Philadelphia 2035 (Liberty, Williamsburg: difference, typical, allowed)

[RightonWalnut]

Originally Posted by asiandudeyo

I had a talk with my neighbor the other days about this. She hated it. Apparently she has been following.
She said that it does not go with the flow of the surrounding buildings. It is too shiny. I then realized that she must be one of those NIMBYs I always despise. I gave her a dirty look.

Sounds like an idiot. No offense to your neighbor haha.

[southbound_295]

Originally Posted by asiandudeyo

I had a talk with my neighbor the other day about this. She hated it. Apparently she has been following.
She said that it does not go with the flow of the surrounding buildings. It is too shiny. I then realized that she must be one of those NIMBYs I always despise. I gave her a dirty look.

I'm not fond of glass buildings. I actually don't hate it. However, if that's going to front on Rittenhouse Square I don't think that it could be made to blend in. It would stand out like a sore thumb. That's what you neighbor was saying, I think.

Take a walk through Society Hill. Not every building dates to colonial America. the ones that date to post-WWII Philadelphia were required to blend in. There are areas in Center City where this building wouldn't stand out like a sore thumb. Rittenhouse Square isn't one of those places.

[thedirtypirate]

^i disagree. The pre/post war buildings weren't designed to fit in. The architecture of the buildings are good example of what designs were looking like in that time period. This fits the modern age. I find the society hill/Rittenhouse comparison odd too. There's a huge difference between those areas in scale and purpose. They aren't "sore thumbs". You think that's what people are saying about the new NYC skyline?

[cpomp]

Originally Posted by asiandudeyo

I had a talk with my neighbor the other day about this. She hated it. Apparently she has been following.
She said that it does not go with the flow of the surrounding buildings. It is too shiny. I then realized that she must be one of those NIMBYs I always despise. I gave her a dirty look.

There really is no flow of the surrounding buildings, many different styles from many different time periods. Even so if its too "shiny" any glare produced by the sun would shine over the church and the corner of 19th and Walnut, it would have no affect on the Square or any of the other buildings surrounding it.

I would have immediately gotten into a debate with that woman over what she thinks is suitable for that lot. If her answer was "something that fits the neighborhood" I would tell her to move to West Chester. That is such a vague birdbrained answer.

[southbound_295]

Originally Posted by thedirtypirate

^i disagree. The pre/post war buildings weren't designed to fit in. The architecture of the buildings are good example of what designs were looking like in that time period. This fits the modern age. I find the society hill/Rittenhouse comparison odd too. There's a huge difference between those areas in scale and purpose. They aren't "sore thumbs". You think that's what people are saying about the new NYC skyline?

Rittenhouse Square has long been a gathering point.

Within my memory Society Hill was still partially slum-ish, & Queen Village was no prize, either. The city had very hard strong zoning codes for rehabbing. That's what a lot of people think of when new buildings go up in Philadelphia. Blending in. If it was similar but done with a post modern facade instead of all glass, I'd say that it was a home run.

Look at it this way - much as I love city hall & the Lit Brothers buildings, if someone decided to replicate one of them in Miami or Dallas, it would be butt ugly. It wouldn't fit in. It would stand out like a sore thumb. Get my drift when you reverse the situation?

There are glass buildings on Market street & elsewhere in Center City. If the building was designed for one of those places that would be fine. I don't give a rat's patoot about the NYC skyline.

[southbound_295]

Originally Posted by cpomp

There really is no flow of the surrounding buildings, many different styles from many different time periods. Even so if its too "shiny" any glare produced by the sun would shine over the church and the corner of 19th and Walnut, it would have no affect on the Square or any of the other buildings surrounding it.

I would have immediately gotten into a debate with that woman over what she thinks is suitable for that lot. If her answer was "something that fits the neighborhood" I would tell her to move to West Chester. That is such a vague birdbrained answer.

That would be pretty rude.

I tell people who are looking for historic districts on certain other boards to look at Philadelphia. If someone in Philadelphia wants all bright & new & shiny, well, the opposite applies. There are cities with very little that is old.

[rotodome]

Originally Posted by southbound_295

I'm not fond of glass buildings. I actually don't hate it. However, if that's going to front on Rittenhouse Square I don't think that it could be made to blend in. It would stand out like a sore thumb. That's what you neighbor was saying, I think.

Take a walk through Society Hill. Not every building dates to colonial America. the ones that date to post-WWII Philadelphia were required to blend in. There are areas in Center City where this building wouldn't stand out like a sore thumb. Rittenhouse Square isn't one of those places.

Yes, a great deal of Society Hill actually consists of unapologetically modern (mid century modern) buildings. Brick sure, but nothing faux-historical or throwback about them. It's a great example of respecting the aesthetics, scale and rhythm of an historical district while building contemporary architecture.

[RightonWalnut]

Originally Posted by southbound_295

That would be pretty rude.

I tell people who are looking for historic districts on certain other boards to look at Philadelphia. If someone in Philadelphia wants all bright & new & shiny, well, the opposite applies. There are cities with very little that is old.

That's ridiculous. So Philadelphia should just stop building new because it has historic districts? This lot is ripe for development. Would you rather it sit empty? What do you propose should go there? I think this is the perfect development for this lot. Modern glass buildings compliment historic buildings very well. Even so, not everything around the square is historic. Rittenhouse Claridge, Rittenhouse Hotel, Dorchester, 10 Rittenhouse, and at least two buildings on the South side of the square were built from the 50's onward. No reason there cannot be a new glass tower built here.

By your logic we shouldn't have built the Comcast Center because there are historic buildings next to it. One and Two Liberty Place shouldn't have been built because of the historic buildings next to it.

It's ridiculous to say that if someone wants new then to move to a different city LOL. Every city should be building new. NYC and Boston are building plenty new and have just as much history as Philadelphia. A good cosmopolitan and healthy city is always in motion. Always building. Always looking for the next best thing. You honor your history yes, but you also have to keep reinventing yourself and looking for the future.

[Pine to Vine]

Originally Posted by RightonWalnut

That's ridiculous. So Philadelphia should just stop building new because it has historic districts? This lot is ripe for development. Would you rather it sit empty? What do you propose should go there? I think this is the perfect development for this lot. Modern glass buildings compliment historic buildings very well. Even so, not everything around the square is historic. Rittenhouse Claridge, Rittenhouse Hotel, Dorchester, 10 Rittenhouse, and at least two buildings on the South side of the square were built from the 50's onward. No reason there cannot be a new glass tower built here.

Agree completely with your bolded comment, when well executed. Copley Square in Boston is a perfect example:



https://alexandranickelmilstone.wordpress.com

[PhillyPhan95]

Reminds me of the new 3737 Chestnut building!