Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Exactly. That entire argument that MSE quoted is ridiculous and so silly. Its 2019, times change, cities change, neighborhoods change, part of Philadelphia's overall problem is the small minded old time thinking.
A realistic criticism of this project would be material selection and interaction at ground level with the street, but crying that it throws off the balance of Society Hill or blocks views is just stupid. No one will change my mind on that.
You may be right in characterizing the thinking of Philadelphians, but preservation of views and view corridors is not "small-minded" or "old-time" thinking. We have strict height limits for 200 feet on either side of the Benjamin Franklin Parkway for this reason (and the limit is the reason why 1717 Arch Street (nee Bell Atlantic Tower) has cut-off corners; its northeast corner crossed the 200-foot exclusion zone) - and Washington, DC, has a citywide height limit in order to preserve the dominance of the U.S. Capitol (and Washington Monument, the only structure in the District that is taller).
The "Billy Penn hatbrim rule" became absurd the moment we built a bunch of high-rises that came up to that hatbrim and stopped. It was good for the city when City Council shredded the unwritten rule in 1987 to allow construction of One Liberty Place.
In other words, my position on building heights is very context-sensitive, and while some of what you say may be true for the Society Hill residents squawking over this tower, that's not what explains my objection to it.
The skyline around SH Towers remains low-rise, even in Old City. Yes, I know there's demand for high-rise towers, and I'd be happy to see them built further away from the SH Towers, including elsewhere in Old City, like north of Walnut. Were it possible, I'd rather keep the SH Towers as an exclamation point and limit the height of towers within 200 feet or so of them as well (this one's closer than that, and Tom Scannapieco's tower will be as well when it goes up). But the zoning allows this, so up it will go.
I have faith in Tom Scannapieco's design sensibility after seeing both 1706 Rittenhouse and what Cecil Baker managed to pull off for him at 500 Walnut - another building that got a corner sliced off to preserve a view, in this case the one from the Liberty Bell. (And its lot had no such height limit applied to it for view preservation - he could have built right up to the corner if he wanted to.) I suspect that whatever tower he chooses to build on the site of the Ritz Five will play very nice with its neighbors. This one still needs some work in that department.
You may be right in characterizing the thinking of Philadelphians, but preservation of views and view corridors is not "small-minded" or "old-time" thinking. We have strict height limits for 200 feet on either side of the Benjamin Franklin Parkway for this reason (and the limit is the reason why 1717 Arch Street (nee Bell Atlantic Tower) has cut-off corners; its northeast corner crossed the 200-foot exclusion zone) - and Washington, DC, has a citywide height limit in order to preserve the dominance of the U.S. Capitol (and Washington Monument, the only structure in the District that is taller).
The "Billy Penn hatbrim rule" became absurd the moment we built a bunch of high-rises that came up to that hatbrim and stopped. It was good for the city when City Council shredded the unwritten rule in 1987 to allow construction of One Liberty Place.
In other words, my position on building heights is very context-sensitive, and while some of what you say may be true for the Society Hill residents squawking over this tower, that's not what explains my objection to it.
The skyline around SH Towers remains low-rise, even in Old City. Yes, I know there's demand for high-rise towers, and I'd be happy to see them built further away from the SH Towers, including elsewhere in Old City, like north of Walnut. Were it possible, I'd rather keep the SH Towers as an exclamation point and limit the height of towers within 200 feet or so of them as well (this one's closer than that, and Tom Scannapieco's tower will be as well when it goes up). But the zoning allows this, so up it will go.
I have faith in Tom Scannapieco's design sensibility after seeing both 1706 Rittenhouse and what Cecil Baker managed to pull off for him at 500 Walnut - another building that got a corner sliced off to preserve a view, in this case the one from the Liberty Bell. (And its lot had no such height limit applied to it for view preservation - he could have built right up to the corner if he wanted to.) I suspect that whatever tower he chooses to build on the site of the Ritz Five will play very nice with its neighbors. This one still needs some work in that department.
Out of curiosity, why would you like to see three mid-range towers from the mid-60s be the only high-rises in the generally booming and urban Old City area? I'm unsure what advantage or aesthetic benefit that provides the city. When I drive from Jersey over the Walt Whitman Bridge and look to my right, I see the three Society Hill Towers. I also see Dockside (built in 1995) and three Waterfront square towers built over a decade later. Additionally, I see the FMC building and both Comcast skyscrapers further west; and, in short order, I'll see the high-rise you mention above at 500 Walnut, a location which is much more "Society Hill" than between 2nd and 3rd and Walnut. In your opinion, what is the advantage to restricting height near older mid-rise buildings on the border of one of the most vibrant neighborhoods in our city?
