. |
Matt Ruben
IP: 76.99.31.139 Oct 20th, 2007 - 10:02 AM |
Second Street has been really tough to get over the hump in terms of filling in all those empty lots and vacant storefronts. Compared to about five years ago, though, it's made tremendous progress. Azure, Cescaphe, North Bowl, Conspiracy, Third Federal, Rustica, The Foodery, Cacia's, Rita's, P.A.D., Elixir, Ironworks II, Nationwide Insurance, Closet Fever, and many other businesses have opened in formerly abandoned or underused storefronts since 2001. The NLNA 's Neighborhood Plan (2005) identifies 2nd St. as the major commercial corridor. That means the community will discourage first-floor residential uses on the street, and will tolerate and encourage commercial uses that might be considered disruptive in other, more residential areas of the neighborhood. But a plan can only say what the vision is. Private landowners, investors, and businesspeople have to buy those lots and use those storefronts. And some of the run-down or empty lots on 2nd between Poplar and Green were bought by developers, who went to the NLNA for zoning approval, but either never built their projects, or promptly put the newly zoned land on the market to flip it for a profit. the NE corner of 2nd and Brown is a prime example - it sat with a for-sale sign for years, then it was demolished and has been sitting, empty, with another for-sale sign. As for putting commercial elsewhere, if you go west of 2nd and north of Brown, it's generally not easy to get zoning approval for new commercial uses. Almanac Market at 4th and Poplar, for example, was the second commercial use proposed for that corner. Neighbors were sharply divided over the prior proposed use, a restaurant, and that proposal never came to be. The NLNA's plan also says that we should encourage non-retail commercial uses whenever appropriate, to provide services (professional offices and such), and to allow for small-scale artisan and industrial uses. The bigger issue is that it's really tough for neighborhoods to build up their commercial corridors because so much of the profit has been in residential the past several years. Without better city leadership and some incentives, it's going to continue being tough. But I really think we're getting there, albeit slower than anyone would like. Best, Matt |
Nick
IP: 151.201.147.73 Oct 20th, 2007 - 10:59 AM |
I'd like to attend the meeting on Tuesday. Where is the NLNA office located? |
4th
IP: 76.98.255.52 Oct 20th, 2007 - 11:43 AM |
i dont get it, its the city right? stuff is going to build up right? what do you people want there? why dont you move to the suburbs? i guess i just dont understand |
Matt Ruben
IP: 76.99.31.139 Oct 20th, 2007 - 1:13 PM |
Nick - the office is at 733 N. 2nd St., a blue storefront on the east side of 2nd just south of Brown. 4th - most people in the neighborhood, and on these boards, are in favor of new development. Within that consensus, there tend to be disagreements about height, density, and use/"culture." It's interesting, because whenever a large, tall project comes up, lots of people (including me) raise concerns, but if it's a well-designed project in an appropriate location, the community typically ends up supporting the concept. It seems there's also less hesitation about height when it concerns buildings along Delaware Ave. When you get on the west side of I-95, people get more concerned about how tall buildings will (or won't) fit into the existing blocks. Some of it is aesthetics, but some of it is also about concrete everyday life - light and shadow issues, rowhouse blocks versus large numbers of apartments (or sublet condos) with relatively transient residents - a midtown Manhattan feel versus a Village or Brooklyn feel. I realize I'm using crude analogies here, but my point is that this isn't about people preferring suburban-style development. It's about what kind of urban development people want. Along those lines, I wish people would give a little more credit to folks like lutton who raise concerns about height - because tall, modern buildings with first-floor commercial and lots of parking can potentially be much less urban-looking and urban-functioning than a series low buildings arrayed in a grid with concealed parking and such. It's a lot like the battle between Le Corbusier and Jane Jacobs in mid-20th Century NYC. Le Corbusier exalted Wall Street and Midtown as the ideal "Cartesian" city on a grid and derided the Village as an outdated mess of "low brick buildings" in between. Jane Jacobs, by contrast, fought to preserve the character of Greenwich Village and in so doing inspired at least two generations of urban planners and architects. I'll bet if you asked most Philly architects, including ones who've designed high-rises in NL, they'd say they've been influenced at least a little by Jane Jacobs. Finally, FWIW, the concern about height is something I've seen expressed in neighborhoods throughout the city, including Fairmount, Society Hill, Queen Village, Wash West, and Hawthorne. Also FWIW, Northern Liberties is often praised - and, from other quarters, criticized - for being one of the most open-minded neighborhoods when it comes to height and modern architecture. Best, Matt |
JM
IP: 128.91.136.54 Oct 23rd, 2007 - 8:50 AM |
Tonight: Tower Investments Schmidt's Presentation Tuesday, October 23, 2007 7:00 - NLNA Office |
lutton
IP: 71.242.2.124 Oct 23rd, 2007 - 9:24 AM |
>>My favorite part of the illustrations was that they were titled Luttonsquare. That was hysterical. I don't get your issue...that's the name I use for my website. This is on the side of my house, although no one seems to know it's origin or meaning: ![]() There is a city/village/town of Lutton in England, and so many places around here are named after English towns (Kensington, Camden, Cheltenham, etc) so maybe ..? |
Frank the Tank
IP: 12.10.219.37 Oct 23rd, 2007 - 8:45 PM |
Bump.... I trust one of the posters here will be reporting in when they return from tonights meeting? |
DubArchitect
IP: 76.99.37.143 Oct 23rd, 2007 - 11:24 PM |
The meeting went well I thought, and had a great turn out from neighbors. Tower presented a scheme which is a one story retail center concept with a central surface parking lot, a 400+ parking garage (already approved through zoning with space for a grocery store), and a 28 story residential tower. The developer noted his intention to bring in national tenants. There was a lot of constructive criticism after the presentation and I feel the resolution that was passed and will be given to Tower is a good one. I hope that they come back with a modified scheme that takes the neighbors concerns more into consideration. I can go further into the details of how this scheme lays out, and where the committee felt its strengths and shortcomings lie. I wanted to post this general overview first to get the waters churning again. |