PHILADELPHIA | 2040 Market Street | COMPLETE - Page 4

Cro Burnham · #61 Posted **Apr 11, 2012, 10:01 PM**

I'm sure the structure Is fine. I was just suggesting its height and structure are a function of limited budget and load limits on the existing building.

SkyscraperGuru · #62 Posted **Apr 13, 2012, 11:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

I'm sure the structure Is fine. I was just suggesting its height and structure are a function of limited budget and load limits on the existing building.

So you're basically saying, they MIGHT have built it a bit higher if they had the funds and the potential on the original building (however, with funds they could have just removed the original building).

That makes sense, but regardless - Philly is going to eventually get another tall skyscraper soon in my opinion. (that will rank among Comcast Tower, 1st and 2nd Liberty and the Mellon Bank Center).

summersm343 · #63 Posted **May 4, 2012, 5:30 PM**

Updates from May 3rd, 2012

Pennsgrant · #64 Posted **May 5, 2012, 12:10 AM**

I'm simply not a fan of this design. Wish this previous proposal would have succeeded. Tall and thin tower which Philadelphia doesnt have enough of. This current project is too squattish.

300 apartments wasted on this dwarfish stumpy albatross. I dont like it.

What should have been!

Cro Burnham · #65 Posted **May 5, 2012, 1:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pennsgrant

I'm simply not a fan of this design. Wish this previous proposal would have succeeded. Tall and thin tower which Philadelphia doesnt have enough of. This current project is too squattish.

300 apartments wasted on this dwarfish stumpy albatross. I dont like it.

What should have been!

Dudes who came up with this idea are broke and went to jail.

They may as well have proposed a 500 story building. These guys developed NOTHING, apparently had neither the intention nor the ability to develop ANYTHING, and any idea they came up with was totally unrealistic. Get over it or please just hang out at the Dubai thread.

hammersklavier · #66 Posted **May 6, 2012, 5:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pennsgrant

I'm simply not a fan of this design. Wish this previous proposal would have succeeded. Tall and thin tower which Philadelphia doesnt have enough of. This current project is too squattish.

300 apartments wasted on this dwarfish stumpy albatross. I dont like it.

What should have been!

Everything's always too short for you.

SkyscraperGuru · #67 Posted **May 6, 2012, 5:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

Everything's always too short for you.

But you can't deny that Philadelphia Heights wouldn't have been a nice addition. Pennsgrant is just excited for the Philadelphia Skyline to have major changes, and we all are, but we have to take little steps to get to the next "big" project.

hammersklavier · #68 Posted **May 6, 2012, 5:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscraperGuru

But you can't deny that Philadelphia Heights wouldn't have been a nice addition. Pennsgrant is just excited for the Philadelphia Skyline to have major changes, and we all are, but we have to take little steps to get to the next "big" project.

It's his M.O. Back in '07 he was complaining Comcast was too short, and in '08 the ACC proposal was, lol.

Cro Burnham · #69 Posted **May 7, 2012, 4:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscraperGuru

But you can't deny that Philadelphia Heights wouldn't have been a nice addition. Pennsgrant is just excited for the Philadelphia Skyline to have major changes, and we all are, but we have to take little steps to get to the next "big" project.

I wish PG would just move to Dubai or HK and be happy for once. Compulsive "it's too short" whines are a pointless waste of thread space.

His/her other comments are often insightful and interesting, but the endless repetitive drivel about inadequate building heights (which constitutes most recent posts) is just silly. I wonder if it's some kind of OCD thing.

Personally - as if you couldn't tell - I find it slightly irritating, not that that matters.

PhiLaw · #70 Posted **May 7, 2012, 7:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

I wish PG would just move to Dubai or HK and be happy for once. Compulsive "it's too short" whines are a pointless waste of thread space.

His/her other comments are often insightful and interesting, but the endless repetitive drivel about inadequate building heights (which constitutes most recent posts) is just silly. I wonder if it's some kind of OCD thing.

Personally - as if you couldn't tell - I find it slightly irritating, not that that matters.

