PHILADELPHIA | W Hotel & Element by Westin | 617 FT | 51 FLOORS

[Philly-Drew]

Originally Posted by thisisforreal

Since work is going so slow, I'll start doing before and afters for easier comparison. As you can see, some orange cones have definitely moved.

And the crane on the right side of the site looks happy to see you!

Great vantage point. Your gonna get a lot of nice shots from there!

[SJPhillyBoy]

I hope the potentially unanticipated foundation excavation work does not create additional cost for blenfest.

The 2 new Cope Linder streetscape photos should be added to the very first post.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by SJPhillyBoy

I hope the potentially unanticipated foundation excavation work does not create additional cost for blenfest.

The 2 new Cope Linder streetscape photos should be added to the very first post.

Done. Good idea

[summersm343]

http://archinect.com/firms/release/4...ment/134178297

[iheartphilly]

Originally Posted by summersm343

http://archinect.com/firms/release/4...ment/134178297

I have no doubts that this will be a standout building when it gets built. Excellent addition to Philly's highrise stock.

[UPenn18]

Wow, I agree, what a gem this will be. While I know that we like to complain about design a lot, I'm glad that the more well designed projects (CITC, FMC, SLS, the W, Market East, 1601 Vine, and even The Bridge) are all also those that will be the most visible or impactful.

[1487]

Lets see what Inga says about this building- I'm sure she will find fault and talk about cheap materials, lack of ground floor retail space, etc. Its always something.

[McBane]

Of course it's always something with Inga. She's a critic. Ever read Craig LaBan's articles? Unless he is handing out a 4 bell rating (which is very rare), he always points out a restaurant's weaknesses. A critic's job isn't to be a cheerleader. Remember that one restaurant "critic" in the Midwest who gushed over the Olive Garden a few years ago? That's not what I'd want in a critic.

What's interesting about this building is the way in which the glass meets the limestone base. Usually a mismatched base/tower is done for the wrong reasons and ends up marring the entire building (2114 Chestnut is one of the worst examples) but in this case, it adds to the complexity of the tower's design. I like it, a lot. Also, I like buildings that incorporate traditional materials into modern designs.

[apetrella802]

Originally Posted by McBane

Of course it's always something with Inga. She's a critic. Ever read Craig LaBan's articles? Unless he is handing out a 4 bell rating (which is very rare), he always points out a restaurant's weaknesses. A critic's job isn't to be a cheerleader. Remember that one restaurant "critic" in the Midwest who gushed over the Olive Garden a few years ago? That's not what I'd want in a critic.

What's interesting about this building is the way in which the glass meets the limestone base. Usually a mismatched base/tower is done for the wrong reasons and ends up marring the entire building (2114 Chestnut is one of the worst examples) but in this case, it adds to the complexity of the tower's design. I like it, a lot. Also, I like buildings that incorporate traditional materials into modern designs.

she is a rather mediocre architectural critic. She uses "off the shelf" material and what is in the general understanding of what is in the "public domain" Case in point: the architects of the new Barnes said one of their major design considerations was to place a monumental presence on the BFP but they were very interested in moving people from the general noise, and frenetic activity of the Parkway itself. They wanted people who arrived by foot from the BFP to move gradually to a more and more serene environment until they entered the building. This would mimic to some extent what they experienced out at Merion. This they accomplished with the passage through a grove of pine trees and then a Zen like walk through Japanese red maples alone a shallow pool of still water which covered a bed of smooth rounded stones. So this is what Inga dismisses as cutting the Barnes off from the Parkway. We once had a architectural critic who operated in the same realm as Paul Goldberger(NYT), his name was Thomas Hinde.

[1487]

Originally Posted by McBane

Of course it's always something with Inga. She's a critic. Ever read Craig LaBan's articles? Unless he is handing out a 4 bell rating (which is very rare), he always points out a restaurant's weaknesses. A critic's job isn't to be a cheerleader. Remember that one restaurant "critic" in the Midwest who gushed over the Olive Garden a few years ago? That's not what I'd want in a critic.

