From the NLNA email blast:

###################################

There will be three days of NLNA Zoning Committee Meetings this month. The first is scheduled for Tuesday, October 23rd. This is a separate meeting just for the Schmidt’s Site at the NLNA Office. See the description below – more information to follow on the other days.



NLNA Zoning Committee is chaired by NLNA Board member Larry Freedman and consists of 15 volunteers. The committee hears applications for zoning variance - when a resident, builder or developer wishes to build a project not allowed by the existing zoning of the property in question (e.g. building homes on industrial- zoned land). The committee passes motions, which are then approved by the NLNA Board and sent to the City Zoning Board of Adjustment as recommendations.



As always, all are welcome to attend and participate.



AGENDA



Tower Investments - Schmidt's Presentation: Tuesday, October 23, 2007

- 7:00 - NLNA Office



Zoned ASC (Area Shopping Center) - The area bordered by Girard Ave, 2nd St. & Germantown Ave.



Proposal for:



118,000 sq/ft retail

404 residential units (25 story building)

312 surface parking spaces (retail)

includes proposed 846 space parking garage (also used by Piazza Project)

is this the long standing proposal or some new iteration?

25 stories with 404 units...an average of 16 units per floor, but since some floors (ground level) will not have residences, the actual density on each residential floor will likely be higher.

With all the problems of other Tower sites, I honestly don't trust them to do this right. Some other developers? Perhaps. But Tower?

Let me put it this way: would you live in a tower development?

I really, really don't like the sound of 312 surface parking spaces. Yuck. Buildings fine, parking garage fine... an asphalt lot, ala suburbs, NASTY.

If I'm understanding this correctly, a 25 story building seems to be just like those 2 skyscraping towers on Delaware ave (Waterfront Square).

http://waterfrontsquare.com/peninsula_elevation.html

Uh, do we want something that huge/tall there?

I will definitely be attending this meeting. I think Tower really should justify the need for a 25ft. story building in this neighborhood at this point. Where will people be coming from to fill all those units? Aren't they shooting themselves in the foot by flooding the market with so many apts. to fill?
The population in Philly is not growing and new apts. & condos are springing up all over the city.
I do think a parking garage for their tenants/retail customers plus available monthly parking for non-tenants would be a wise move.

That should be an interesting meeting. I'd just like to see a cement truck on that site at some point in the next 45 years. See you next Tuesday!

That's about 47,000 sq ft in parking spaces, not even including the lanes to get around the lot.

So let's say 50,000 sq ft of parking. According to this wikipedia article on rainwater collection a half-inch rain fall would generate over 15,000 gallons or stormwater runoff!

The last time this project was presented, it was for 3 smaller, yet tall buildings and parking that was partially below grade (i.e. 1 level but slightly sunken with a green roof above). The project looked more like Society Hill Towers than anything else; not great, not terrible. I'd like to see something a bit more urban, with the buildings on the street front (2nd or Germantown). If the parking were below grade like presented previously, that would be a postive.

I think it's safe to assume most residents will be happy to see that brownfield on 2nd St. gone; however Tower has proved they are famous for bait and switch.
As to lutton's concern, why aren't these builders held more accountable for upgrading infrastructure by the City when they are changing the entire landscape of the neighborhood?w

Tower is notorious, but I do think the newest building on 2nd St is attractive (if you like that type of architecture) and was built pretty much to the exact specs as presented to the neighborhood. If anything, Tower has had a sort of 2 steps forward 1 step back type track record with the 'hood.

Tower owns this site now, right? So it can't just go to another developer. That said, I'm wondering whether it may be worthwhile convincing Tower to use one of it's sites as an innovative parking facility.

A lot, if not all, of Tower's rental properties have a turnover problem. A lot of that turnover still stays in NL, with their cars. NL has a parking problem (both availability as well as vehicle security). Maybe someone with experience in large scale property management could speak up, but I got a hunch that quality management of a secure parking facility may actually be cheaper than managing any of their relatively unsecure, allegedly ill maintained residential projects. I mean was Blatstein in the Mall business before he got swept away with his NorLibs vision? Assuming he was a strip maller, one may assume the guy's got people who have half a clue about developing a parking facility, instead of the revolving door of residential managers burnt out by limited management resources Tower residents are accustomed to.

I have no idea how these thoughts could play out at a zoning meeting, but just putting it out there.

They do have plans for a garage for residents and customers of their retail, to be built at Germantown and Allen, I believe. I think they don't want to put the cart before the horse, however. I think they want to build more residential and retail before the garage, and not the other way around.

