PHILADELPHIA | Lowrise/General Developments Thread

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by 1487

I look forward to the time when something is done with the lifeless north side of that block of chestnut. I guess that's phase 2 of the East Market project.

Correct. If things are going as well as they seem for Phase I, I hope we'll see Phase II in short order.

[Philly-Drew]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Handsome Buildings on Chestnut Street Will Get Demolished

This is a crime! An absolute fucking crime! Please excuse my "French".

There are a finite number of late 19th century, to early 20 century buildings left on the continent! I can't believe that these healthy examples would even be considered for demolishion, to make way for some "mid-teens" building from this century! I am like 95% pro-construction, but this does not make any sense. This is really sad

[1487]

Originally Posted by Philly-Drew

This is a crime! An absolute fucking crime! Please excuse my "French".

There are a finite number of late 19th century, to early 20 century buildings left on the continent! I can't believe that these healthy examples would even be considered for demolishion, to make way for some "mid-teens" building from this century! I am like 95% pro-construction, but this does not make any sense. This is really sad

buildings need some sort of designation to be protected. Just being old doesn't make a building protected from modification or demolition- especially in a city like this with so many old buildings.

[BenKatzPhillytoParis]

Originally Posted by 1487

buildings need some sort of designation to be protected. Just being old doesn't make a building protected from modification or demolition- especially in a city like this with so many old buildings.

"...especially in a city with so many old buildings." This makes no sense. In Europe, it's the collection of old buildings precisely that make cities unique and special places. Why take pride in being a World Heritage City if you don't care about preserving and cultivating a unique landscape as opposed to simply one-off and arbitrary case-by-case preservation.

[McBane]

We're having this discussion again? And again I'll ask, if these two old buildings were coming down, not for low-rise student housing with cheap paneling, but for a well designed high rise, would you still be upset? (I don't recall anyone here voicing such disgust when Rindlaub's Row came down for 10 Rittenhouse.)

Imagine the unintended consequences of blanketly protecting every single old building in the city: you'll end up giving the NIMBYs waaay more power than that already have and make it all the more difficult for development to happen. There are tons of unremarkable old buildings - many standing in areas that would be much better off with higher density - that would suddenly be off limits.

Yes, there are still plenty of parking lots and garages that should get developed first but that's not how the real world operates.

If you're going to arbitrarily declare every old building historic, then the city should also arbitrarily remove height restrictions from all other lots, which of course, would never work. A more nuanced approach is needed.

[1487]

Originally Posted by BenKatzPhillytoParis

"...especially in a city with so many old buildings." This makes no sense. In Europe, it's the collection of old buildings precisely that make cities unique and special places. Why take pride in being a World Heritage City if you don't care about preserving and cultivating a unique landscape as opposed to simply one-off and arbitrary case-by-case preservation.

I'm not exactly sure what you are proposing. Are you saying any building built before a certain date should be protected from demolition forever? Do you realize how many buildings and neighborhoods have been leveled and rebuilt since this City was founded? Do you realize there has been constant change and evolution for the last few centuries in a city like this?

[donoteat]

well, I suppose it might be worth pointing out that the row in question is within the West Philadelphia Streetcar Suburb Historic District, and is listed as contributing properties in said district.

It also was supposed to be within the boundaries of the Spruce Hill Historic District, which would have been a Philadelphia designation and not a National one, therefore preventing demolition without historic review. That district was blocked by our wonderful councilwoman back in 2002 or so.

They're also nice and well preserved on the inside and I'm not looking forward to moving.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Thanks, "DoNotEat." The straw man arguments are tedious (the perpetrators know who they are). Being against demo of these buildings does not mean that folks want to block the demo of anything over a certain age, or will compromise their principles for a high-rise. It would be helpful for them to address the issues, rather than get snarky.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by McBane

We're having this discussion again? And again I'll ask, if these two old buildings were coming down, not for low-rise student housing with cheap paneling, but for a well designed high rise, would you still be upset? (I don't recall anyone here voicing such disgust when Rindlaub's Row came down for 10 Rittenhouse.)

Imagine the unintended consequences of blanketly protecting every single old building in the city: you'll end up giving the NIMBYs waaay more power than that already have and make it all the more difficult for development to happen. There are tons of unremarkable old buildings - many standing in areas that would be much better off with higher density - that would suddenly be off limits.

Yes, there are still plenty of parking lots and garages that should get developed first but that's not how the real world operates.

If you're going to arbitrarily declare every old building historic, then the city should also arbitrarily remove height restrictions from all other lots, which of course, would never work. A more nuanced approach is needed.

