PHILADELPHIA | 1001 S. Broad Street Phase I | 180 FT | 14 FLOORS

[summersm343]

Blatstein officially buys Broad and Washington lot for big development

Read more here:
https://philly.curbed.com/2017/7/31/...ad-development

[thisisforreal]

Can't wait for those 4th floor views while visiting a boutique check-in-to-cash, QVC outlet, or comcast customer service center. What businesses are going to locate there?

[SEFTA]

"Taking what we can get" is not a very strong planning process.

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

I smell a flip...

Originally Posted by McBane

Pff...says the person who thinks rooftop bars are stupid?

I repeat: if the concept is as bad as ya'll say it is, then don't worry because the banks won't finance it and retailers won't lease the space. Bart may be stubborn, but he's still relying on the banks to finance his project....I'm with Larry King - if it happens, probably just a small collection of rooftop bars and restaurants that eixample will not patronize.

Is there any indication that the plans that have been in place and had the zoning adjusted for will suddenly be thrown out? I mean, I think we have a pretty good idea what he wants to do here...

Also, according to current lay out - the village in the sky with a skyline view won't happen...unless you consider the roofs of South Philly a view. The Tower's high-rise massing is on the North and West borders of the complex - your only "views" would be South and East. The superblock concept with little interest in pedestrian interaction, massive parking garage a block from a Subway stop. On top of all that...it's ugly. This just seems like a clumsy project, rather save this site for the 76ers new arena

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Londonee

Is there any indication that the plans that have been in place and had the zoning adjusted for will suddenly be thrown out? I mean, I think we have a pretty good idea what he wants to do here...

Also, according to current lay out - the village in the sky with a skyline view won't happen...unless you consider the roofs of South Philly a view. The Tower's high-rise massing is on the North and West borders of the complex - your only "views" would be South and East. The superblock concept with little interest in pedestrian interaction, massive parking garage a block from a Subway stop. On top of all that...it's ugly. This just seems like a clumsy project, rather save this site for the 76ers new arena

As much as I'd love to debate it, let's not get into the 6ers stadium move again.

He never planned to have a skyline view, just wanted to make sure there wouldn't be shadows on the village. His ignoring the skyline is almost as if he didn't even know that there's a beautiful center city up the street (although it would explain his anti-urban design).

I hope people are right that the market will prevent this from being done too stupidly - as it's unlikely he'll build on spec. I really don't know what would go in here other than some restaurants (not that those are bad). The target he'd hoped for is jumping across the street, as is the grocery store. Are the old rumors of a Wal Mart going to come back? What about a movie theater? I'm really not sure what would fit.

[Parkway]

I think part of the problem is that Bart sees something that works in a European city and tries to port it here without understanding the context. Piazzas work because they replace intersections, they are natural places of congregation in a city that is tremendously short on public space due to the age and density of the ancient city. The rooftop retail works in Monaco because it's a tiny principality in between a mountain and the Mediterranean Sea.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by Parkway

I think part of the problem is that Bart sees something that works in a European city and tries to port it here without understanding the context. Piazzas work because they replace intersections, they are natural places of congregation in a city that is tremendously short on public space due to the age and density of the ancient city. The rooftop retail works in Monaco because it's a tiny principality in between a mountain and the Mediterranean Sea.

I was thinking the same thing actually. Plazas and pedestrian only retail strips work very well in Europe, because people are used to and prefer walking.

These things usually don't work in the US for whatever reason. Retail that does not face a street, or is not in some kind of designated mall, usually does not do well.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by Parkway

I think part of the problem is that Bart sees something that works in a European city and tries to port it here without understanding the context. Piazzas work because they replace intersections, they are natural places of congregation in a city that is tremendously short on public space due to the age and density of the ancient city. The rooftop retail works in Monaco because it's a tiny principality in between a mountain and the Mediterranean Sea.

Very well said.

[boxbot]

Originally Posted by Parkway

I think part of the problem is that Bart sees something that works in a European city and tries to port it here without understanding the context. Piazzas work because they replace intersections, they are natural places of congregation in a city that is tremendously short on public space due to the age and density of the ancient city. The rooftop retail works in Monaco because it's a tiny principality in between a mountain and the Mediterranean Sea.

Excellent points. Also, I do not believe Monaco has a Target.

[SEFTA]

It irks me that, like Lincoln Square, they first propose an outrageous project that is completely out of step with the area. Then, like Lincoln Square, they'll settle on some unimpressive low rise. Instead of hiring a knowledgeable architect in the beginning and maybe getting a decent, realistic proposal with some height. It'll be dismissed as outrageous then replaced with some quickie low rise apartment block. On such a prominent intersection. What they have to gain from this process, I don't understand.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by SEFTA

It irks me that, like Lincoln Square, they first propose an outrageous project that is completely out of step with the area. Then, like Lincoln Square, they'll settle on some unimpressive low rise. Instead of hiring a knowledgeable architect in the beginning and maybe getting a decent, realistic proposal with some height. It'll be dismissed as outrageous then replaced with some quickie low rise apartment block. On such a prominent intersection. What they have to gain from this process, I don't understand.

Maybe I missed something, but Lincoln Square didn't do that at all. The proposal was compared to Bart's Monster and received mostly positive marks for hitting all the notes that he missed. They never put a plan out that was outrageous. Granted, nobody will confuse the cladding on Lincoln Square for City Hall, but it was never presented that way. It's been fairly consistent from announcement to now.