Remember we are all Philadelphia enthusiasts here. I personally don't like the constant complaining about building heights either - - but it is nice to fantasize sometimes. Maybe someone should make a new thread - like "What Could/Should Have Been" or "What I Would Do."

SkyscraperGuru · #71 Posted **May 7, 2012, 7:41 PM**

I'd advise Russia, UAE or Qatar if he likes obnoxiously tall buildings, there's also Hong Kong, Paris and Sydney that have done a lot of building. One of those Asian countries, you know. America doesn't need those buildings. Our cities don't have 5,000,000-20,000,000 urban population each (except NYC). They have 1,000,000-3,000,000.

However, within your lifetime you should see at least one or two supertalls in Philly, if not more. ACC maybe? However, saying the ACC is too short is absurd. I can understand wanting The Comcast Tower to be another 30 or so feet to make it "super-tall"...

Dylan Leblanc · #72 Posted **May 7, 2012, 9:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pennsgrant

Does anyone have info on this tower? Name, date, use, anything?

Cro Burnham · #73 Posted **May 8, 2012, 7:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan Leblanc

Does anyone have info on this tower? Name, date, use, anything?

It was a concept back in mid-2000s created by "World Acquisition Partners", another fly-by-night entity that went under as the bubble deflated.

They acquired a series of undeveloped properties at inflated prices, and then had drawings prepared and attempted to get sites zoned for maximum high rise development with the intent of flipping them for even more ridiculous prices to even more poorly timed, over exuberant fly-by-night entities. Development (and usually even the flipping) never happened. Certain principals were convicted of various fraud related charges.

None of their concepts were developed, most featured childish, over-the-top Chinese insta-city style designs, and all were basically DOA. None should be taken seriously. It seems clear that no one ever really had the intention or means of pulling them off and that the whole enterprise was essentially a joke.

Some edifying links:

http://www.citypaper.net/blogs/naked...iver-City.html
http://philadelphiaheights.wordpress...t-street-west/
http://www.evergreeneditions.com/dis....php?id=744367

Should also be interesting to google Hardeep Chawla, Ravinder Chawla, Sant Properties, "conviction", and "lawsuit".

The Legal Intelligencer article is a particularly hilarious recounting of the pathetic, fraud-laden saga of River City and 2040 Market Street (see "Berger v. Zeghibe: $34. 1 million"). An excellent read.

Dredging up such dreck is an interesting curiosity, if only to illustrate the absurdity of the froth generated at the height of the bubble.

Bottom line: none of these projects are or were to be taken seriously.

Dylan Leblanc · #74 Posted **May 11, 2012, 6:24 AM**

Thanks

Cro Burnham · #75 Posted **May 14, 2012, 2:43 AM**

One more story to go - not 50 stories, but not bad . . .

patriotizzy · #76 Posted **May 14, 2012, 8:19 AM**

Why is there a thread for this? This is sad.

SkyscraperGuru · #77 Posted **May 14, 2012, 12:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by patriotizzy

Why is there a thread for this? This is sad.

Wow, that's incredibly arrogant of you. This is a good thing on a building that really needed the extra height.

Pennsgrant · #78 Posted **May 14, 2012, 12:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by patriotizzy

Why is there a thread for this? This is sad.

Thats what I said.

This grotesque hedehog of a building is going to soak up 300 prospective apartments that could have been part of a decent tower. I hate this erector set addition.

Cro Burnham · #79 Posted **May 14, 2012, 5:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by patriotizzy

Why is there a thread for this? This is sad.

Well, it's a decent infill project for Philly and will result in the reuse of a long vacant site and parking lot with a 14 story building that fills out a block.

So it is of interest to most Philly forumers. If it doesn't interest you, then you must not know anything about or really be interested in Philly development. In which case you'd be best served sticking to Bay Area stuff. You're comment is utterly pointless. You should have better things to do with your time.

Johnland · #80 Posted **May 15, 2012, 12:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

One more story to go - not 50 stories, but not bad . . .

Wow. What is the story on that odd little remnant of buildings? Are they on Market St. or is that an alley? The derelict house with the mansard roof, the free standing brick wall and the odd low building that seems to come out of the wall.