Philadelphia 2035 (Chester, West Chester: masonry, facts, proposed)

[kyb01]

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.

Sadly it may be the same kind nimby battle that went on about 10 Rittenhouse that delayed the project for years. Too shiny ... my behind... This is exactly what Philly needs and more of. It's sexy and exciting and shows we can do something bold on our most famous square. Frankly this is why we need more NYers moving here. It would help kill off the remaining bits of provincialism we're still plagued with.

Can we please move on from that empty spot on Walnut that's been there for, what, 20 years now?

[kyb01]

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.

Well, you've made it absolutely clear you don't care for modernity or height in buildings. You'd hate it no matter where it was in the city.

The fact is you don't live here now, or rather not at the moment, so I'm not sure how relevant your opinion is. Besides you are not looking at the "missing tooth" plot of ground at 19th and Walnut most days the way we are.

The Rittenhouse Hotel Bldg or Dorchester were really radical when they were built on the square. I doubt anyone thinks that now. The same thing will happen with this building in time if it's built.

[kyb01]

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?

She doesn't care about the NYC skyline or skyscrapers. I said once on here that the NYC skyline made me feel a sense of pride about being an American. Her reaction was kinda, "Meh".

[kyb01]

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.

We're NOT Williamsburg. Stop looking at Philadelphia that way.

[southbound_295]

Originally Posted by kyb01

Well, you've made it absolutely clear you don't care for modernity or height in buildings. You'd hate it no matter where it was in the city.

The fact is you don't live here now, or rather not at the moment, so I'm not sure how relevant your opinion is. Besides you are not looking at the "missing tooth" plot of ground at 19th and Walnut most days the way we are.

The Rittenhouse Hotel Bldg or Dorchester were really radical when they were built on the square. I doubt anyone thinks that now. The same thing will happen with this building in time if it's built.

I said that I didn't mind the building. Go ahead & read back because I posted that.

Have I taken any shots at you for having different opinions than mine? I'm much more interested in the giant hole on Market St that was caused by destroying the Gimbels building prematurely. My opinion doesn't have anything to do with whether the building will be built. But I guarantee you that you'll hear much more criticism from people who live in that neighborhood. They paid big bucks to live there. They paid the big bucks for a certain ambiance. It's been that way as long as I can remember. As Ozzie Meyer said, money talks. . .I specifically said that if that building in that location was designed with a post modern facade it would be a homerun. There are other places in center city that it would be just fine as is. My personal opinion is that glass buildings are very cold.

I'm very cognizant that the last time that my opinion counted for something in Philadelphia was when I signed the petition to not cut Chinatown in two with the Vine Street Expressway. If those of us who signed it hadn't signed it the Vine St Expressway would have been built long before it was.

[cpomp]

Choice Hotels to build hotel near Broad and Locust

Another hotel!

[southbound_295]

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.

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.

I said that if someone wants all new & shiny there are places that have that. I didn't tell someone to leave, unlike what one poster said that another poster should have said to his neighbor. Good for you. Apparently you didn't think that that would be rude to say to a neighbor.

[kyb01]

Originally Posted by southbound_295

I said that I didn't mind the building. Go ahead & read back because I posted that.

Have I taken any shots at you for having different opinions than mine? I'm much more interested in the giant hole on Market St that was caused by destroying the Gimbels building prematurely. My opinion doesn't have anything to do with whether the building will be built. But I guarantee you that you'll hear much more criticism from people who live in that neighborhood. They paid big bucks to live there. They paid the big bucks for a certain ambiance. It's been that way as long as I can remember. As Ozzie Meyer said, money talks. . .I specifically said that if that building in that location was designed with a post modern facade it would be a homerun. There are other places in center city that it would be just fine as is. My personal opinion is that glass buildings are very cold.

I'm very cognizant that the last time that my opinion counted for something in Philadelphia was when I signed the petition to not cut Chinatown in two with the Vine Street Expressway. If those of us who signed it hadn't signed it the Vine St Expressway would have been built long before it was.

I'm positive there will be criticism. It's just so typically provincial of too many people who live here.

[southbound_295]

Originally Posted by kyb01

I'm positive there will be criticism. It's just so typically provincial of too many people who live here.

It's your opinion that people with different points of view on this are provincial.

I started going to Rittenhouse Square in the 60s. Not every building on the square is a gem. They do, however, blend. I am capable of visualization. No way does that building blend. If something very similar was done with a post modern facade it would blend.

Conversely, East Market has a giant hole where Gimbels once stood. Given the godforsaken ugliness of the federal building, glass on the former Gimbels site wouldn't be out of place. On city data the TOS says that everyone is allowed to express their point of view. My point of view is that the glass buildings have all of the warmth of stacked ice cubes.

There's another website that has people who almost universally prefer very tall, very modern buildings. Yet, when someone posted a thread of pictures of pre WWII Philadelphia several people posted their admiration of those long-gone buildings.

As for doing what they're doing in Boston & NYC, because they're doing it. . .it's like my mother used to say, just because someone else is doing something doesn't mean that you have to do it.

As for your allegation that I'm unaware of the empty lots, that's pretty funny. I went to college in the Havilland building on South Broad.

[cpomp]

Originally Posted by southbound_295

It's your opinion that people with different points of view on this are provincial.

I started going to Rittenhouse Square in the 60s. Not every building on the square is a gem. They do, however, blend. I am capable of visualization. No way does that building blend. If something very similar was done with a post modern facade it would blend.

Conversely, East Market has a giant hole where Gimbels once stood. Given the godforsaken ugliness of the federal building, glass on the former Gimbels site wouldn't be out of place. On city data the TOS says that everyone is allowed to express their point of view. My point of view is that the glass buildings have all of the warmth of stacked ice cubes.

There's another website that has people who almost universally prefer very tall, very modern buildings. Yet, when someone posted a thread of pictures of pre WWII Philadelphia several people posted their admiration of those long-gone buildings.

As for doing what they're doing in Boston & NYC, because they're doing it. . .it's like my mother used to say, just because someone else is doing something doesn't mean that you have to do it.

As for your allegation that I'm unaware of the empty lots, that's pretty funny. I went to college in the Havilland building on South Broad.

That is the exact attitude that keeps Philadelphia in its provincial state of mind. Lets grown outside of the box.

For example, 205 Race St, IMO is one of the best looking modern projects to hit the city, it does not match the surrounding 18th Century architecture, but it compliments it very well, just as 1911 Walnut will.