It has it's warts and you could decry the above ground parking, low height and/or cladding (although props to them for showcasing and saving the train shed), but it's a reasonable project. I think the majority of people on this board would be relieved if Bart built something similar instead of his sky village (I certainly would) - and some may expect the market to push him that way as well (I certainly hope it does).

[City Wide]

Personally I'm not all that concerned about the 'sky village'. Whether it is successful or not won't have too much of a impact on the rest of the project. Meaning, if the sky village were to be dropped, there still is lots of reasons to be less then thrilled about this 'load' of a proposal.

But is there any reason to believe one way or another about what Bart is presently planning, has he said anything since gaining full control of this lot? Is there any reason to believe he will build anything here? What was the last project he built in the City?

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by McBane

A lot of posters here criticizing this project without really knowing what it will be (we haven't seen any real renderings). I think it's also ironic that people criticizing this project are the very same the dismiss NIMBY criticisms as silly.

As I've said before, we here can ridicule the "village in the sky" concept all day long but ultimately, our voices don't count for squat. If the banks think it's a bad idea, they won't lend. Or if he gets financing but no retailers sign on, he'll need to reconfigure.

Here we have a long empty, derelict lot that may finally get some love and all I see is bitching and moaning, not because it's too short or the design (which we haven't seen) is ugly; but because people don't like Blatstein or his "village in the sky" concept? Sorry, those criticisms are as nonsensical as "it's too tall" or "it will create too much traffic."

It may not happen; it may be shorter; he may ditch the village in the sky thing, but for now, I'm rooting for this project to happen.

Seriously? This is an architecture website not a cheerleading forum. People are well within their rights to criticize the architectural merits of a project.

And hating on the sky village is not even remotely the same as hating on a building for being too tall or causing traffic. Tall buildings that impact traffic may annoy near neighbors but they're generally good for the urban fabric. Therefore people who oppose tall buildings near them are opposing them for their own self interest and to the detriment of the city as a whole.

This sky village superblock is terrible urban planning. People are opposing it because they want something better. It is not the mark of a great city to just desperately take what is proposed even if it is terrible.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by allovertown

Seriously? This is an architecture website not a cheerleading forum. People are well within their rights to criticize the architectural merits of a project.

Agreed, but I don't think we've seen any solid renderings yet. I'm probably one of the loudest voices here when it comes to ugly proposals, but the fact is, all we've seen is some very crude renderings that are already a few years old.

And I mostly agree with everything else. But I just won't get my panties in a bunch over a concept (sky village) that probably won't happen because most retailers won't sign on to it. Generally, yea a superblock is bad planning but at this location, I'm throwing in the towel. It's not as if this is 1911 Walnut, 8th and Market, or another sensitive site that has sat vacant for ever.

Overall, I'm still taking a wait and see attitude with this one. I just don't know enough and I won't start bashing a project based on some very rough/preliminary drawings and a concept that was introduced already a couple years ago.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by McBane

Agreed, but I don't think we've seen any solid renderings yet. I'm probably one of the loudest voices here when it comes to ugly proposals, but the fact is, all we've seen is some very crude renderings that are already a few years old.

And I mostly agree with everything else. But I just won't get my panties in a bunch over a concept (sky village) that probably won't happen because most retailers won't sign on to it. Generally, yea a superblock is bad planning but at this location, I'm throwing in the towel. It's not as if this is 1911 Walnut, 8th and Market, or another sensitive site that has sat vacant for ever.

Overall, I'm still taking a wait and see attitude with this one. I just don't know enough and I won't start bashing a project based on some very rough/preliminary drawings and a concept that was introduced already a couple years ago.

All fair enough. However I totally understand those who are pessimistic about this and disappointed Bart got the land. Nothing this guy has done in over a decade... and really most of his career, inspires confidence. The sky village would be forgivable if it was a solitary off the cuff proposal, instead it had been the central design element of each of his last two propsals. He's just not a good urban developer and it seems very reasonable to mourn his acquisition of this land.

We haven't seen aethetics yet and they may be good. But it's hard to imagine a solid urban development at this location from Bart, regardless of what it looks like.

[Arch+Eng]

I, for one, am excited about these sky villages

[mcgrath618]

From a pure skyline perspective, this building will do wonders to stretch our skyline south. It also isn't too shabby looking IMO.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by mcgrath618

From a pure skyline perspective, this building will do wonders to stretch our skyline south. It also isn't too shabby looking IMO.

I don't think many on this board will argue with you on it's impact on the skyline. I'd love something tall, if it's ugly, hopefully it's not ugly, but at the very least, make it meet the street in a way that makes sense.

You all have convinced me to come back off the ledge and take a more wait and see approach. The retail won't be built on spec and if we are to get new renderings then there's some hope. Maybe he's learned from all the community pushback to not be as dumb and to value the street and the skyline views.

I'm hoping it stays tall and the market demand makes his sky village become a large outdoor section of a restaurant and resident amenities or something along those lines. Let's see a big box retailer that complements the target across the street or some smaller stores/venues on the ground floor. My gut says this stays ugly, but maybe it gets shaped to be more urban and functional. Here's hoping!

[summersm343]

Apparently a ton of equipment on site today. Can anybody confirm?

[Parkway]

I'll check on my way home today.