PHILADELPHIA | 1919 Market | 337 FT | 29 FLOORS

[mmikeyphilly]

[/IMG] <<<Even the moderator(s) felt this wasn't a priority to change the icon. Who gives a hoot? The building just got a bad wrap from its beginning. Too short, too this, too that, not enough of what, could have been a great 1000 footer, yadi, yadi yadi. The only thing sadder than all of the negative comments is the feeling I got watching Bambi when I was a child. After the hunter shot Bambi's mother to death, and Bambi crying over his Mom. My Mom said, oh no, Mikey must have watched that cartoon. I cried for 3 days...I kid you not. Well, I only cried 2 days when I saw all of the renderings of this project. But I got over it. Life does go on....next!

[SJPhillyBoy]

Originally Posted by TempleGuy1000

Reading the comments on the height issues with this building in this thread cracks me up: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=119576

Funny. I knew this building was a mistake in 2006. This building will be obsolete or inadequate for Center City in 20 years. Very underwhelming.

Everyone is saying the massive above ground parking lot is because of the NIMBY's, for real??
That is called bad design and cheap developer.
Are you saying Center City land value does not dictate to place the parking underground? No building in Philadelphia should be built on a podium of parking.

When a building is very controversial, it gets a lot of opinion on it, same as Symphony House.

[apetrella802]

Originally Posted by mmikeyphilly

[/IMG]

Yeah, that is so true. Funny how this site was destined to be half garage, half building.
Boy those grumpy people have been around forever (in those shitty looking buildings)
They even looked shitty way back when...

The Penn Center Inn and the two original Penn Center buildings(1954/56) confirm the observation that buildings reflect whether or not they are being built in a period of decline and lack of confidence in the future or a period of prosperity and confidence in the future. City Hall is the greatest example of a building that reflects prosperity and confidence as do CITC, CC, LP and others. From this perspective 1919 Market St is no Penn Center Inn.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by apetrella802

The Penn Center Inn and the two original Penn Center buildings(1954/56) confirm the observation that buildings reflect whether or not they are being built in a period of decline and lack of confidence in the future or a period of prosperity and confidence in the future. City Hall is the greatest example of a building that reflects prosperity and confidence as do CITC, CC, LP and others. From this perspective 1919 Market St is no Penn Center Inn.

I dunno. Every time I look at it, I'm reminded of the old Penn Center Inn. I had such high hopes for this lot -- and it's basically the same thing turned sideways, with nicer rooms.

[Barbarossa]

This was a stubbornly vacant lot for so many years. What held it up for so long?

[summersm343]

Update from Building Philly



More photos here:
https://www.facebook.com/BuildingPhilly/

[Outta here]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

I dunno. Every time I look at it, I'm reminded of the old Penn Center Inn. I had such high hopes for this lot -- and it's basically the same thing turned sideways, with nicer rooms.

The frigging thing is about 150' too short ....... Yet another big bite in the ass ....

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by Outta here

The frigging thing is about 150' too short ....... Yet another big bite in the ass ....

It falls short in so many ways. Even lack of height wouldn't have been as big of an issue if it was a more inspired design without a giant garage. I'll still reserve judgment until it's complete with retail tenants, but, so far, it elicits negative (not merely indifferent) reactions from me every time I look at it. Appearance-wise, I think it's going to look very dated in the near term.

[ConstructStudent]

Originally Posted by SJPhillyBoy

Funny. I knew this building was a mistake in 2006. This building will be obsolete or inadequate for Center City in 20 years. Very underwhelming.

Everyone is saying the massive above ground parking lot is because of the NIMBY's, for real??
That is called bad design and cheap developer.
Are you saying Center City land value does not dictate to place the parking underground? No building in Philadelphia should be built on a podium of parking.

When a building is very controversial, it gets a lot of opinion on it, same as Symphony House.

So I guess SLS shouldn't be built since it is being built on a podium of parking??

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by ConstructStudent

So I guess SLS shouldn't be built since it is being built on a podium of parking??

Probably my least favorite aspect of that project. Maybe if they get rid of it they won't need to wait for the state budget.

[boxbot]

Originally Posted by ConstructStudent

So I guess SLS shouldn't be built since it is being built on a podium of parking??

