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.
I don't disagree. What I do strongly object to is when the old is torn down to make way for the new. I lived in a city where that was the ethos. From a distance, the CBD skyline was quite handsome. At street level, however, it was cold, sterile and generic. The city gave away its soul in exchange for growth. Onice the soul of a city is gone, it can never be recovered.
I trust you are wise enough to understand that.
If you don't disagree, then I believe that you and I are closer to the same point. Where we differ in perspective, however, is the feel of tall buildings at street level. Even then, I agree with you to a point (what I have mentioned about West Market). I think that our CBD could be enhanced at the street level with added residential, retail, and restaurant components. To me, the street level feel has to do with building facades, amenities (retail and restaurants), foot traffic, street traffic, and other components. We also differ in age, which may contribute to our different perspectives. If I'm not mistaken, you remember Philly before the height limit was broken? I was born in 1995, and grew up in West Philly during the early-mid 2000s. All I have seen throughout my life is Philly growing taller and taller. The farthest back I can remember is when the skyline didn't have Cira Center, The Murano, The Comcast Center, The Residences at Ritz-Carlton, and other buildings that have popped up in recent years. Now, I am witnessing FMC Tower, CITC, W and Elements, 1601 Vine, (hopefully) SLS International, and other tall projects sprout up across the city. I am simply used to and appreciate tall buildings in Philly.
I must clarify my OP, however, because I do NOT advocate for the destruction of historical buildings. What I should have said is that all develop-able lots west of Broad, between Vine and at least Spruce, should be zoned CMX-5. Broad and Washington could also allow for CMX-5. I hate it when Colonial structures are sacrificed for modern structures. In fact, a couple of days ago, I was going to start a thread on how tearing down the beautiful homes in Callowhill in favor of the Callowhill Industrial District was one of Philly's worst mistakes.
I think what the other "Phan" and I were advocating was not about tearing down the old in favor of the new, but rather about allowing currently vacant lots to meet their maximum potential (i.e. high-rises). I think the idea is to change the zoning in Center City so as to encourage better development of vacant and underutilized lots. I'm sure we both agree that the old stuff and small scale is what gives Philly its charm, but it is varied height and increasing density that can really bring the city to life. There are enough vacant parcels to achieve the kinds of densities we might prefer without tearing down older structures. A canyon of skyscrapers IS a bad thing and we don't want that, except maybe along Market East and West, but otherwise the mixed heights found in places like Rittenhouse and Washington Square are good examples of what the city should strive for.
With that said, not all of the old buildings are well designed, or have an historic value that makes them worth saving... these being mostly the buildings built in the second half of the 20th century. I might advocate putting a high-rise or mid-rise in their place depending on the character of the neighborhood.
I think what the other "Phan" and I were advocating was not about tearing down the old in favor of the new, but rather about allowing currently vacant lots to meet their maximum potential (i.e. high-rises). I think the idea is to change the zoning in Center City so as to encourage better development of vacant and underutilized lots. I'm sure we both agree that the old stuff and small scale is what gives Philly its charm, but it is varied height and increasing density that can really bring the city to life. There are enough vacant parcels to achieve the kinds of densities we might prefer without tearing down older structures. A canyon of skyscrapers IS a bad thing and we don't want that, except maybe along Market East and West, but otherwise the mixed heights found in places like Rittenhouse and Washington Square are good examples of what the city should strive for.
With that said, not all of the old buildings are well designed, or have an historic value that makes them worth saving... these being mostly the buildings built in the second half of the 20th century. I might advocate putting a high-rise or mid-rise in their place depending on the character of the neighborhood.
You summarized it perfectly! This is what I was trying to say. The emboldened is really what I was going for, as well.
In response to your second paragraph, a perfect example of this is on the south side of Market Street from 22nd Street to the Schuylkill.
Saving ALL cities History is What we expect. Every neighborhood has HISTORY. But even Preservationist realize ALL is not worth saving. There are whole neighborhoods for sure to get a Historical District status.
But neighborhoods SPECULATORS, INVESTORS and DEVELOPERS... allowed to REMOVE aspects of PHILLY'S " Greene Countrie Towne" plan did not bless Philly. Green used far less or seen.... AS NOT NESSESARY FOR THE POORER CLASSES and PROFITS was what THE CHANGE MEANT.
(remainder deleted)
Some of your historical - or technological - understanding needs improvement, methinks.
