According to Inga local residents have banded together financially to help pay for a new architect for the tower. Definitely and unusual arrangement but it seems like Pearl has agreed to this.
Rather than pay lawyers to wage a protracted legal assault, the neighbors instead decided to offer their money to the developer, Pearl Properties - if it would agree to hire a new architect and redesign the project. While the two sides are still finishing the details in a formal agreement, it looks as though they're ready to give the unorthodox arrangement a go. The neighbors' preferred architect, Cecil Baker, said he met Thursday with Pearl's Reed J. Slogoff to begin hashing out a new approach.
You gotta tip your hats to the NIMBYs on this one for coming up with such an ingenious idea that's a win-win for everyone. I'm excited to see the new design. I wonder if there is any sort of precedent here or if we'll see NIMBYs go with this approach again.
You gotta tip your hats to the NIMBYs on this one for coming up with such an ingenious idea that's a win-win for everyone. I'm excited to see the new design. I wonder if there is any sort of precedent here or if we'll see NIMBYs go with this approach again.
I doubt the average group of angry neighbors has the resources to do what these people are doing. You dont need to fire an architect to change a design, but I guess this makes them feel better about themselves.
This whole project has become a 3 ring circus, literally.
What next? The residents will disagree amongst themselves because they think their design is better than the other....geezzzz. They will put bank account against bank account as to who has the most invested.
The project has given the word "OVERKILL" a new meaning.
PS: Where's the lady who has the "wind" issues? Maybe they can design the building with wind chimes on them, so she can keep an eye (an ear, actually).....oh man.
__________________
whatever
Last edited by mmikeyphilly; Jun 19, 2015 at 2:13 PM.
Is this just a ploy to reduce the tower to an oversized mid-rise to preserve views?
Please just use the original plan with minor modifications and move forward.
Quote:
In Gross' mind, the best outcome would be an integrated design that includes two or three mid-rise buildings, serving as foothills to a less slablike tower.
I didn't read it like that. I interpreted it as having more of a gradual step from the street level to the high rise. Earlier, the article quoted Mr. Gross as saying he had no problem with the building's height. Overall, it seems like this alliance of residents (all of whom live in high rises!) are pragmatists and know full well that Pearl will reject any design that isn't financially feasible, i.e. a mid-rise. (Though Pearl may reject the design if it's too expensive to build!)
Potential renters or owners should vote with their wallets. Why own or let alone rent an apartment that you have to live in if it doesn't appeal to you.
Pearl is an establish entity in real estate. The idea that private citizens have to put money to hire a new architect to offer another design is appalling and sets bad precedent. Not that Pearl would have to accept the new design.
I didn't read it like that. I interpreted it as having more of a gradual step from the street level to the high rise. Earlier, the article quoted Mr. Gross as saying he had no problem with the building's height. Overall, it seems like this alliance of residents (all of whom live in high rises!) are pragmatists and know full well that Pearl will reject any design that isn't financially feasible, i.e. a mid-rise. (Though Pearl may reject the design if it's too expensive to build!)
Quote:
The deal was the brainchild of Richard Gross, who owns an apartment on the same block of Chestnut Street as the Boyd. As a resident of a high-rise building, he wasn't bothered by the height of Pearl's tower - 341 feet.
You are correct. I just hope everyone else involved agrees with him.
It really should not have to come to this. However, at the end of the day if it's a choice between horrific design and neighbors acting in this manner to get it together, I don't think I have a problem with it. If people want to put their money where their mouth is, at least to the point of hiring architects, more power to em. Not your typical NIMBY shit, which is more or the "I don't want anything built anywhere, and certainly not in MY backyard" mindset.
Not sure the neighbor's efforts will really resolve any of the design issues - Pearl does not need to accept the new design, and the architectural plans are a small part of the actual cost - the real cost comes in actually building a good design. Seemed like many (but not all) of Inga's complaints had to do w/ the materials and cost engineering of the new design.
Not sure the neighbor's efforts will really resolve any of the design issues - Pearl does not need to accept the new design, and the architectural plans are a small part of the actual cost - the real cost comes in actually building a good design. Seemed like many (but not all) of Inga's complaints had to do w/ the materials and cost engineering of the new design.
Exactly, changing architects wont change the realities of material costs as it relates to this building. The people in the area seem to think the firm who produced the rendering came up with that design because they aren't notable or experienced when the reality is that they produced something that responded to the client's demands and budgetary limitations. If you give them a blank check they can surely design something better looking with pricier finishes. Changing architects doesn't solve anything.
Exactly, changing architects wont change the realities of material costs as it relates to this building. The people in the area seem to think the firm who produced the rendering came up with that design because they aren't notable or experienced when the reality is that they produced something that responded to the client's demands and budgetary limitations. If you give them a blank check they can surely design something better looking with pricier finishes. Changing architects doesn't solve anything.
It could. At the least, it will have Pearl boxed in and clearly on record that a better design is not being pursued because of cost. And it can start a dialogue on numbers and exactly how much Pearl is willing to pay and what number they would come up to in order to achieve a better design. The fact that the original architect came up with a cheap design doesn't mean they [or others] COULDN'T present a better design that is still cost-effective (albeit somewhat more) if there is enough pressure and publicity surrounding the transaction. And the fact that Pearl would move forward in the cheapest possible manner doesn't mean they won't finance a better design that is more expensive (within reason): IF there is enough pressure and publicity surrounding the transaction.
Maybe Pearl comes back and says that the new design is nice but costly and the only way to offset the increased cost would be add more units, i.e., build taller. Then, the onus is back with the NIMBYs - take the taller, more elegant design or go with the shorter ugly design.
Maybe Pearl comes back and says that the new design is nice but costly and the only way to offset the increased cost would be add more units, i.e., build taller. Then, the onus is back with the NIMBYs - take the taller, more elegant design or go with the shorter ugly design.
I don't know about others but my initial reaction to this original design was NICE! My initial reaction to the new design was WTF? If they could make the numbers work with the original design, couldn't they make them work now that they have more land to work with, maybe by adding height or increasing the size of the base?
I don't know about others but my initial reaction to this original design was NICE! My initial reaction to the new design was WTF? If they could make the numbers work with the original design, couldn't they make them work now that they have more land to work with, maybe by adding height or increasing the size of the base?
The original design is great. But it's not clear to me it was ever financially realistic (or at least never realistic for Pearl's plans). The cynic in me thinks it easily could have been a bait and switch and put out there to get buy-in and support from key constituencies. Without the intention to ever build anything resembling that. Would not be unheard of...
What was the number being thrown around for the original design? What would hold back Pearl from spending the money and getting a decent ROI? Again, Pearl is established with many holdings around Philly. They actually have acquired some nice older building so this will standup their existing holdings even more.
Prev
Then, the onus is back with the NIMBYs - take the taller, more elegant design or go with the shorter ugly design.
Linear Mode