Is SLS going to be built?

Per the SLS thread, if the $ from the state is guaranteed, why can't they get started?

[SJPhillyBoy]

Originally Posted by ConstructStudent

So I guess SLS shouldn't be built since it is being built on a podium of parking??

Very good point.

I did not even know SLS was going to have an above ground parking podium.

Now knowing that, I must say SLS's design is even far more superior than 1919. You can't even tell there is a parking garage in that podium with the ground floor interaction with Broad Street and the ball room component on the top of the podium (or whatever is on top). Plus SLS did excavate a "hole" for its foundation where as 1919 was built on a slab at ground level.



Plus I am ok with it as SLS is on the fringe of the tall buildings of Center City, actually being a building that is expanding the skyline South and East. It is on the frontier. It is on the Avenue of Arts just about touching row house neighborhoods.
1919 is in the middle of the Central Business District. There was no limit to what height it could have had.
Even given the locations, SLS blows away the midget height of 1919.



Saying all of that, the use of above ground parking podiums as the base of a skyscraper should be minimized in Center City.

[MikeNigh]

Originally Posted by SJPhillyBoy

Saying all of that, the use of above ground parking podiums as the base of a skyscraper should be minimized in Center City.

So long as the ground floor is all retail it's not that bad.

[summersm343]

2/17/16

[Insoluble]

Well, the splotchy glass color pattern isn't nearly as ugly as it was in the renderings, but it still looks awkward. I get the feeling that it's going to look really dated in 5 years. But the horrible garage and lack of ambition in terms of density are still the two worst things about this building. Oh well, they can't all be winners.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

It falls short in so many ways. Even lack of height wouldn't have been as big of an issue if it was a more inspired design without a giant garage. I'll still reserve judgment until it's complete with retail tenants, but, so far, it elicits negative (not merely indifferent) reactions from me every time I look at it. Appearance-wise, I think it's going to look very dated in the near term.

I agree 100%. Yes, I really think this lot deserved a taller building. BUT, I could have looked the other way if the design was better or if it didn't have a giant garage tumor growing out of its backside.

[Londonee]

Does anyone know the sidewalk closure policy for the city? The sidewalk in front of this building has been closed for the duration of the construction, which is amazingly annoying if you live work play around here.

I know New York and London - places with higher pedestrian traffic - have legislation that force construction sites to keep sidewalks open during the construction phase.

It's not like this is being built in some far away nook of the city like Dranoff's riverfront tower...

[ConstructStudent]

Originally Posted by Londonee

Does anyone know the sidewalk closure policy for the city? The sidewalk in front of this building has been closed for the duration of the construction, which is amazingly annoying if you live work play around here.

I know New York and London - places with higher pedestrian traffic - have legislation that force construction sites to keep sidewalks open during the construction phase.

It's not like this is being built in some far away nook of the city like Dranoff's riverfront tower...

It depends on the city. There isn't any specific document that states whether or not you have to keep the sidewalk open.

For example the renovation project at broad and chestnut above Capital Grille. The city required the sidewalk to remain open during construction so there was a $200,000 premium that had to be absorbed in order to scaffold off the building to create platforms on each floor for the hoist.

[eixample]

Originally Posted by Londonee

Does anyone know the sidewalk closure policy for the city? The sidewalk in front of this building has been closed for the duration of the construction, which is amazingly annoying if you live work play around here.

The issue of closing off sidewalks is something Mayor Kenney mentioned during his campaign so I would expect to see some policy changes on this in the next few years.

[philatonian]

Originally Posted by Insoluble

Well, the splotchy glass color pattern isn't nearly as ugly as it was in the renderings, but it still looks awkward. I get the feeling that it's going to look really dated in 5 years. But the horrible garage and lack of ambition in terms of density are still the two worst things about this building. Oh well, they can't all be winners.

I agree, although a lot of stuff like this will be dated in 5 years. Right now wacky glass skins seem to be a way to gussy up otherwise boring glass boxes. I think the density is fine as far as this building is concerned, although I could have sworn it was going to be taller. I guess it's just dwarfed because it's next to the Blue Cross building.