HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2017, 10:29 PM
Skintreesnail Skintreesnail is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 49
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.
Never tried this with a KMZ file, but I have stored KML files before on google drive and created a Network Link to the file in google earth (under Add menu). You might be able to create a view only share link in google drive so folks can link to it to view in google earth but not modify. I imagine dropbox has something similar.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2017, 11:45 PM
summersm343's Avatar
summersm343 summersm343 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 11,745
Appeal of Jewelers' Row demolition permit denied by Board of L&I Review

Read more here:
http://planphilly.com/articles/2017/...-of-l-i-review
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2017, 10:36 PM
Mr Saturn64 Mr Saturn64 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Philly
Posts: 420
Sweet. I mean, it does suck to tear down really old buildings like that, but this neighborhood seriously needs some skyscrapers in it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2017, 1:25 AM
summersm343's Avatar
summersm343 summersm343 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 11,745
October 2017 start date for this according to the Center City District report:
http://centercityphila.org/uploads/a...2017-final.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2017, 4:08 AM
Daario Daario is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 81
I'm not totally against a tower in this area, but I would really like to see a redesign. I don't see anything good going for the current design.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2017, 11:39 AM
Gonzo the Great's Avatar
Gonzo the Great Gonzo the Great is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: the Henson Galaxy
Posts: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daario View Post
I'm not totally against a tower in this area, but I would really like to see a redesign. I don't see anything good going for the current design.


Yep , stinks .
__________________
...... I had that weird dream again !
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2017, 4:50 PM
summersm343's Avatar
summersm343 summersm343 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 11,745
Is Toll Brothers' project on Jewelers' Row in limbo?

Quote:
Progress on a 29-story residential tower that Toll Brothers Inc. proposed for Jewelers’ Row appears to have hit a lull after reaching a succession of milestones late last year and earlier this year that had advanced the project.

The project has been working its way through a typical approval process since last summer when it was first revealed that the Horsham developer was looking to construct a tower in the historic district. Even by last November, the Philadelphia Department of Licenses & Inspections issued a demolition permit, paving the way for what had initially been a 16-story building. By late December, that tower grew to 29 stories, causing a stir from critics and even Mayor Jim Kennedy.

In keeping with the course developers take on their way to getting a project OK'd, Toll Brothers met in late January with Washington Square West to unveil renderings of the project and, by early February, faced the next hurdle, going before Philadelphia’s Civic Design Review.

Then things came to a halt and Feb. 7 was the last time Toll Brothers was publicly championing its controversial residential tower. At that design review meeting, Toll Brothers (NYSE: TOL) was met with skepticism over the design of the building as well as questions over its height and whether more could be done to incorporate historical façades into the project. Usually a developer will make revisions based on that input and present those changes at a follow up meeting.

In between then and now, Brian Emmons, a vice president at Toll Brothers who was shepherding the project through the approval process, left the company after more than 10 years of focusing on expanding the developer’s presence in Philadelphia.

While it looks as if the development is in limbo, a company spokesman says otherwise. Through Tim Spreitzer, Toll Brothers said Emmons departure does not affect the project from moving forward and that the company “is continuing our planning process and working with a number of stakeholders involved in the Jewelers’ Row development. We are excited to move forward with this project.”

The company has been and expects to continue meeting with public and private stakeholders, the city and the civic design review board on the project, Spreitzer said. It does not have any new renderings it plans to share publicly at this time.
http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelp...-in-limbo.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2017, 7:11 PM
McBane McBane is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,295
Maybe hopefully fingers crossed..........a redesign?

Also, this statement ticks me off.
Quote:
that tower grew to 29 stories, causing a stir from critics and even Mayor Jim Kennedy.
Once these buildings are demolished, they're gone. And the difference between 16 floors and 29 floors is visually insignificant (we're not talking about going from 3 floors to 29). Once you get past a certain height (150 feet?), it really doesn't make a visual difference.

For the city, that's an add'l 13 floors of economic activity - construction, transfer taxes, etc. Why is the mayor kvetching about that? Ugh.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2017, 2:54 AM
Jayfar's Avatar
Jayfar Jayfar is offline
Midrise
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBane View Post
Maybe hopefully fingers crossed..........a redesign?

Also, this statement ticks me off.


Once these buildings are demolished, they're gone. And the difference between 16 floors and 29 floors is visually insignificant (we're not talking about going from 3 floors to 29). Once you get past a certain height (150 feet?), it really doesn't make a visual difference.

For the city, that's an add'l 13 floors of economic activity - construction, transfer taxes, etc. Why is the mayor kvetching about that? Ugh.
The problem is with the 'unity of use' claims in Toll's application, under which Toll is seeking the additional height and which L&I is still mulling over last we heard. On the surface the 'unity of use' in this case seems very iffy, since they're including properties other than the lots they own and are building upon. And we don't have the concept of air rights in the Phila zoning code, which would certainly simplify things.

https://philly.curbed.com/2017/2/8/1...wer-air-rights

Here's another local case involving unity of use claims; the Commonwealth Court was not impressed.

http://planphilly.com/uploads/media_...f.original.pdf
__________________
“I am indeed well aware of the history of Conventional (sic) Hall, both globally and locally, and can assure you that we are carefully exploring avenues for its future.” -- Penn President Amy Gutmann 5 days before demolition began.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2017, 10:29 AM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBane View Post
Maybe hopefully fingers crossed..........a redesign?

Also, this statement ticks me off.


Once these buildings are demolished, they're gone. And the difference between 16 floors and 29 floors is visually insignificant (we're not talking about going from 3 floors to 29). Once you get past a certain height (150 feet?), it really doesn't make a visual difference.

