PHILADELPHIA | 709 Chestnut Street | 327 FT | 27 FLOORS
 

http://www.intechconstruction.com/cu...endering-3.jpg

Title: 709 Chestnut Street
Project: 300 luxury apartments
Architect: HLW International
Developer: Roseland & Parkway Corp.
Location: 709 Chestnut St., Philadelphia, PA
Neighborhood: Washington Square West
District: Center City
Floors: 27
Height: 327 FT


http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelp...ilding-in.html

Im back and forth between what is more inspiring and pleasing to the eye. This tower or my basement wall. The wall wins. Ugh.

ugly, who designs a building like this honestly?

It's another Philly Special.

These architects outta be laughed out of the room when they present this shit but.......they won't be.

Wow. Tell us how you really feel, everyone.

Much like most buildings that are built around the world, this rendering is just fine. It has a standard, modern aesthetic that isn't necessarily innovative, but it is definitely solid urban infill like 95% of other buildings that are going up everywhere else.

The constant expectation that every design has to be ground-breaking architecture is, frankly, extremely counter-productive and defies any sort of realism.

There are ugly buildings, but this definitely is not one of them.

Man... a lot of hate for this one haha. It's a 32 story building replacing a surface parking lot. Be happy! Plus, this is very early preliminary renderings. It's possible the design could be improved.

Slightly pulled back rendering from Plan Philly

http://planphilly.com/uploads/media_....752.360.c.jpg

Article here:
http://planphilly.com/articles/2015/...h-and-chestnut

Is there a reason why this isn't showing up in the Philadelphia Projects & Construction forum?

Also the negative criticism while perhaps eventually warranted at the very least seems presumptive at this point. I mean honestly this is clearly a very preliminary design, my 2nd grader has done more detailed drawings than this. At this point it looks at least visually interesting. As with most buildings its appeal will like come down to the quality of materials used.

Inquirer article about this:

At 709 Chestnut, Mack-Cali, Zuritskys plan 32-story, 300-unit tower

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/i...-Chestnut.html

Haha. Some of you would make excellent building critics. :D

Due to its location, the visibility of this highrise should be quite prominent from the north, south and east.

I agree 800 walnut looks big by itself from the stadiums. This will be a great fill in for that part of town.

It's this train of thought, "Don't be so critical, at least we're getting something!" that we don't get the nicer, more thought out building designs. I don't live in Philly, but here in SF we're getting our fair share of banal, boring boxes.

Just a thought.

I also dislike this building.

This reminds me of the (cheap and ugly) high rise dorms at Penn from the 70s. What a mistake they were....:uhh:

It Reminds me so much of 3601 Market St. (I didn't care that much for 3601 Market when first proposed. But now that the façade is going up, it's turning out pretty decent.) Maybe this will look better if they use top notch materials on the façade. 709 Chestnut isn't awful, but it is far from award-winning. I do like it better than the Lit's proposal. This would look better in University City because of the height. But, it's perfect for blending in with the East Market, 500 Walnut, and the Lit's proposals. Those buildings aren't that tall either. It would be nice (some day) to build something with decent height, (remember Bridgeman's View Tower? ) Also, I'm just disappointed looking at squares. :uhh:

I agree. It's hard to judge what this will look like in real life until we can at least see some photorealistic renderings (which these are NOT--these are the initial cartoonish renderings that are typically seen relatively early in the process). And as you said, it's often not until the building is actually built that we can really judge it. Materials and details make all the difference when you're dealing with what is basically--like the vast majority of residential towers--a rectangular box.

I understand the notion of trying to bolster architectural standards. I really do, and it's a noble cause.

But the constant, almost knee-jerk reaction to so many proposals as though it's the worst thing designed on the face of the planet is just not constructive. And, again, not every building has to be a work of art.

Not to get into a protracted debate, but I think there needs to be a balance of constructive criticism that recognizes development in context of achieving good urbanism and active streetlife. The aesthetic nitpicking that seems to dominate this forum does not do much to further that cause.

Philadelphia is like Skyscraper Heaven nowadays. The proposals and construction are non-stop. It is amazing (except for 1919 Market).