What's interesting about this building is the way in which the glass meets the limestone base. Usually a mismatched base/tower is done for the wrong reasons and ends up marring the entire building (2114 Chestnut is one of the worst examples) but in this case, it adds to the complexity of the tower's design. I like it, a lot. Also, I like buildings that incorporate traditional materials into modern designs.

never said her job is like everything. Not sure how you got that impression. But I am saying that disliking almost everything that is proposed or built gets old and reduced credibility after a while. If you don't like ANYTHING (except for buildings in other cities) than why would local architects or developers value your opinion or aspire to get your endorsement? Her tone and the fact that she pans almost everything built in this city are a key factor in why it appears so little of what she is saying is really valued by those who design and fund development in Philly.

[1487]

Originally Posted by apetrella802

she is a rather mediocre architectural critic. She uses "off the shelf" material and what is in the general understanding of what is in the "public domain" Case in point: the architects of the new Barnes said one of their major design considerations was to place a monumental presence on the BFP but they were very interested in moving people from the general noise, and frenetic activity of the Parkway itself. They wanted people who arrived by foot from the BFP to move gradually to a more and more serene environment until they entered the building. This would mimic to some extent what they experienced out at Merion. This they accomplished with the passage through a grove of pine trees and then a Zen like walk through Japanese red maples alone a shallow pool of still water which covered a bed of smooth rounded stones. So this is what Inga dismisses as cutting the Barnes off from the Parkway. We once had a architectural critic who operated in the same realm as Paul Goldberger(NYT), his name was Thomas Hinde.

I am always amazed at how people take her opinions as some sort of gospel when she doesn't have a background in architecture or construction. She's a good writer who happened to stumble into a relatively prominent role as an architecture critic. Someone with a background in design would have a better grasp on the compromises and decisions that go into designing a building- especially when there are so many competing interests in an dense urban environment.

[domodeez]

From just a moment ago:

[iheartphilly]

Originally Posted by domodeez

From just a moment ago:

Nice...looks like major excavation will be underway shortly after they shore up the perimeter.

[Insoluble]

Originally Posted by apetrella802

she is a rather mediocre architectural critic. She uses "off the shelf" material and what is in the general understanding of what is in the "public domain" Case in point: the architects of the new Barnes said one of their major design considerations was to place a monumental presence on the BFP but they were very interested in moving people from the general noise, and frenetic activity of the Parkway itself. They wanted people who arrived by foot from the BFP to move gradually to a more and more serene environment until they entered the building. This would mimic to some extent what they experienced out at Merion. This they accomplished with the passage through a grove of pine trees and then a Zen like walk through Japanese red maples alone a shallow pool of still water which covered a bed of smooth rounded stones. So this is what Inga dismisses as cutting the Barnes off from the Parkway. We once had a architectural critic who operated in the same realm as Paul Goldberger(NYT), his name was Thomas Hinde.

See, this is actually a point in her favor. The architects made the mistake of thinking that mimicking the outdoor experience at the old Barnes was somehow more important than connecting the building to the parkway and the city. Just from a purely objective standpoint, the whole point of moving the thing is that it was too secluded and disconnected to make enough money to cover it's costs. On a more subjective note, I'd imagine most posters on this particular website would agree that street level urban presence is a more important consideration on the parkway, and saying that it can't be done while preserving some sense of seclusion is a bit of a cop out. This is getting off topic, but the point is, Inga's priorities are in the right place for the most part. She can be overly critical (and actually, in some cases, not critical enough), but in general she at least criticizes the right things.

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by apetrella802

she is a rather mediocre architectural critic. She uses "off the shelf" material and what is in the general understanding of what is in the "public domain" Case in point: the architects of the new Barnes said one of their major design considerations was to place a monumental presence on the BFP but they were very interested in moving people from the general noise, and frenetic activity of the Parkway itself. They wanted people who arrived by foot from the BFP to move gradually to a more and more serene environment until they entered the building. This would mimic to some extent what they experienced out at Merion. This they accomplished with the passage through a grove of pine trees and then a Zen like walk through Japanese red maples alone a shallow pool of still water which covered a bed of smooth rounded stones. So this is what Inga dismisses as cutting the Barnes off from the Parkway. We once had a architectural critic who operated in the same realm as Paul Goldberger(NYT), his name was Thomas Hinde.

Come on, she won the Pulitzer Prize for criticism...[it's kind of a big deal], which means, by the very nature and exclusivity of the award...she's an exceptional critic.