For the city, that's an add'l 13 floors of economic activity - construction, transfer taxes, etc. Why is the mayor kvetching about that? Ugh.
It's not the height. It's the pretext. Toll always knew they were going 29 even when they publicized 16 floors. Even people that post here leaked this at a time when Toll was still pretending the tower would be 16 floors. Relatedly, the unity of use stuff as a basis for the greater height. Dubious.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2017, 2:25 PM
McBane McBane is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbrook View Post
It's not the height. It's the pretext. Toll always knew they were going 29 even when they publicized 16 floors. Even people that post here leaked this at a time when Toll was still pretending the tower would be 16 floors. Relatedly, the unity of use stuff as a basis for the greater height. Dubious.
Doesn't Toll know any better? You propose taller than you intend to build, not the other way around!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2017, 2:44 PM
Groundhog's Avatar
Groundhog Groundhog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBane View Post
Doesn't Toll know any better? You propose taller than you intend to build, not the other way around!
It worked for FMC.
__________________
You must construct additional pylons.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2017, 2:49 PM
Larry King Larry King is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 787
I think The question is whether the air rights for properties on walnut can be added to tower's zoning site. There's an alley in between, no question you can use air rights from adjoining buildings, not clear on how it works if there's an alley. And this process is most likely political even though it shouldn't be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2017, 6:54 PM
Human Scale's Avatar
Human Scale Human Scale is offline
More of that.
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry King View Post
I think The question is whether the air rights for properties on walnut can be added to tower's zoning site. There's an alley in between, no question you can use air rights from adjoining buildings, not clear on how it works if there's an alley. And this process is most likely political even though it shouldn't be.
At the CDR the developers stated they had yet to secure all air rights. The height is ok and was not disputed zoning wise, but the design of the tower directly abuts nearly all neighbors. Usually if you want windows you have to give 3 feet on your end and 3 feet on the neighbor's end, otherwise it has to be a blank wall. If they don't get certain air rights they will simply need to change the design to be slimmer where appropriate. But can maintain the height. Correct me if I'm wrong. The developer wants to max max max out floor area ratio and they really want those air rights to make this project hit better returns.

There was an issue with the alley and whether they have the L&I permission to include the alleys. It should be noted that while alleys are public, they are also included in your deed. i.e. "property includes this length to this length to this length including a certain three foot alley." Some wider cartways may be written as "communicating with a certain three foot alley." Some cartways are historically protected I would hope. But doesn't L&I deal with "striking alleys from the grid" all the time? I certainly know they handle lot consolidation.

Cecil Baker and the developer were both unsure about this project being doable as is. But this particular CDR presentation was information only anyway, not a proper submission. I think the developer just wanted to get in front of the growing interest. They even brought a few jewlers with them who basically said "We're dying. We need this. We aren't going to last much longer without something like this."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2017, 7:21 PM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBane View Post
Doesn't Toll know any better? You propose taller than you intend to build, not the other way around!
Yep! Most of the time, that's how it should work.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2017, 7:22 PM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Scale View Post
At the CDR the developers stated they had yet to secure all air rights. The height is ok and was not disputed zoning wise, but the design of the tower directly abuts nearly all neighbors. Usually if you want windows you have to give 3 feet on your end and 3 feet on the neighbor's end, otherwise it has to be a blank wall. If they don't get certain air rights they will simply need to change the design to be slimmer where appropriate. But can maintain the height. Correct me if I'm wrong. The developer wants to max max max out floor area ratio and they really want those air rights to make this project hit better returns.

There was an issue with the alley and whether they have the L&I permission to include the alleys. It should be noted that while alleys are public, they are also included in your deed. i.e. "property includes this length to this length to this length including a certain three foot alley." Some wider cartways may be written as "communicating with a certain three foot alley." Some cartways are historically protected I would hope. But doesn't L&I deal with "striking alleys from the grid" all the time? I certainly know they handle lot consolidation.

Cecil Baker and the developer were both unsure about this project being doable as is. But this particular CDR presentation was information only anyway, not a proper submission. I think the developer just wanted to get in front of the growing interest. They even brought a few jewlers with them who basically said "We're dying. We need this. We aren't going to last much longer without something like this."
What neighbors? There are no adjacent neighbors above three stories.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2017, 3:01 AM
Human Scale's Avatar
Human Scale Human Scale is offline
More of that.
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbrook View Post
What neighbors? There are no adjacent neighbors above three stories.
But there could be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Jul 6, 2017, 7:45 PM
1487 1487 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 3,142
L&I calls time on taller Jewelers Row tower plan after Toll Bros. failure to respond

This doesn't seem to be a good sign

http://www.philly.com/philly/busines...-20170706.html

Last edited by summersm343; Jul 6, 2017 at 7:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Jul 6, 2017, 7:52 PM
Groundhog's Avatar
Groundhog Groundhog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1487 View Post
This doesn't seem to be a good sign

http://www.philly.com/philly/busines...-20170706.html

"City inspectors have ceased consideration of Toll Bros.’ plan for a 29-story condo tower on Jewelers Row after the Horsham-based developer failed to respond to a request for additional information to support its application for the project’s zoning approvals."

__________________
You must construct additional pylons.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Jul 6, 2017, 8:11 PM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1487 View Post
L&I calls time on taller Jewelers Row tower plan after Toll Bros. failure to respond

This doesn't seem to be a good sign

http://www.philly.com/philly/busines...-20170706.html
Good. They deserve it for playing fast and loose. But I hope they still pursue the 16 story tower, though. Seems questionable if they didn't bother to respond.
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 8:02 PM.

     

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