Just watched the video of the latest Schmidt's Site proposal to the NLNA. Looks great except I didn't really see any images of a 26 story building in the graphic presentation. Other than that, this looks sweet!

Here's the page in case my HTML efforts below fail...

http://www.planphilly.com/node/3180

http://www.planphilly.com/node/3180

They probably didn't show any images of the proposed 26 story tower because they realize how insanely out of context it will look with everything else in the area.

Yes. The brown field is much more within the context of the neighborhood.

There are better ways to remediate a brownfield and make it flourish within the context of the neighborhood other than plopping 16 and 26 story towers on the site.

I like towers. They're tall. They punctuate the landscape. But they work best in groups. I just hope that, if this is a fait accompli, Tower doesn't come up with a crap design.

That said, 26 stories is awfully high. I am sitting in my office on the 21st floor in CC trying to imagine the building in NL. I am not necessarily against it, just trying to imagine how it would make sense aesthetically.

I do like the fact that we, as neighbors, have the some input into any new development in our neighborhood. I think that should continue.

However, we all need to realize that we are not the ones taking the financial risk on this project. The developer is the one that will take the financial risk and pay architects and builders millions of dollars to complete the project. If the project somehow fails, the NLNA is not going to reimburse the developer for the losses.

So we need to keep in mind that we have input into the project, but we don't own the project. When you don't have any financial stake in a project, it's very easy to demand a building that meets your exact specifications.

When you pick out the car that is going to be sitting in your driveway, do you host a series of meetings with your neighbors to make sure it's the right car for the neighborhood? No, because your buying the car with YOUR money and not your neighbors' money!That's why.

I'm not here to defend Tower. I'm just a homeowner who expects to be here for a very long time and I'm tired of looking at a brown field outside my window. This project will forever be at a stalemate if we, as neighbors, continue to act as if we have ownership of the project. We don't. Let 'em build.

I agree VC. I'd just like to see a realistic rendering with a true representation of what 26 stories would look like. It's 2008. There's no reason they shouldn't be able to show a 3D rendering of what that square block would look like with two huge buildings on it.

For those that oppose high-rise development completely, remember that once you get an extra 1,000 units(between this and other projects) in the area, that's when you get all those things like Borders and Whole Foods that we'd sure like to have. Girard Avenue is tailor-made for this type of project. Soon we'll all be taking the trolley to the casino!!!!

Oh no, let the Frank bashing begin. lol. I can see the need for a large tower for a return on the money, its either that or covering every square inch with housing and pavement. The open space will be a nice addition to this end of the neighborhood.

Frank brings up a very important point about critical mass. Retailers like Whole Foods or Borders will be far more concerned with population density than the architecture. A 26 story tower may not be as pleasing to the eye as some may like, but it will help ensure the critical mass that retailers will need to be successful.

Look at it this way, what would be more pleasing to the eye - a 26 story tower in a vibrant space, or an 8 story tower in a space surrounded by boarded up stores that went out of business?

Retail is a tough business. A large store needs to do a ton a volume just to be moderately successful.

VC,

It's not just the developer's money, it's taxpayers' money too. Blatstein and Tower Investments have gotten millions of our money in tax incentives.

So we can, and should, have a say in what happenz on that site.

There's a whole range of development that can be designed between an empty brownfield and a 26 story tower. It just takes a little imagination. . .

Not to be too picky here, but you can't take the trolley to get near the casino site.

Yes, Tower will benefit from the tax incentives and we should definitely have some input because of the that. The input up to this point has helped produce some very good ideas for that space. However, I think delaying this project any further will be counter-productive. It's impossible to achieve a unanimous agreement on something like this. There's no way any one design will completely satisfy everyone - every neighbor, the developer, retailers, etc. And even though we have contributed financially as taxpayers, let's face it, we as individuals aren't assuming any real financial risk in the project. No matter how you slice it, Tower is the one taking the big risk and they should be able to move ahead.

Also consider that we may push Tower to a point where it becomes pointless for them to continue pursuing the project. There in the business of making money. They lose money every day that the lot remains empty. If I were Blatstein, I would say "screw it", cut my losses, sell the lot and move on to a project that makes money.

