HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #11541  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2019, 5:23 PM
eixample eixample is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 288
Unhappy

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbrook View Post
Need it? No. But would it knit that part of the City together, connecting it to Center City and be vastly more attractive public space and increase real estate value on those blocks? Ding ding ding. Yes. We don't 'need' a Penn's Landing Cap either. But we're getting one, and that's as it should be. In the longterm, both would/will be very good for the City.
Of course I'd rather there be a park, but I am proposing something (clearly I have no knowledge of the engineering involved so it could all be BS) that I assume would be vastly cheaper than the full on bridge they built for the tiny bit of cap they just built over 676. The Penn's Landing cap is taking a lot time to get going even though the money is all supposedly there so it is safe to assume that a 676 cap is a decade away at the very earliest.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11542  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2019, 5:47 PM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Bala Cynwyd
Posts: 3,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by eixample View Post
Of course I'd rather there be a park, but I am proposing something (clearly I have no knowledge of the engineering involved so it could all be BS) that I assume would be vastly cheaper than the full on bridge they built for the tiny bit of cap they just built over 676. The Penn's Landing cap is taking a lot time to get going even though the money is all supposedly there so it is safe to assume that a 676 cap is a decade away at the very earliest.
I'd rather it take longer and do it right. Unless there is buy-in and the political capital for your suggestion now and it can be done in a way that is readily converted to a real park as funds become available. Also, a cap here doesn't have the same engineering challenges and is smaller than what's going at Penn's Landing. so, while everything takes a long time and takes longer than initially projected to complete, the time from approval to completion should be shorter for this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11543  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2019, 6:18 PM
Urbanthusiat's Avatar
Urbanthusiat Urbanthusiat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: South Philly
Posts: 1,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartphilly View Post
I couldn't agree more. If that land the Catholic Church put up for development next to Cathedral Basilica would get developed, I think it would be a better sale and more pressure on the State to get it done. Otherwise, they will cry "no money."
I’ve heard good things about the Catholic Church site
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11544  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2019, 7:05 PM
PhillyEngineer PhillyEngineer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 96
FDP update taken 1/23/2019:











Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11545  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2019, 3:50 AM
mja mja is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by eixample View Post
I've said this before regarding capping 676, but couldn't they build a cap of a highway like 676 that is not intended to support people, parks or cars that would cost way, way less than a full cap, drastically reduce auto noise and pollution and make surrounding plots much more desirable and valuable. Whenever a cap has been proposed, it is always envisioned to support a park with dirt, grass, trees, concrete, stone and the potential for hundreds of people over head. We don't need any more of that in that part of 676 near the parkway.

What I am imagining is a steel frame with some sort of impervious surface as a roof to the highway with vent pipes, drainage and maybe skylights all surrounded by a nice looking fence that would keep people out. Something strong enough to allow maintenance workers access but not all that other park stuff.
This sounds like an awful idea. I'd much rather there be a hole.

Last edited by mja; Jan 27, 2019 at 8:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11546  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2019, 4:21 AM
GtownFriend GtownFriend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Boulder CO
Posts: 477
Ronald McDonald Expansion mostly complete on the outside:

on Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11547  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2019, 4:23 AM
GtownFriend GtownFriend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Boulder CO
Posts: 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyEngineer View Post
FDP update taken 1/23/2019:
Certainly has more street presence than before!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11548  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2019, 2:53 PM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Bala Cynwyd
Posts: 3,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by GtownFriend View Post
Certainly has more street presence than before!
I suppose that's one word for it...I'll reserve judgment until they slap some lipstick on this pig. Let's get the retail in and all the lighted advertising and call it a day. The planned towers would be nice sooner rather than later, but I imagine they will want to see how this and the much better East Market project further west are doing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11549  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2019, 3:24 PM
City Wide City Wide is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by eixample View Post
---------- The Penn's Landing cap is taking a lot time to get going even though the money is all supposedly there so it is safe to assume that a 676 cap is a decade away at the very earliest.
I believe that the I-95 cap will be part of PDOT's rebuilding of the highway, and that section isn't on the schedule for a number of years. Does anyone know if PDOT has started having public meeting about their process? That would be a great time for the public to press for a smaller highway and supporting a rebuild that includes making Delaware Ave much more urban and user friendly to users who aren't in a car.
I hope the City is pushing for the plans to done in such a way that would easily allow the intersection between I-95 and I-676 to be buried if monies for that ever become available in the future. Also the planning for the I-95 rebuild should take into consideration the possibility of somehow extending mass transport to the riverfront.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11550  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2019, 3:43 PM
Skintreesnail Skintreesnail is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by GtownFriend View Post
Certainly has more street presence than before!
They have the sidewalk open for part of it and I noticed they have the entrances to each retail space separated from the the rest of the sidewalk with a railing. Also have ramps and steps running up the side to the doors. This kind of kills the street presence IMO. Maybe it'll look different in practice.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11551  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2019, 4:37 PM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Bala Cynwyd
Posts: 3,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by City Wide View Post
I believe that the I-95 cap will be part of PDOT's rebuilding of the highway, and that section isn't on the schedule for a number of years. Does anyone know if PDOT has started having public meeting about their process? That would be a great time for the public to press for a smaller highway and supporting a rebuild that includes making Delaware Ave much more urban and user friendly to users who aren't in a car.
I hope the City is pushing for the plans to done in such a way that would easily allow the intersection between I-95 and I-676 to be buried if monies for that ever become available in the future. Also the planning for the I-95 rebuild should take into consideration the possibility of somehow extending mass transport to the riverfront.
I had not heard this was dependent on PennDot. But the design and engineering phase of this isn't supposed to complete until the end of 2019 anyway. Actual construction was never to start before that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11552  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2019, 9:56 PM
blart's Avatar
blart blart is offline
Fishtown & Country
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Philly
Posts: 312
Sunday, 1/27
Columbia Ave, in Fishtown

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11553  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2019, 1:11 AM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Bala Cynwyd
Posts: 3,571
Anyone know when this condo goes before the Historical Commission?: http://www.ocfrealty.com/naked-phill...y-new-neighbor Or has it already? Anyone have more recent info/updates/links?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11554  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2019, 1:33 AM
iheartphilly's Avatar
iheartphilly iheartphilly is offline
Philly Rising Up!
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: motherEarth
Posts: 2,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbrook View Post
Anyone know when this condo goes before the Historical Commission?: http://www.ocfrealty.com/naked-phill...y-new-neighbor Or has it already? Anyone have more recent info/updates/links?
I was at Monk's a couple of weekends ago, but I did not see anything posted if that means anything at this point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11555  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2019, 1:35 AM
Jayfar's Avatar
Jayfar Jayfar is offline
Midrise
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 939
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbrook View Post
Anyone know when this condo goes before the Historical Commission?: http://www.ocfrealty.com/naked-phill...y-new-neighbor Or has it already? Anyone have more recent info/updates/links?
I see 262 S 16TH ST was recommended for denial (for the second time) by the Architectural Committee on Oct 23, per the meeting minutes:

https://www.phila.gov/historical/mee...18%20draft.pdf

…and here's the revised plan that was submitted for that meeting:

https://www.phila.gov/historical/mee...compressed.pdf

But the plan was approved by the full Commission at their subsequent November 9th meeting:

ACTION: Mr. Mattioni moved to approve the application as revised, pursuant to Standard 9. Mr. Hartner seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 8 to 2. Commissioners McCoubrey and Cooperman dissented.

https://www.phila.gov/historical/mee...18%20draft.pdf
__________________
Philadelphia Industrial & Commercial Heritage
A public Facebook group to promote appreciation of Greater Philadelphia's industrial and commercial history and advocate for historic preservation and adaptive re-use.