Out of curiosity, why would you like to see three mid-range towers from the mid-60s be the only high-rises in the generally booming and urban Old City area? I'm unsure what advantage or aesthetic benefit that provides the city. When I drive from Jersey over the Walt Whitman Bridge and look to my right, I see the three Society Hill Towers. I also see Dockside (built in 1995) and three Waterfront square towers built over a decade later. Additionally, I see the FMC building and both Comcast skyscrapers further west; and, in short order, I'll see the high-rise you mention above at 500 Walnut, a location which is much more "Society Hill" than between 2nd and 3rd and Walnut. In your opinion, what is the advantage to restricting height near older mid-rise buildings on the border of one of the most vibrant neighborhoods in our city?
Society Hill Towers isn't in Old City.
Note that I said I was fine with towers north of Walnut. That's the dividing line between the two neighborhoods.
For purposes of comparison, find a photo of Boston's Back Bay viewed from the Charles River. That neighborhood is also a low-rise neighborhood with two high-rise exclamation points. I think that skylines of that type are as dramatic in their own way as those consisting of clusters of towers.
Note that I said I was fine with towers north of Walnut. That's the dividing line between the two neighborhoods.
For purposes of comparison, find a photo of Boston's Back Bay viewed from the Charles River. That neighborhood is also a low-rise neighborhood with two high-rise exclamation points. I think that skylines of that type are as dramatic in their own way as those consisting of clusters of towers.
I stated: generally booming and urban Old City area. I should have phrased better to impart "general Old City neighborhood." The Society Hill Towers are literally across the street in two directions from Old City. The tower in question however is firmly in Old City. I'm not trying to be contentious, really. I just fail to understand why this is such an issue. Society Hill goes south and west from the SH Towers - the exact opposite directions from where this proposed tower would be placed. It would also nicely link the river to a part of Old City where there has been a physical barrier (95) for decades and decades. I just don't see much of a downside for a growing and exciting city.
And, per your own comment above, 500 Walnut isn't north of Walnut. It's directly on it - in fact across the street from the most historic site in the country. Talk about intrusive... It's odd you feel a tower basically on the river in an "urban/party" neighborhood an issue, yet you see a bigger tower in the heart of Society Hill a benefit.
I stated: generally booming and urban Old City area. I should have phrased better to impart "general Old City neighborhood." The Society Hill Towers are literally across the street in two directions from Old City. The tower in question however is firmly in Old City. I'm not trying to be contentious, really. I just fail to understand why this is such an issue. Society Hill goes south and west from the SH Towers - the exact opposite directions from where this proposed tower would be placed. It would also nicely link the river to a part of Old City where there has been a physical barrier (95) for decades and decades. I just don't see much of a downside for a growing and exciting city.
And, per your own comment above, 500 Walnut isn't north of Walnut. It's directly on it - in fact across the street from the most historic site in the country. Talk about intrusive... It's odd you feel a tower basically on the river in an "urban/party" neighborhood an issue, yet you see a bigger tower in the heart of Society Hill a benefit.
(emphasis added)
Nope.
Walnut Street separates Old City from Society Hill.
The tower and the hotel next door to its north are both south of Walnut and therefore in Society Hill.
And again, remember what I said about my attitudes towards towers being context-sensitive.
Consider what stands just to 500 Walnut's west. You'll find a 1970s high-rise and a 1930s tower nearly as tall that's attached to a 1914 midrise. Similar midrises lie across Sixth Street from Independence Square. (One of them I work in.)
In other words, this northern border of Society Hill is not a low-rise cityscape: behind these buildings sit the Independence Place towers, and facing Washington Square on it south is the Hopkinson House (~1961), which I mentioned before.
The only view from the southernmost block of Independence Mall that doesn't have high-rise buildings in it, oddly enough, is the one from the Liberty Bell end of the Liberty Bell Pavilion, and the bell was placed where it is now because it was directly across from the building it had hung in and had a view of that building with a background of blue sky. Scannapieco and Baker sliced the northeast corner of 500 Walnut off to preserve that view. They didn't have to.