Of course the architects had a reason for putting their entrance in the back of the building - these are smart and talented people with big ideas. But in this case, I agree with Inga! Placing the door on the back of that building is stupid! I'm a Barnes member, have done a ton of work with the museum, probably visited it no less than 100 times and agree with her criticism of it - it's completely fair to point out. Also, beyond that fair observation, she heaped considerable praise on the building, the design, and the architects.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by Londonee

Come on, she won the Pulitzer Prize for criticism...[it's kind of a big deal], which means, by the very nature and exclusivity of the award...she's an exceptional critic.

Of course the architects had a reason for putting their entrance in the back of the building - these are smart and talented people with big ideas. But in this case, I agree with Inga! Placing the door on the back of that building is stupid! I'm a Barnes member, have done a ton of work with the museum, probably visited it no less than 100 times and agree with her criticism of it - it's completely fair to point out. Also, beyond that fair observation, she heaped considerable praise on the building, the design, and the architects.

We're way off topic on this thread, but I have to chime in to agree. It has always bothered me that the Barnes presents a blank wall to the Parkway, just like the juvenile detention center did (only prettier in this case). Couldn't they have at least put a cafe on the Parkway side to liven things up and draw people in?

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by Insoluble

On a more subjective note, I'd imagine most posters on this particular website would agree that street level urban presence is a more important consideration on the parkway, and saying that it can't be done while preserving some sense of seclusion is a bit of a cop out. This is getting off topic, but the point is, Inga's priorities are in the right place for the most part. She can be overly critical (and actually, in some cases, not critical enough), but in general she at least criticizes the right things.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[BenKatzPhillytoParis]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

We're way off topic on this thread, but I have to chime in to agree. It has always bothered me that the Barnes presents a blank wall to the Parkway, just like the juvenile detention center did (only prettier in this case). Couldn't they have at least put a cafe on the Parkway side to liven things up and draw people in?

I felt this way at first, too. Bottom line, Parkway does need a cafe between Logan Square and Eakins Oval no doubt. But I don't think it needs to be right there. The planning and design of the Barnes on the Parkway was really about recreating the serene quality of the original, and honestly, I wouldn't change a thing about it. I think it's perfect the way it is, and everyone who visits seems to think the same thing. I think a good place for a cafe would be somewhere on the Rodin block since there's a lot more green space outside the museum envelope. But it would have to be something less physically dominant, with much less massing than Café Cret or the cafe at Sister Cities. The park cafes in paris:https://www.google.ru/search?newwind...41.ZE_ynWoHj9M would be a perfect model.

[br323206]

Originally Posted by BenKatzPhillytoParis

The planning and design of the Barnes on the Parkway was really about recreating the serene quality of the original, and honestly, I wouldn't change a thing about it. I think it's perfect the way it is, and everyone who visits seems to think the same thing.

I too will apologize for straying off topic. But, no, not everyone who visits agrees it is perfect the way it is. Several posters expressed that they wished that it would meet the street better and actually address the parkway. As a planner, I agree with that sentiment. Juts like Inga, I see a lot of positives in the design of the building but the way it addresses the BFP is a huge missed opportunity.

To get back to topic, I'm glad the W seems like it's going to have a nice street presence and really improve that stretch of Chestnut.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by br323206

To get back to topic, I'm glad the W seems like it's going to have a nice street presence and really improve that stretch of Chestnut.

Thanks for bringing us back to the issue at hand -- just in time for me to stray slightly. I was recalling the other day how Brooks Brothers used to be at 15th & Chestnut for decades. It occupied two floors, and was a very dignified space (like a mini version of their large Madison Avenue flagship). They moved to Walnut as Chestnut (especially that stretch) became very run down. Staples moved in and ripped out the woodwork and installed aluminum signage to cover the "set in stone" BB signage. I can't say I'm as fond of BB's more "cozy" new shop, which also has far less street "presence." It's interesting to see the life return to Chestnut in general and that stretch in particular. Although they couldn't have foreseen how things would change, I can't help thinking how, had BB stuck it out, it would've further solidified the upscale "vibe" that begins with the Ritz and, with the W, is extending toward Liberty Place.