Philly has a lot of great projects, I guess this one missed that train.

Exactly. I'd honestly prefer a building that literally looked like a pile of shit stacked 32 stories high that met the street well and had a vibrant ground level use as opposed to a building that looked like a work of art for stories 2-32 but had entrance to underground parking on street level. That type of stuff is simply more important to me and this rendering doesn't even make it clear what the first floor will even look like, so as I said, at this point it's really hard to have any type of meaningful discussion about the merits of the architectural design of this building.

That's not to say that there isn't room for criticizing the aesthetics of a building, you just have to do so in context. This reminds me of the complaints of the new chinatown gateway tower. Sure that building doesn't look great, but it faces a highway barricade and is surrounded by a whole lot of nothing. What could you realistically expect there? Situations like that you take what you can get. Same thing here, this is a narrow lot that never in a million years did I think we'd get a building of this magnitude here.

That's why it's a lot more understandable to me when people complain about how ugly and cheap 1919 Market is. That's a prominent lot where the sky was the limit. I don't blame people for expecting the best there and that building fails to even come close to meeting expectations aesthetically or in size. This lot is not 1919 Market. Not even close. So even if this building doesn't look great, it's still going to bring a lot of people and vibrancy to a location no one would have even guessed something like this was happening. It's not about not wanting to strive for the best, it's just about being a realist.

So I'll hope this turns out nice and be happy regardless, but if something like this gets proposed on the 1911 Walnut I'll grab pitchforks with the rest of you.;)

Passé? Yes.

Ugly? Meh.

Honestly, it looks no different than Land of Beige Precast in Chicago. Homely but whatever.

Interesting to note that several new apartment projects in the city are using aluminum paneling on their facades. 2020 Market, 1900 Arch, 3601 Market, 38Chestnut already. Our new beige precast? 3601 Market's facade was worth the wait.

Approx a 400' building in this location will stand out nicely like St. James. If the city can line Chestnut and Walnut every couple of blocks with this height it would look outstanding.

This is a Parkway Joint. That Beige Precast = Dryvit. This is going to be a corner cutter at every artistic measure.

was thinking the same, this looks like it was lifted from River North or just South of the Loop - not that Chicago does not have stellar construction but for the few we get (even in a boom) I for one think this is bland and seeing as there is little around it it will be more noticeable

There was a lot of similar criticism for the rendering of 38 Chestnut and now everyone is super happy with the way that turned out.

As long as construction starts after August I'm fine with it. Just made all the payments on Union Trust as the venue and it's too late to change now.

I think that this is a fairly preliminary rendering and nowhere as bad as some other ones we've seen.

So should all your buds here on SkyscraperPage save the date on our calendars? :yes:

And do you mind if I bring a few guests? :whistle:

It's a fixed price, so if we have one beer or a billion it's the same price. Wear a suite and bring a gift! :bowtie::boogy::takemymoney::banana::dancing::awesome::cheers:

Some shots of the site and neighbors taken yesterday:
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7637/...44d8f5fd_c.jpg022 by tehshadowbat, on Flickr

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8714/...a12c81e5_c.jpg018 by tehshadowbat, on Flickr

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7637/...96196c59_c.jpg023 - Copy by tehshadowbat, on Flickr

Don't want to get OT here, but glad you decided to go with Finley for your wedding! Finley is doing our wedding at the Crystal Tea Room in June and it's been great working with them.

From the Center City District:

New Apartment Tower Proposed at Seventh and Chestnut
Roseland, an affiliate of Mack-Cali Realty Corporation, has partnered with the Parkway Corporation on a proposal to build a 32-story apartment tower at 709 Chestnut Street, presently a surface parking lot, PlanPhilly reported on March 25. The property is owned by Parkway.

Plans call for 300 high-end apartments, 11,000 square feet of indoor and outdoor amenity space, and a 125-vehicle automatic parking garage. The partnership recently made a preliminary presentation of the project to Washington Square West Civic Association and plans to apply for zoning variances, including one for the 32 stories, in the next few weeks, the article noted.

The developers also need Historical Commission review, since part of the proposed tower overhangs a historic property, and a review by the Civic Design Review Committeebecause of the tower’s size.