Old City is a "party neighborhood," true. Positano Coast by Aldo Lamberti isn't really part of the party scene. That's the only restaurant located in the triangle formed by Front, Walnut and Dock streets - Society Hill's northeast corner. The tower sits at the southern point of this triangle, and no building like it stands within 200 feet of it - except for Society Hill Towers. That's why I have no problem with 500 Walnut but do have a problem with this one.
And again, to bring up another context, I think One Riverside is very well situated. It gave its low-rise neighborhood an exclamation point. And were someone to tear down the converted warehouses to its north and replace them with high-rises, I don't think it would spoil any view or view corridor.
Walnut Street separates Old City from Society Hill.
The tower and the hotel next door to its north are both south of Walnut and therefore in Society Hill.
And again, remember what I said about my attitudes towards towers being context-sensitive.
Consider what stands just to 500 Walnut's west. You'll find a 1970s high-rise and a 1930s tower nearly as tall that's attached to a 1914 midrise. Similar midrises lie across Sixth Street from Independence Square. (One of them I work in.)
In other words, this northern border of Society Hill is not a low-rise cityscape: behind these buildings sit the Independence Place towers, and facing Washington Square on it south is the Hopkinson House (~1961), which I mentioned before.
The only view from the southernmost block of Independence Mall that doesn't have high-rise buildings in it, oddly enough, is the one from the Liberty Bell end of the Liberty Bell Pavilion, and the bell was placed where it is now because it was directly across from the building it had hung in and had a view of that building with a background of blue sky. Scannapieco and Baker sliced the northeast corner of 500 Walnut off to preserve that view. They didn't have to.
Old City is a "party neighborhood," true. Positano Coast by Aldo Lamberti isn't really part of the party scene. That's the only restaurant located in the triangle formed by Front, Walnut and Dock streets - Society Hill's northeast corner. The tower sits at the southern point of this triangle, and no building like it stands within 200 feet of it - except for Society Hill Towers. That's why I have no problem with 500 Walnut but do have a problem with this one.
And again, to bring up another context, I think One Riverside is very well situated. It gave its low-rise neighborhood an exclamation point. And were someone to tear down the converted warehouses to its north and replace them with high-rises, I don't think it would spoil any view or view corridor.
So are you advocating for this project to not happen? Or do you want a a different material selection and some sort of set back? I am confused.
Right, I guess that is technically 1/2 a block south of Old City, but I would wager that the majority of people consider that little curved section of 2nd/Front from Walnut to Dock street Old City rather than Society Hill. It's also very close to the wildly popular beer Garden just a couple hundred feet to the east. Just down the street at Front and Walnut, a mid-rise already exists. I think it's 11 or 12 floors.
And, think of it this way for a minute - there had to be a "first" tall building in every neighborhood before others joined. Everything was at one time was a low-rise neighborhood initially. The SH started this high-rise movement. Why should it suddenly stop there? This proposed corner lot IMO is the perfect place for a modest mid/high-rise (I'm not even sure how 30 stories is classified) to anchor the southern section of Old City, connect to the river, and bring a lot of activity and buzz to an oddly under-appreciated block of Front and Dock to Front and Walnut.
Society Hill NIMBYs are not short on connections, so I won't be surprised in the least if this project gets nixed. Hopefully it won't get scraped entirely and a comprise regarding height can be met. I personally would still be happy with a 15 or 20 story building. I guess we'll see soon enough...
Outside of the parkway area and a few pristine streets in Center City, there is hardly an abundance of trees. Even on Walnut, the "premiere" shopping street, there are only a handful of trees here and there, with no uniformity. It is noticeable from a street standpoint.
There are a lot of rowhouse neighborhoods North and South of CC that do not have a single tree for several blocks.
At least in Center City, all of the major streets should be tree lined, and the median on Broad should be tree lined. And every major development should require vegetation at street perimeter of the building / house.
While we are at it, every CC intersection should have matching decorative traffic and street light poles. These simple and relatively affordable upgrades would do a lot to improve the ground experience of the city. Yet all of this goes right over city councils head.
If I was rich and lived in Philadelphia, I would be investing my money into those kinds of improvements because at least we would actually get somewhere.
Yes, I know... Some of what I say is often me being sarcastic or an old head curmudgeon or Devil's advocacy or resisting mansplaining.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