What is with your strange contention that what replaces a buildings doesn't matter? If these buildings were being replaced with 10 Rittenhouse then clearly everyone would be much less upset. That doesn't mean these buildings would be any less important, historic or beautiful. But we could at least rationalize it.

I don't believe anyone is advocating putting the entire city in stasis and never knocking down another building. Clearly more historic buildings will and should be knocked down as Philadelphia moves forward. HOWEVER, the presence of a historic building creates an certain bar for new development. If we're going to destroy a beautiful historic part of our urban fabric, there had better be a good reason to do so. 10 Rittenhouse brought hundreds of new residents to our city, jobs, taxes, etc.

It's a balancing act. On one side we have the historic building and we weigh its merit based on its historic importance and architecture. On the other side we have the new development and the promises it holds. The new development needs to be better than the old one to justify its destruction. If the new development isn't better than the old one, why should it be allowed? Why should we ever move backward?

[br323206]

Originally Posted by allovertown

What is with your strange contention that what replaces a buildings doesn't matter? If these buildings were being replaced with 10 Rittenhouse then clearly everyone would be much less upset. That doesn't mean these buildings would be any less important, historic or beautiful. But we could at least rationalize it.

I don't believe anyone is advocating putting the entire city in stasis and never knocking down another building. Clearly more historic buildings will and should be knocked down as Philadelphia moves forward. HOWEVER, the presence of a historic building creates an certain bar for new development. If we're going to destroy a beautiful historic part of our urban fabric, there had better be a good reason to do so. 10 Rittenhouse brought hundreds of new residents to our city, jobs, taxes, etc.

It's a balancing act. On one side we have the historic building and we weigh its merit based on its historic importance and architecture. On the other side we have the new development and the promises it holds. The new development needs to be better than the old one to justify its destruction. If the new development isn't better than the old one, why should it be allowed? Why should we ever move backward?

I think the solution to this debate is that we need to tear down Independence Hall and replace it with the world's tallest Wendy's. People would come from all over the world to eat spicy chicken nuggets on the 80th floor. It'll be bee-yoo-tee-full.

[1487]

Originally Posted by allovertown

What is with your strange contention that what replaces a buildings doesn't matter? If these buildings were being replaced with 10 Rittenhouse then clearly everyone would be much less upset. That doesn't mean these buildings would be any less important, historic or beautiful. But we could at least rationalize it.

I don't believe anyone is advocating putting the entire city in stasis and never knocking down another building. Clearly more historic buildings will and should be knocked down as Philadelphia moves forward. HOWEVER, the presence of a historic building creates an certain bar for new development. If we're going to destroy a beautiful historic part of our urban fabric, there had better be a good reason to do so. 10 Rittenhouse brought hundreds of new residents to our city, jobs, taxes, etc.

It's a balancing act. On one side we have the historic building and we weigh its merit based on its historic importance and architecture. On the other side we have the new development and the promises it holds. The new development needs to be better than the old one to justify its destruction. If the new development isn't better than the old one, why should it be allowed? Why should we ever move backward?

what does "better" mean and who will be the arbiter of that? The complaints on these forums are amazing- within the same day you will come across arguments that certain council people are all about stopping development whenever possible to preserve the status quo AND these same council people are pro development and anti preservation and will do little to slow down greedy developers who are out there tearing down historic buildings left and right. I guess the truth is somewhere in the middle.

[Yurkek]

I assume, most people on this forum would like to see new development happening on parking lots and old buildings being preserved and renovated.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by Yurkek

I assume, most people on this forum would like to see new development happening on parking lots and old buildings being preserved and renovated.

Imagine that!

[McBane]

Originally Posted by 1487

what does "better" mean and who will be the arbiter of that? The complaints on these forums are amazing- within the same day you will come across arguments that certain council people are all about stopping development whenever possible to preserve the status quo AND these same council people are pro development and anti preservation and will do little to slow down greedy developers who are out there tearing down historic buildings left and right. I guess the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Exactly - who decides what's better and what's not? That's the most critical question.

If you ask us, we'd want to see quality materials, increased density/height, and adherence to urban principles. But for the NIMBYs, who actually wield power over development, they'd want to see less density/height, plenty of parking, a boring design that replicates its neighbors height and materials, and to hell with urban principles or quality design. Those are their only criteria. The NIMBYs hide behind preservation but they'd allow a developer to raze Independence Hall as long as it was for three story red brick townhomes with parking.

Just look at what the NIMBYs did to the old Mt. Sinai Hospital. You want to talk about a travesty?

