PHILADELPHIA | 10 Rittenhouse Square | 390 FT / 119 M | 33 FLOORS - Page 3

PhillyRising · #41 Posted **Jan 29, 2006, 5:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MNMike

Isn't anyone sad that a couple of these were pretty nice old buildings? Especially that corner building, sad to lose it

I guess you mean the former mansion? That's not going anywhere.

sciguy0504 · #42 Posted **Jan 29, 2006, 11:12 PM**

I think I can see a few tears being shed in those pictures...

wanderer34 · #43 Posted **Jan 30, 2006, 1:36 AM**

I don't know why anybody would want to protest four homes from being demolished from Rittenhouse in lieu of a condo building, but when it comes to saving North and West Phila rowhomes, they turn silent. Both neighborhoods are known for being violent, but a huge majority are poor. I don't want to play the race card, but a lot of the "preservationists" ( if that's what they want to be called) are really self-serving only to a small minority and not the the rest of the city. These are probable the same who activaly protested that 1LP not go up due to the "traditions" of the city. The only tradition these types of people want to maintain are narrow-minded, self-serving, zero progress views that have permeated Philadelphia for years. Hopefully 10 Rittenhouse can change that, but I don't think it will be the last we ever hear of the "preservationists".

Speaking of the "preservationists", but they should focus all of their energy on making Philadelphia habitable for the poor by building low-cost housing and renovating blocks of the abandoned homes that cover North and West Phila. You wonder why the population decine has been going on in this city for so long now, and housing is one of them. What I'm saying is that I don't
want to see CC and UC just boom, but I'd like to see North and West Phila be on the same level as South Phila currently is.

wanderer34 · #44 Posted **Jan 30, 2006, 1:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Palms

Love the view, although The Rittenhouse still could've been taller than Billy Penn, IMHO!!! The hotel was built in 1989 and I don't know what stopped them from making a skyscraper, but the developers probably had no imagination. I don't know whether extending it's height is out of the question, but it can have an advantage over the other five-stars by having more rooms if it doubles it's height.

1701 and 1706 are projects that I welcome with open arms. Hopefully the NIMBY's don't shut this project down.

10 Rittenhouse could've been a little bit taller, but I also welcome it with open arms!!! ; )

Joey D · #45 Posted **Jan 30, 2006, 4:07 AM**

Definitely nice job there Swinefield.

I am definitely gonna like this building. Symmetric, classy, great architecture, even better location.

Gotta love this satellite shot of Rittenhouse Square. All the buildings tightly packed around the square is just hotly urban.

volguus zildrohar · #46 Posted **Jan 30, 2006, 4:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wanderer34

I don't know why anybody would want to protest four homes from being demolished from Rittenhouse in lieu of a condo building, but when it comes to saving North and West Phila rowhomes, they turn silent. Both neighborhoods are known for being violent, but a huge majority are poor. I don't want to play the race card, but a lot of the "preservationists" ( if that's what they want to be called) are really self-serving only to a small minority and not the the rest of the city. These are probable the same who activaly protested that 1LP not go up due to the "traditions" of the city. The only tradition these types of people want to maintain are narrow-minded, self-serving, zero progress views that have permeated Philadelphia for years. Hopefully 10 Rittenhouse can change that, but I don't think it will be the last we ever hear of the "preservationists".

Speaking of the "preservationists", but they should focus all of their energy on making Philadelphia habitable for the poor by building low-cost housing and renovating blocks of the abandoned homes that cover North and West Phila. You wonder why the population decine has been going on in this city for so long now, and housing is one of them. What I'm saying is that I don't
want to see CC and UC just boom, but I'd like to see North and West Phila be on the same level as South Phila currently is.

They're basically very old, very rich people with nothing to occupy their lives so they hop on any bandwagon that doesn't require more than a three block walk. We call them luddites and luddites always lose...unless they invoke Scripture.

pip · #47 Posted **Jan 30, 2006, 5:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tranceclubbinphilly

just a side note: Does anyone else get tripped out at looking at those satelite pictures sometimes, with some skyscrapers leaning one way and others leaning the opposite right next to one another.

Never noticed until you pointed it out. Lol, now I can't go back to my old way of seeing it.

FlyersFan118 · #48 Posted **Jan 30, 2006, 6:08 AM**

I noticed that before...that crap freaks me out. It's like a sign of the apocalypse I think.

Eigenwelt · #49 Posted **Jan 30, 2006, 6:51 AM**

^ or a sign of multiple satellite views merged together. Each shot has a slight angle to it, and when they make a composite image, they dont always match.

tranceclubbinphilly · #50 Posted **Jan 30, 2006, 1:26 PM**

Sorry to spoil your satelite viewing fun guys, Its nit as noticable here but in some other sat pics I have seen its like looking at one of those picture with the stairs going up one way and upside down another way.

The Cheat · #51 Posted **Jan 30, 2006, 2:15 PM**

M.C. Escher has made his mark on Google Earth

Swinefeld · #52 Posted **Feb 7, 2006, 3:07 AM**

Down they go. The two buildings facing Sansom are gone.

Looking at the backless "Rindelaub's Row".

SouthPhilly · #53 Posted **Feb 7, 2006, 3:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Cheat

M.C. Escher has made his mark on Google Earth

How often do they update philly?

SouthPhilly · #54 Posted **Feb 7, 2006, 3:13 AM**

Why couldnt they keep the facade?
I read about SOS, if they focused there agrument on just keeping the facade i think it would of been sucsussful and we still would have had the tower.
Is this building gonna have a commertial or resturant or anything on the outside besides anthropology

Swinefeld · #55 Posted **Feb 7, 2006, 3:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthPhilly

Why couldnt they keep the facade?
I read about SOS, if they focused there agrument on just keeping the facade i think it would of been sucsussful and we still would have had the tower.

Looooooooooooooong story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthPhilly

Is this building gonna have a commertial or resturant or anything on the outside besides anthropology

It will have a restaurant and some retail, I believe. Anthropolgy is not part 10 Rittenhouse.

SouthPhilly · #56 Posted **Feb 7, 2006, 4:45 AM**

Thankyou

The Cheat · #57 Posted **Feb 7, 2006, 7:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthPhilly

How often do they update philly?

You mean Google Earth? I don't know. Most of the photos are less than 3 years old, but I don't know when they're going to update them.

On a different topic related to 10 Rittenhouse, I have some old renderings and drawings of "Rittenhouse Place" which has the tower portion right up against 1845 Walnut St, the high-rise condo/office tower right next door. If they had built that, I would expect a lot of people to be mad at losing their view. But the new 10 Rittenhouse design has the new tower away from the old tower.

Warning: obsolete design

MJPhilly · #58 Posted **Feb 10, 2006, 12:23 PM**

A few shots from Feb 5:

phillyskyline · #59 Posted **Feb 10, 2006, 4:16 PM**

Thanks for the shots MJ, I'm surprized they are taking this long to tear down those old crappy buildings.

sciguy0504 · #60 Posted **Feb 10, 2006, 4:22 PM**

Perhaps they want to make it sink in? A slow and agonizing death...