I do think that location for a garage would only make sense once that area is built up a bit more. Putting it there now would be very financially difficult, I would think, as parking isn't that bad up there and I assume his residents would rather park out front and walk upstairs than park a block away. That block distance will be less of a disincentive once there is more going on and parking is a bit harder.

Anyone have revised sketches or pdfs for this most recent proposal?

I think we can take it as a given that there will be a considerable number of residences built on that site.

The question would be in what form and how many units.

Maybe I've been out of the loop, but I don't remember a proposal being presented before now for a 25 story building. Also, doesn't it need to be considered that the first proposals were submitted during an unprecedented housing boom? Given that the housing market is "stagnant", how can it be justified to build 400+ new units? I think it's fine for apts. and condos to be built there, but filling that many units seems really unrealistic.

>>why aren't these builders held more accountable for upgrading infrastructure by the City when they are changing the entire landscape of the neighborhood?w



That's the easy answer.

But more likely there are accommodations to 'handle' storm runoff. The green-roofed parking garage is/was one. Other systems can also be implemented.

I think Tim McDonald of Onion Flats would be the one to ask about the hows and whys; he's planned some stormwater capturing for the stables project...

I think the issue with a parking lot is how the plans moderate the flow of water into the existing infrastructure.

There are plans in other areas of the city to capture large amounts of quickly spawned stormwater, and to allow it to flow into the existing infrastructure slowly, so that it doesn't overwhelm the system (or backflow raw sewage into the stormwater systems/streams and rivers...yuk!)

>>an innovative parking facility.

Yes, robotic parking!!!

http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/06/robotic-parking-garage-in-action/

Lutton...the storm water runoff you're referring too...your number is in relation to all of those spots being laid out flat, and not as a stacked garage, correct? (I'm the furthest thing from an engineer or mathematician).

I'm sure you've seen most, but there are many solutions to that kind of run-off (even just from the top floor). Rainwater re-capture could be a great idea, especially if some sort of community garden or scenery was incorporated into any new Tower projects there, and watering them wouldn't be an issue at all. Also, it's a great source for any non-potable water--toilets, fountains, sidewalk cleanings, etc.

Also, they have porous concrete and asphalt (have for awhile I think) that may work for ground level paving, sidewalks, etc. The most famous example I can think of off the top of my head is the parking lot at Fallingwater by FLR.

I think that with the way things are going right now, "Green" is the only way to go with any new projects in the City. Aside from being the right thing to do, it just adds so much to the marketability of any site...not just for sales, but for a pitch at any Planning Meetings as well.

(always show all work )

My numbers are based on "312 surface parking spaces (retail)" with each space being 150 sq ft (10 x 15; jives with a couple references online talking about the ridiculous prices people pay for just a parking spot in cities like NYC and London).

They don't take into account any garage parking at all...

The wikipedia article I cited indicates an amount of runoff created by one inch of rain on 1000 sq ft (668 gals, IIRC), so a little math gets me to my final total. I used a 1/2 inch, since that's more a more common scenario, but if we look at something like that 100-year rain back in August...2003?..2004? (the first major flooding in the area recently), that was something like 3 or 4 inches of rain in a brief amount of time. While not something that happens often, it's these off-the-chart storms that cause the most problems. 3 inches would yield nearly 100,000 gallons of water...just from the 312 surface parking spots.

Actually, when you take into account the drive aisles, landscaping, and other such things, the sort of standard is 325-350 square feet per parking space in a surface lot. That puts the lot in excess of 100,000 square feet, provided they aren't valeting cars or using mechanical stackers.

I, too, am concerned about having such a large lot at this site. Why can't the retail customers park in the garage? I guess I'll have to show up to find out.

Why do you people think the city holds such carte blanch power? The city should demand X, city should require Y. The city is thrilled to death that a builder -- any builder -- wants to come in and rehab that huge area and build residences that will result in a sweet little tax base for City Hall. Look, Philly has been an undervalued, under populated, mess for decades. Let's not get ***** becuase this high rise will "block your view of the evening sun," or "take away from your creative juices by making you feel like you're in the suburbs." It's called progress and not everthing is going to progress exactly the way you would like it to.

Wait, wait.

312 surface parking spaces PLUS a 846 space parking garage?!!?!!

I guess Blatstein is going to put a big suburban K-Mart in place.

As long as I get a supermarket, they can throw a nuclear power generator on the site.

I'd hold out for $1.00 credit on my PECO bill if they threw on a nuke plant. But that's just me.

I think all the runoff from the parking lots should be sufficient to chill out those cooling rods. If not, well, house prices would certainly drop mighty quick.