So yea, I'd welcome a mechanism that holds old buildings to a higher bar for redevelopment. But when the NIMBY's get to decide what's better and what's not, it won't be pretty.

[hammersklavier]

I believe I've mentioned before that the policy I would like to see would be for demolition permits to be significantly more difficult to get. Specifically, for a developer to get a demo permit, they would have to either

(a) Have (approved) redevelopment plans for the site, or
(b) Show that the property is imminently dangerous

Coupled with a land tax, this policy package would make it much more efficient to reuse old buildings than demolish old buildings just to sit on the lots.

The problem with this is that it doesn't really protect properties like the one on Chestnut, where the developer clearly wants to raze and replace. This is where historic districts are particularly useful, by singling out specific properties that we believe are worth preserving, and once so singled out, we can direct legal resources to preserving them.

[1487]

Originally Posted by Yurkek

I assume, most people on this forum would like to see new development happening on parking lots and old buildings being preserved and renovated.

I'd also like world peace and the end of hunger. When parking lots and vacant lots are in hot areas they tend to disappear. But oftentimes areas with the highest demand for new development don't have a ton of buildable lots. Part of the problem is that the tax abatement applies whether you build on a vacant lot or tear down something. I think that should change and if it does you will likely see developers hesitate to proceed with tear down projects.

[1487]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

I believe I've mentioned before that the policy I would like to see would be for demolition permits to be significantly more difficult to get. Specifically, for a developer to get a demo permit, they would have to either

(a) Have (approved) redevelopment plans for the site, or
(b) Show that the property is imminently dangerous

Coupled with a land tax, this policy package would make it much more efficient to reuse old buildings than demolish old buildings just to sit on the lots.

The problem with this is that it doesn't really protect properties like the one on Chestnut, where the developer clearly wants to raze and replace. This is where historic districts are particularly useful, by singling out specific properties that we believe are worth preserving, and once so singled out, we can direct legal resources to preserving them.

One of the issues with historic designations is that they add a lot of restrictions that owners must follow when making repairs to their homes. In moderate income areas these designations aren't popular because it increases the price of anything you might need done to your house. Things like window replacements, roofing materials, etc. can be affected by a historic designation and you have to jump through additional hoops to get permits/approval for repairs to your home.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by br323206

I think the solution to this debate is that we need to tear down Independence Hall and replace it with the world's tallest Wendy's. People would come from all over the world to eat spicy chicken nuggets on the 80th floor. It'll be bee-yoo-tee-full.

To follow up on your soaring flight of sarcasm . . . . .

Did you know . . . soon - prehaps already - by right, those crusty old Eternity Fashion, Valu Rite, Beauty Academy, and wig shop outlets on Chestnut Street will be certified historic, based purely on the fact that they have never replaced their chewing gum-permeated orange turf carpet, yellowed, mystery fluid-stained acoustic foam ceiling tiles, flickering/burnt out mercury-filled fluorescent tube lighting, and lint-laden, UV-light faded window displays. As will the prehistorically dumpster grease-infused pavements on the service alleys behind the shops. All pre-1970 vintage without a doubt.

And this is good. It's the kind of stuff some of our favorite posters heap praise upon. These places embody the essence of the glorious nadir of Philadelphia's post war descent into poverty and neglect. We need to preserve this stuff, it has character and speaks to Philadelphia's lost status as the most run down big city in America.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by 1487

One of the issues with historic designations is that they add a lot of restrictions that owners must follow when making repairs to their homes. In moderate income areas these designations aren't popular because it increases the price of anything you might need done to your house. Things like window replacements, roofing materials, etc. can be affected by a historic designation and you have to jump through additional hoops to get permits/approval for repairs to your home.

This is very true.

It is not a problem with the principle of historic preservation, but with a certain extremist historicist ideology that exists among many preservation bureaucrats who refuse to understand the practicalities of redeveloping and maintaining old buildings for modern use. They insist on horse hair being mixed with mortar, or egg shells being used in paints to mimic what was done in the 18th century. Often, they refuse to recognize that basic truth that applies to historic preservation, as well as many other things, that the perfect is often the enemy of the good.

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by 1487

One of the issues with historic designations is that they add a lot of restrictions that owners must follow when making repairs to their homes. In moderate income areas these designations aren't popular because it increases the price of anything you might need done to your house. Things like window replacements, roofing materials, etc. can be affected by a historic designation and you have to jump through additional hoops to get permits/approval for repairs to your home.

You might have noticed that -- by simply making it harder to demolish old buildings -- there is much less of a need to designate older buildings as "historic" (and it'll be worth picking and choosing which ones should be).