Last edited by Jayfar; Jan 28, 2019 at 1:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11556  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2019, 2:02 AM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Bala Cynwyd
Posts: 3,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayfar View Post
I see 262 S 16TH ST was recommended for denial (for the second time) by the Architectural Committee on Oct 23, per the meeting minutes:

https://www.phila.gov/historical/mee...18%20draft.pdf

…and here's the revised plan that was submitted for that meeting:

https://www.phila.gov/historical/mee...compressed.pdf

But the plan was approved by the full Commission at their subsequent November 9th meeting:

ACTION: Mr. Mattioni moved to approve the application as revised, pursuant to Standard 9. Mr. Hartner seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 8 to 2. Commissioners McCoubrey and Cooperman dissented.

https://www.phila.gov/historical/mee...18%20draft.pdf
Thanks, Jayfar! After some digging I had found this one: https://www.phila.gov/historical/mee...-S-16th-St.pdf But not the later stuff you linked.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11557  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2019, 2:06 AM
mcgrath618's Avatar
mcgrath618 mcgrath618 is online now
Exhausted Drexel Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: University City, Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayfar View Post
I see 262 S 16TH ST was recommended for denial (for the second time) by the Architectural Committee on Oct 23, per the meeting minutes:

https://www.phila.gov/historical/mee...18%20draft.pdf

…and here's the revised plan that was submitted for that meeting:

https://www.phila.gov/historical/mee...compressed.pdf

But the plan was approved by the full Commission at their subsequent November 9th meeting:

ACTION: Mr. Mattioni moved to approve the application as revised, pursuant to Standard 9. Mr. Hartner seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 8 to 2. Commissioners McCoubrey and Cooperman dissented.

https://www.phila.gov/historical/mee...18%20draft.pdf
Holy crap! What a good looking building!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11558  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2019, 2:31 AM
Jayfar's Avatar
Jayfar Jayfar is offline
Midrise
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 939
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcgrath618 View Post
Holy crap! What a good looking building!
Just to be clear, the linked submission shows all the various iterations that had been presented. The approved design is near the end of the pdf, the one with setback glass curtain walls at the 5th and 6th floors.

https://www.phila.gov/historical/mee...compressed.pdf
__________________
Philadelphia Industrial & Commercial Heritage
A public Facebook group to promote appreciation of Greater Philadelphia's industrial and commercial history and advocate for historic preservation and adaptive re-use.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11559  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2019, 2:41 AM
mcgrath618's Avatar
mcgrath618 mcgrath618 is online now
Exhausted Drexel Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: University City, Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayfar View Post
Just to be clear, the linked submission shows all the various iterations that had been presented. The approved design is near the end of the pdf, the one with setback glass curtain walls at the 5th and 6th floors.

https://www.phila.gov/historical/mee...compressed.pdf
I suppose I take back what I said. Why would the historical commission prefer that to the prior iterations that were all brick?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11560  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2019, 3:04 AM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Bala Cynwyd
Posts: 3,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayfar View Post
I see 262 S 16TH ST was recommended for denial (for the second time) by the Architectural Committee on Oct 23, per the meeting minutes:

https://www.phila.gov/historical/mee...18%20draft.pdf

…and here's the revised plan that was submitted for that meeting:

https://www.phila.gov/historical/mee...compressed.pdf

But the plan was approved by the full Commission at their subsequent November 9th meeting:

ACTION: Mr. Mattioni moved to approve the application as revised, pursuant to Standard 9. Mr. Hartner seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 8 to 2. Commissioners McCoubrey and Cooperman dissented.

https://www.phila.gov/historical/mee...18%20draft.pdf
I thought this would be condos, but it seems likely that it will be luxury rentals. Floor plate is a bit small for what the market's come to expect from a luxury 3BR. Still, maybe it will just be a smaller option for buyers. It's mostly floors 5 and 6 that are a bit small, but maybe they could be combined as a bi-level penthouse. I actually emailed Adam Montalbano on this project. I'm pretty interested in it.

Last edited by jsbrook; Jan 28, 2019 at 1:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:12 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.