Then we would start all over again with another developer and ten years from now, after most of the people who originally opposed the project have moved to the suburbs, the rest of us will still be staring at a brown field because someone objected to the flowers that were going to be planted, or the curtains that were picked out, or the font for the street sign, or the number of curves in the walkway,etc, etc.

VC, do the other point of view some credit and avoid characterizing their objections to Schmidt's site development as gas-faces to things like flowers and planters and minor architectural details. It does your argument disservice, implying a level of contempt and animosity on your part to opposing views despite your claims to the otherwise in the actual meat of your argument.

That said, I'm a surprised the ball's taken so long to get rolling on the Schmidt's site too, though I wouldn't blame the NLNA entirely. It seems part of the problem is when Tower returns with a new presentation, small modifications to the plan are made but the major objections the NLNA made are ignored or even exacerbated.

Most importantly, keep in mind the only "authority" the neighborhood has over Tower's use of the Schmidt's site comes from backing Tower's petition for variances against zoning codes. That is, if Tower's planned use for the site was in complete compliance with city zoning codes, Tower could build and the neighborhood could do nothing. It's only in instances wherein a developer wants to go against zoning codes that the neighborhood can support or not back a petition. Even then, the city's zoning board takes such neighborhood input "under consideration."

Most people think the city's zoning codes need to be revised; but that's not to say all zoning codes should be leveled and developers can do whatever they want. I'd say you're laying too much of the blame in this matter on your neighbors. If you stick to the persuasive aspect of your argument, you could build up enough of a mass of neighbors to challenge the current general NLNA consensus. However, I don't think a lot of the "older" residents here will neccesarily buy the "something's gotta go in there, however imperfect" gist of your argument.

Keep in mind, while Tower has the largest land ownership stake in NL (and from what I understand that is as much a result of politics as it is the "free market"), their track record in NL has been problematic. The movie theatre and de facto privatized Temple dorm aside, NL is Blatstein's first foray into urban development. Prior to his NL projects, his experience was confined to suburban strip malls. He only constructed those malls too. Management was outsourced/leased to other parties. In Philadelphia, the reputed instability/turnover issues at Liberties Walk and the frequent complaints about Tower's residential management should give neighbors pause when considering Tower's future endeavors.

I will acknowledge that Blatstein and Tower have been demonized to a degree that makes even-tempered discussion of their projects problematic.

Ok, the remark about the flowers and curtains was a little extreme, I admit.

I've never lived in a Tower property, but I know from reading this board, they're reputation is not stellar. But we don't have the luxury of waiting around for a master urban developer to surface and buy the land. At least Tower has a significant stake in the neighborhood. There's a very strong incentive for them to ensure the project is successful.

That 25 story building will block some sunlight from coming into my home. But I'm willing to deal with that because the current proposal for the Schmidt's site will considerably improve quality of life and long term property value for me and many others. We all need to make some concessions.

My plan B is to start a campaign to move Sugarhouse to 2nd & Girard. (Just kidding)

I can see it now...

"Make a night of it at the Sugarhouse Casino! It's just a quick El or trolley ride from West Philly or Kensington. Sugarhouse will even reimburse your $2 SEPTA fare. Gamble the night away at one of our 2000 slot machines. After you've won a fortune, have breakfast and watch the sun come up from our rooftop bar/restaurant. It's 10 stories high and eco-friendly!"

"Sugarhouse Casino...where all your dreams come true. Located at 2nd & Girard in beautiful Northern Liberties. "

Keep in mind Bart only paid something like $6M for that site. Not a bad deal for a ginormous lot in one of the highest end neighborhoods in the city.

They'll get something worked out soon. The only major issue NLNA should have with this current plan is the 26 stories and it concerns me that Tower has not budged on that level since the last proposal, but whatever. They've got to be relatively close.

very interesting, thanks for that link!

i have very mixed views on development in this area. my mother came in to town today to see my house and neighborhood for the first time, and (as any opinionated italian mother would) offered her two cents good and bad. we walked down george, through liberties walk, and down 2nd street to the spring garden el. some vietnamese food and hot chocolate later, we walked down girard from the el back to my place on randolph.