We are not talking about views c.c., we are talking about an antiquated and over-stressed infrastructure.
This city cannot keep building and not address those issues.
Way too may people in this neighborhood have had homes flooded by broken water mains and sewer water back up into basements because of lack of improvements in those areas. Building is fine as long as those issues are addressed and resolved accordingly.

The water mains started breaking WAY before all the building began. With that said, I understand flooding concerns and I certainly hope the city engineers are considering these issues. However, the general tone on these discussions leans more toward people ******** b/c they either personally don't like the developer or they think the proposed building isn't edgy enough for NL or too "suburban" - whatever that means. It's time to stop being so picky and selfish and think of the greater good of the city and it's residents. For a lot of you on here, I think anything short of a hippie commune is "unacceptable construction."

It costs the city money when water mains break, flooding occurs, houses are flooded, etc.

There have been at least four water main breaks in this area over the last three years...

And the BS about the taxes...most likely this site is tax abated and the city won't be reaping any windfall from it's development.


As for the city's power, um, yeah, they do hold the power to approve or deny such projects.

(gotta love the libertarian stance: government bad, private sector our saviors, taxes taxes...doesn't matter just throw out the word taxes...)

A. Buy flood insurance (you should have it anyway)
B. Water mains are breaking b/c they are old and there is no budget in the city coffers to fix them. This is directly due to NO ONE LIVING in the city (that holds a decent job anyway). Philly is one of TWO cities in the U.S. whose population is decreasing year by year.
C. Tax abatement or not, importing a couple hundred young professionals (most likely the demographic that will buy these units) into the area will do absolute WONDERS for the local economy.
D. Taking unused land in urban area and transforming into retail and condo units = GREAT.


Look, I agree with a lot of what you people are saying. But, if you wait for the perfect situation -- green constuction, no ugly above-ground parking lots, three stories maximum, etc... nothing will ever happen. Well, except for the homeless and drug dealers having another abonded building to hang in.

To be honest, I'm not sure flood insurance will cover you in the case of the city's ****-water backing up the drain and into your basement.
Please deal with that situation personally and then get back to me...

It's not a lack of hippie communes that concerns me, it's the sheer number of apartments/condos they want to put there, 25 floors is an awful lot of space to fill. Who is going to buy them when Tower can't even keep renters for longer than one year? They have an abysmal reputation that potential buyers will find out about if they do even the slightest research.

A timely news item...sound familiar?


http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/03/29/sewers/index.html?iref=newssearch

I love the people who complain about tax abatement. Do you have any idea how much the transfer stamps are on new construction? Or the increase in income to the city of 1 young professional moving from the suburbs?

Couple of comments:

- New Proposal. This is new; it's never been proposed in this form before. It's Tower's fourth proposal for this site since 2001 (shopping center; then mixed-use with rowhouses and low/mid commercial buildings; then three 18-story towers with green-roofed parking facility; and now this newest iteration).

- Parking. If the NLNA email mentions 312 surface spaces, then those are indeed planned as surface spaces, not included as part of the parking garage. The garage is something Tower committed to in 2003, because all the random surface parking Tower now provides for its rentals (including the gravel lot near the NE corner of 2nd and Laurel, and the largely unused asphalt lots on the "triangles" around Germantown and American) will go away as it develops more projects - and in any event those parking areas won't be enough to accommodate the coming development even if they remain.

- Stormwater/aesthetics. This is indeed a big concern with surface parking. Tower's last proposal had the surface parking about a half-story below grade, and it was covered by a giant flat surface a half-story above grade. Except for where the proposed buildings would be, this entire parking garage roof was to be green, greatly enhancing the stormwater management of the parking area.

- Density. This is a gigantic site, nine acres I believe. I could be mistaken, but I think that the newest proposal holds the street line with one-story commercial properties, and then the only other building is the 25-foot tower. In that case, 404 residences and (pulling a number out of my hat) 350k feet of commercial isn't much for 9 acres of land. By contrast, the Hoboken project proposes 1,000+ residences and about 50k commercial on 3 acres.

Best,
Matt

Is Erdy McHenry still on board or is Tower working with a different architecture firm on this new proposal? Just curious.

CC, you have no clue do you????!??

Stop lying and start making sense.

Perfect spot for a Wegman's

It is Erdy McHenry. I think people should come to the zoning meeting next week and see/decide for themselves.

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.

Thanks, Matt. It should be an interesting meeting.

>>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...

isn't that like a 45 floor building that is also no where near in scale

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.

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...

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

>>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?'