HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Highrise & Supertall Proposals

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2017, 3:12 AM
SEFTA's Avatar
SEFTA SEFTA is offline
SEFTA
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: SE Florida
Posts: 103
702 Sansom Street, Jewelers Row, showed here with boxy proposal at 709 Chestnut Street, both in red.





It's ashame they couldn't figure out how to fill all those surface lots with buildings before tearing down historic buildings

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2017, 3:33 PM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,649
What proposal at 709 Chestnut Street? Isn't that abandoned?

http://philly.curbed.com/2016/9/12/1...velopment-deal

I do not believe this has been revised or picked up by any other developer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2017, 4:03 PM
1487 1487 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 2,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbrook View Post
What proposal at 709 Chestnut Street? Isn't that abandoned?

http://philly.curbed.com/2016/9/12/1...velopment-deal

I do not believe this has been revised or picked up by any other developer.
yes, that's dead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2017, 4:17 PM
Milksteak Milksteak is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 160
Wouldn't it be nice if Toll filled in 709 instead of taking out part of Jeweler's Row? There are still prime lots for the taking.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2017, 4:57 PM
SEFTA's Avatar
SEFTA SEFTA is offline
SEFTA
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: SE Florida
Posts: 103
I kept it in, 709 Chestnut Street, because the thread is not closed. It also makes my point, that with all the other available lots, why do they need to tear down historic buildings. Unless I hear it is officially dead, I try to remain optimistic. Tho the renderings of 709 didn't scream a great project, I liked the idea of it happening. I keep the red as only proposals. The blue are under construction or, at least, very hopeful. Seeing all the projects together is really impressive. Reflects the interest in the area.
The Jewelers Row tower will have a great view of Washington Square.

Last edited by SEFTA; Jan 27, 2017 at 5:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2017, 6:32 PM
Groundhog's Avatar
Groundhog Groundhog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEFTA View Post
I kept it in, 709 Chestnut Street, because the thread is not closed. It also makes my point, that with all the other available lots, why do they need to tear down historic buildings. Unless I hear it is officially dead, I try to remain optimistic. Tho the renderings of 709 didn't scream a great project, I liked the idea of it happening. I keep the red as only proposals. The blue are under construction or, at least, very hopeful. Seeing all the projects together is really impressive. Reflects the interest in the area.
The Jewelers Row tower will have a great view of Washington Square.
I love these mock ups you do, they really give better perspective on how a building will interact with the rest of the city. Is there any way you could post a protected view (to prevent people like me from mistakenly screwing up all your hard work) that would let us look around in it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2017, 6:55 PM
summersm343's Avatar
summersm343 summersm343 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 10,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbrook View Post
What proposal at 709 Chestnut Street? Isn't that abandoned?

http://philly.curbed.com/2016/9/12/1...velopment-deal

I do not believe this has been revised or picked up by any other developer.
I'm keeping 709 Chestnut open for now. Roseland backed out in September, but Parkway still owns the lot and could easily partner with another developer. If we don't hear anything soon I'll close the thread. I'm going to start closing some threads we haven't heard anything about and will reopen them if new info or a new projects surfaces.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2017, 3:26 AM
SEFTA's Avatar
SEFTA SEFTA is offline
SEFTA
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: SE Florida
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundhog View Post
I love these mock ups you do, they really give better perspective on how a building will interact with the rest of the city. Is there any way you could post a protected view (to prevent people like me from mistakenly screwing up all your hard work) that would let us look around in it?
I have not been able to figure a way of sharing the info on GoogleEarth. I wish I could. It's quite entertaining to see all the current projects and proposals interact in the city. If you have any suggestions... each building is it's own KMZ file.



Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2017, 4:44 AM
Human Scale's Avatar
Human Scale Human Scale is offline
More of that.
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 300
^Use ArcGis City Engine, optimally with VR

They use Philadelphia in a lot of their YouTube videos, presumably because so many West Chester University Geography and Planning graduates go to work for ESRI in Redlands.

https://youtu.be/lcLEOGO1JPE

https://youtu.be/nj78eQxidFc
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2017, 6:40 PM
Raymond LuxuryYacht Raymond LuxuryYacht is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Scale View Post
^Use ArcGis City Engine, optimally with VR

They use Philadelphia in a lot of their YouTube videos, presumably because so many West Chester University Geography and Planning graduates go to work for ESRI in Redlands.

https://youtu.be/lcLEOGO1JPE

https://youtu.be/nj78eQxidFc
I'm a Millersville grad who works for Esri. Yes, Philly seems to be the go-to demo scene for any presentation. The city from what I can tell was an early participant in 3-D modeling. They had a rep from the city at UC, I believe 2 years ago talking about how they use ArcMap for crime mapping. There's a 3-D building web service of the city you can pull into ArcGIS Earth that I believe is the one you see in many demos. The service doesn't have CITC yet, so hopefully it will updated soon to capture all the new building construction!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2017, 9:23 PM
Aaamazarite's Avatar
Aaamazarite Aaamazarite is offline
Cory Trevor Leahy
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wash West
Posts: 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEFTA View Post
I have not been able to figure a way of sharing the info on GoogleEarth. I wish I could. It's quite entertaining to see all the current projects and proposals interact in the city. If you have any suggestions... each building is it's own KMZ file.
Compress them into a rar, zip, 7z, etc and then put the file up on a file sharing site like dropbox, google drive, rapidshare, there's a million of em.
__________________
Philaphilia is back and better than ever! Learn about Old-Ass Buildings, Chronically Empty Center City Storefronts, Butt-Fugly Buildings, and all the other crap that you Philaphiles love!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2017, 2:32 PM
McBane McBane is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,189
This building design is typical Philadelphia. Red brick base with cornice line matching neighboring buildings with a setback tower to give the illusion that the tower doesn't actually exist. This approach is getting very old.

The base is well designed but boring and very unoriginal. I hope that the two jewlers who were interested in the retail space are retained. This tower itself is not a threat to the Row but it will be if this tower follows the pattern of all other new development in the city in that the retail space will either go to a drugstore, a bank, a fast casual chain, or an upscale chain/celebrity chef restaurant.

The Sansom Street facade is awful. Someone likened it to the Federal Courthouse building. I agree - and that's not a good thing, that building is hideous.

The back of the building with the glass facade is okay but doesn't mesh well at all with red brick.

This is truly a Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Heide building. It doesn't need a little tweaking but a complete redo. What would work very well IMHO is a contemporary building built with traditional materials, as exemplified by the proposed Hyde Hotel on South Broad or (to a lesser extent) the brick/metal building on Sansom that houses Dizzengoff. Such a design would compliment the other buildings on Jewlers Row, whereas the current design is attempting to be a carbon copy. Finally, do away with the setback. You're building a high rise - own up to it, it's nothing to be ashamed of.

Last edited by McBane; Jan 30, 2017 at 2:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2017, 3:44 PM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBane View Post
This building design is typical Philadelphia. Red brick base with cornice line matching neighboring buildings with a setback tower to give the illusion that the tower doesn't actually exist. This approach is getting very old.

The base is well designed but boring and very unoriginal. I hope that the two jewlers who were interested in the retail space are retained. This tower itself is not a threat to the Row but it will be if this tower follows the pattern of all other new development in the city in that the retail space will either go to a drugstore, a bank, a fast casual chain, or an upscale chain/celebrity chef restaurant.

The Sansom Street facade is awful. Someone likened it to the Federal Courthouse building. I agree - and that's not a good thing, that building is hideous.

The back of the building with the glass facade is okay but doesn't mesh well at all with red brick.

This is truly a Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Heide building. It doesn't need a little tweaking but a complete redo. What would work very well IMHO is a contemporary building built with traditional materials, as exemplified by the proposed Hyde Hotel on South Broad or (to a lesser extent) the brick/metal building on Sansom that houses Dizzengoff. Such a design would compliment the other buildings on Jewlers Row, whereas the current design is attempting to be a carbon copy. Finally, do away with the setback. You're building a high rise - own up to it, it's nothing to be ashamed of.
You seem to have a universal distaste for setbacks. In fact, they have their uses, are often a sensible approach, and they can also look nice. Certainly not universally desired, but I think a setback in this location is appropriate. Otherwise, there are so many problems with this building design. Hammer nailed it. I can't add much to that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2017, 4:47 PM
allovertown allovertown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBane View Post
This building design is typical Philadelphia. Red brick base with cornice line matching neighboring buildings with a setback tower to give the illusion that the tower doesn't actually exist. This approach is getting very old.