her immediate comments were surrounding the amount of litter around the girard el station (it was particularly bad today), and concern about the crime in the neighborhood (stemming from incidents i've told her about including the what i witnessed this morning, and being followed on girard back in december). as a business owner herself, she did comment it's the exact environment she looks for in a potential area for a new shop she's looking to open - few to no chains, a unique neighborhood flavor, friendly neighbors and a nice niche the shop could fill by having nearby people with disposable income (she does something similar to what the new place, city planter does, with a focus on exotic plants and herb gardens and terrarium gardens and other indoor things too). while i think a small residential boost and a tad more shopping notoriety might be a big help to some of the current shopkeepers here, i wouldn't want development to run rampant to the point it tips the delicate balance and rather than helping local businesses thrive, it does the exact opposite by making the area appealing to chain stores. i think the bad element (the crime, the trash) might help in keeping this in check by giving the neighborhood that wild west look that chain stores don't want. before anyone gets all nl-message-boardey on me, one: i think this is a city and crimes are going to happen and two: i can't personally see where a big development like the proposed is going to change anything crimewise for the better - so might as well use that situation to our advantage, which i would consider is to help keep chain stores out and to keep our neighborhood unique.

in a nutshell i am pretty much happy with the way things are which is why i moved here. on the other hand who am i to wish others not move here? can anyone truly predict the effects of a development like this in a neighborhood like ours in times like these? do i want to be an old NIMBY hag? not really, so i guess i'll just leave it at "whatever." if i don't like it, i can always move, right? thanks for letting me get that out of my system.

Retail in this neighborhood is tough.

By and large, there are not enough residents to support the kind of retail we want, and of the retail we have, there is not a lot of variety.

Most shopowners here would tell you the going is not good. Rents have risen too quickly and are not justified given the foot traffic (which is minimal compared to other neighborhood retail strips in the city). Unfortunately, these higher-than-justified rents keep new stakeholders from taking the plunge.

I don't know what the answer is, but it is evident that we need more people in the neighborhood to help our local businesses succeed.

Couple of quick items:

- Tower actually paid less than $6M for the site. The cost - at sheriff's sale in 2000 - was $1.8 million. Bart has actually said more than once that he was surprised no one else bid, and had been prepared to pay quite a bit more for the property.

- The $1.8M was not the price for the 9 acre Schmidt's site currently under proposal for development. That price was for the entire 14 acre site, which also includes the whole Hancock Square development. That works out to less than $3 a square foot. Today vacant land in NL is selling for about $70-$100 a square foot.

- In addition to the $1.8M, Tower has spend several million dollars on environmental remediation. I don't know the exact amount, but I think the figure is somewhere around $5M.

- On another note, 3rd + Brown is right - we don't yet have the population density to support all the retail (and professional/medical offices and such) we want. That's a main reason why, despite my concerns about height and scale, I've personally been inclined to support some of the larger Delaware Ave (non-river side) proposals; they would put thousands of new residents within a block or so of our 2nd St./Liberties Walk commercial corridor. For the time being, I think the best way to nurture our businesses is for developers to keep building mixed-use projects, and to make their money on the residential rents while (as much as possible) keeping the commercial rents low. It would also be good if Tower - and any other landlord with a large number of commercial tenants - would get a little more aggressive and systematic about marketing their commercial tenants to potential consumers around the city and region. (NLNA has tried to do some of this, and the just-formed NL Biz Owners Association hopefully will make an impact in this area as well in the coming months.)

Best,
Matt

In the real estate section of sundays paper there was a piece of land in Northern Liberties for sale that is already approved for a 32 story tower. I believe it is closer to Spring Garden and 3rd. We may end up with bookends.

Walked by today like I do almost everyday and saw little orange construction flags on the ground. Does anybody have any inside information .. are they going to start building?

Schmidt's is scheduled for a presentation at the Planning Commission this coming week. Will there be another zoning committee meeting before they present to Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA)?

Do we, as neighbors get to see the traffic report that was not delivered at the last zoning committee meeting? Can that be posted to this forum so neighbors can see the report?

Also, we neighbors never were informed of the location, on the Schmiidt's site, where they were caught burying the transformers with PCB oil, on-site, in the AM hours. This was a serious incident. Matt Rubin requested this info at several of the environmental meetings. Anyone have any info?

Can this information be shared with the community?

They are going before the planning commision today with their plans, so it's going to be a while before any actually construction gets started.