Construction is expected to begin in late 2015.

http://www.centercityphila.org/press...news040715.php

I'll take the over.

There are just WAAAAY too many committees reviewing projects. If I had my way, there would be ONE committee that would review all projects. It would be comprised of two urban designers/planners (one with a specialty in transportation), an economist, an architect, one community (NIMBY) representative, a lawyer, and when necessary, a historical expert. They would have sole authority to review and reject projects as well as make suggestions for improvements. Significantly, no one from city council gets involved. Community meetings become optional. And we do away with the zoning board and all the other committees.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/po...bp5BEZtTRPf.99

That's not this so what are we getting, exactly? I guess if it's a bait and switch it won't matter since this building was so ho-hum to begin with, LOL.

https://scontent-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hp...7b&oe=55B1C14A

Actually, that design DOES cantilever over the Union Trust building--although not by much--so that may be the design that was approved.

You think? Under no circumstances would I call that an "unusual" design.

Perhaps they meant "unusual" in that it cantilevers over the neighboring building.

Incidentally, for what it's worth, I have a feeling that this design may look a bit better than what's depicted in that rendering. That's a fairly primitive, cartoon-style rendering, as opposed to a photo-realistic rendering that better displays the details, materials, and surfaces to be used. If the right materials and details are used, it might not be a bad building for that location. Plus, we're unable to see the ground-floor details and how it would relate to the street and sidewalk.

Thank you for saying this. I feel the same about the way this building, and many others are reviewed on this website. Talk about short memories. When the St James was going up we were all extremely excited. That was near the start of what I'd call the modern building era in Philadelphia. Before that it was a long time since we had a tower going up and it was fun to read about it. Back then I had a neighbor say "why are you obsessed with this building", and I said "it's not just about the building. It's about what's happening in the city". If it was proposed today there would be so much negativity on this site that I probably wouldn't even want to read about it here.

Nowadays I come to this website expecting a large amount of negativity as people discuss the new proposals. Damn guys, that's why I don't come here so often any more. What is happening to the Philadelphia forum? It's going negadelphian. The knee jerk reactions to this proposal are a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Rendering from the North side:

http://www.intechconstruction.com/cu...endering-2.jpg

http://www.intechconstruction.com/cu...p?mode=0&id=3#

Well, it's no St. James, but time will tell.

Agreed. The St. James high-rise in Washington Square is really underrated in design and style. And, to know that it only cost $80 million to build this 498 ft. building in 2001 is really mind blowing...considering the cost of some of our recently constructed building of similar heights. What's even more shocking is the price tag for Comcast Center and CITC. Take $ 1 billion and divided by 80 millions, and we could of built 10-12 500 footers 14 years ago :yes:

huh? St James as in the building on Walnut? This will actually look pretty much like that in real life.
This is just a low quality rendering. I bet a higher quality one would show that it has a similar concept/design to the St James except for the curves.
I really like this project and hope it breaks ground soon. Very decent height and design for the location.

Why does there appear to be exposed beams on the ground floors in the rear?

Well, considering it's a computerized render, I wouldn't jump to conclusions.
My hope is that this low-rise tower looks nice when it's facade begins to take shape.

I recall many low-rise towers in Manhattan that make my head turn.
I am hoping this would do the same! :)

Put me down in the I LIKE THE ST. JAMES category. Sure enough, it's nothing sexy but the builders avoided Philadelphia cliches (red brick base or a traditional design) and didn't go the all-glass route either. It's a simple but somewhat unique design (for Philly) executed with quality materials.

The renderings for 700 Chestnut are crude but I detect cheap paneling.

You're suggesting they got down to the fourth floor of the render and said, "good enough. It's Miller Time!"

I was on break at work when I read this comment earlier today and truth be told -- I actually laughed out loud!! :cheers:

I was laughing so hard, I was coughing into a paper towel!! :haha:

Spoke with Roseland reps today. This is moving forward. Should see final designs soon. Also could be under construction by summer of next year.

Great news, too much complaining on these threads lol. Save that for 1919 Market.

But you have to admit, this building would be much better if it was another 300ft! A shame an opportunity is being lost for a nice 600 footer. :D