The base is well designed but boring and very unoriginal. I hope that the two jewlers who were interested in the retail space are retained. This tower itself is not a threat to the Row but it will be if this tower follows the pattern of all other new development in the city in that the retail space will either go to a drugstore, a bank, a fast casual chain, or an upscale chain/celebrity chef restaurant.

The Sansom Street facade is awful. Someone likened it to the Federal Courthouse building. I agree - and that's not a good thing, that building is hideous.

The back of the building with the glass facade is okay but doesn't mesh well at all with red brick.

This is truly a Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Heide building. It doesn't need a little tweaking but a complete redo. What would work very well IMHO is a contemporary building built with traditional materials, as exemplified by the proposed Hyde Hotel on South Broad or (to a lesser extent) the brick/metal building on Sansom that houses Dizzengoff. Such a design would compliment the other buildings on Jewlers Row, whereas the current design is attempting to be a carbon copy. Finally, do away with the setback. You're building a high rise - own up to it, it's nothing to be ashamed of.
I agree that the design is shit and looks like a terrible copy of the federal court with a glass tumor growing out of it. I also agree that they should go contemporary here. I mean this is basically across the street from the Curtis Center, any attempt at a neoclassical styled brick dominated facade is pointless because they often look bad and it will look even worse when it is forced to stand next to a phenomenal example of this style done right.

But you're way off on the setback. I get that they annoy you and a I will agree they're overused in Philadelphia. Buildings like 2116 Chestnut, there's simply no need for a setback. But I mean there is a reason why people use them and it's not just because people are "ashamed" to build skyscrapers. Jeweler's Row is a beautiful human scaled street. Inserting a 350 foot skyscraper right into the middle of the block would look absolutely absurd and totally destroy the intimate nature of this street. The setback is basically the only thing they got right here.

The setback should remain but they should accomplish it by simply preserving the facades of the existing buildings. But then the tower itself, a striking a contemporary tower would work great here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2017, 1:56 PM
McBane McBane is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,189
I guess I can see the rationale of a setback here, but I still think a contemporary design with traditional materials would mesh very well here - to compliment the existing buildings without detracting or overpowering them, the way a modern glass building would.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2017, 3:01 PM
Knight Hospitaller's Avatar
Knight Hospitaller Knight Hospitaller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Greater Philadelphia
Posts: 1,554
I can't wait for the CDR comments on this Jekyll and Hyde monstrosity. I think the three faux storefronts (replacing the five existing ones) are OK. I'll never understand the tower.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2017, 5:02 PM
allovertown allovertown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller View Post
I can't wait for the CDR comments on this Jekyll and Hyde monstrosity. I think the three faux storefronts (replacing the five existing ones) are OK. I'll never understand the tower.
I agree that faux storefronts are ok. But there is no need for it to just be ok. It would not be a burden on the profitability of the project to just preserve the existing storefronts, they're just trying to squeeze every possible dime out of this project.

If they are dead set in demolishing them and we're truly powerless to stop, they should at least break it up with different designs and make them look distinct. Currently it's such a big bland block of sameness that I think it overpowers the whole street.

But yes the tower's design is most problematic. Truly the worSt design I've seen proposed in Philadelphia for high rise inot a long time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2017, 5:46 PM
Knight Hospitaller's Avatar
Knight Hospitaller Knight Hospitaller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Greater Philadelphia
Posts: 1,554
^ I too wish the base were better/more preservationist, but if all of this is by right (on unprotected parcels), I'll take what I can get. I would take ANYTHING over the tower with an identity crisis.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2017, 9:47 PM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBane View Post
I guess I can see the rationale of a setback here, but I still think a contemporary design with traditional materials would mesh very well here - to compliment the existing buildings without detracting or overpowering them, the way a modern glass building would.
That's fair. It is a poor design. Many ways it could or should be altered.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2017, 7:05 PM
Knight Hospitaller's Avatar
Knight Hospitaller Knight Hospitaller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Greater Philadelphia
Posts: 1,554
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 > Highrise & Supertall Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:25 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.