Penn's vision of a "greene countrie towne" was simply not possible to realize in the 18th century given the transportation and communications technologies of the time. He had envisioned each of the "squares" (Phillyspeak for what would be called a "city block" otherwise; the term arose to distinguish the blocks on Thomas Holme's original grid from the blocks created by all those interstitial streets and alleys) with a single structure on it. Walking around such a city would have been highly impractical, and it would not have offered enough people in close proximity to support the taverns and coffee houses in which business was often conducted. Filling in those squares with streets and structures was a necessity.
And if you look at just about every American city that became large before 1850, you will find rowhouses are the dominant residential form in rich and poor districts alike.
But your point about the value of greenery and green space is a valid one. You can find examples of rowhouses and trees coexisting peacefully on just about any street in Center City's residential zone. I'd say its in the absence of trees rather than the presence of row houses that the city's vast working-class precincts failed their inhabitants, and your view of some streets in Chicago's Englewood section does drive that point home, so to speak. Note that those single-family houses, however, are far closer together than either what Penn sought or what we build today; there are no side yards worthy of the name, and the front yards are the size of postage stamps (okay, maybe a little bigger, but not much).
Another city you should take a look at for an example of rowhouses and greenery coexisting is Savannah, Georgia's first city. Charles Oglethorpe's plan of 1733 was a thing of beauty: it was modular, with the city laid out in 4x4-block grids with a park interrupting the grid near one edge. Even blocks not fronting on a park had plenty of trees:
The city could have continued to expand in this fashion, but sometime in the early to mid-19th century, the grid was abandoned and the rest of the city developed in a more conventional fashion.
We get that you don't like rowhouses. And the trajectory of American urban development has been towards lower density as transportation systems improved. Boston's triple-deckers are less dense than that city's rowhouses, though still closely built. But until the arrival of the automobile, dense construction continued to be the norm rather than the exception. Rowhouses were a particularly efficient form of dense construction, which is why they continued to be built both here and in Baltimore.
This is old news, though I can't remember reading about it on CD: Varalli to close amid intrigue at Broad and Locust. The article says that Perch Pub will be open through next spring, but I just returned from running errands and saw the demolition notice is up. Regardless of when, it's good to know there are commitments in place to raze and replace that ugly parking garage occupying a prime location on S Broad.
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,278,040 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
(remainder deleted)
Some of your historical - or technological - understanding needs improvement, methinks.
Penn's vision of a "greene countrie towne" was simply not possible to realize in the 18th century given the transportation and communications technologies of the time. He had envisioned each of the "squares" (Phillyspeak for what would be called a "city block" otherwise; the term arose to distinguish the blocks on Thomas Holme's original grid from the blocks created by all those interstitial streets and alleys) with a single structure on it. Walking around such a city would have been highly impractical, and it would not have offered enough people in close proximity to support the taverns and coffee houses in which business was often conducted. Filling in those squares with streets and structures was a necessity.
And if you look at just about every American city that became large before 1850, you will find rowhouses are the dominant residential form in rich and poor districts alike.
But your point about the value of greenery and green space is a valid one. You can find examples of rowhouses and trees coexisting peacefully on just about any street in Center City's residential zone. I'd say its in the absence of trees rather than the presence of row houses that the city's vast working-class precincts failed their inhabitants, and your view of some streets in Chicago's Englewood section does drive that point home, so to speak. Note that those single-family houses, however, are far closer together than either what Penn sought or what we build today; there are no side yards worthy of the name, and the front yards are the size of postage stamps (okay, maybe a little bigger, but not much).
Another city you should take a look at for an example of rowhouses and greenery coexisting is Savannah, Georgia's first city. Charles Oglethorpe's plan of 1733 was a thing of beauty: it was modular, with the city laid out in 4x4-block grids with a park interrupting the grid near one edge. Even blocks not fronting on a park had plenty of trees:
The city could have continued to expand in this fashion, but sometime in the early to mid-19th century, the grid was abandoned and the rest of the city developed in a more conventional fashion.
We get that you don't like rowhouses. And the trajectory of American urban development has been towards lower density as transportation systems improved. Boston's triple-deckers are less dense than that city's rowhouses, though still closely built. But until the arrival of the automobile, dense construction continued to be the norm rather than the exception. Rowhouses were a particularly efficient form of dense construction, which is why they continued to be built both here and in Baltimore.
Nice Post GREAT PICTURE and NEIGHBORHOOD. I also do not see any UGLY Power-line Poles on the block? Must be because Alleys here have them.
William Penn DID NOT WANT HIS BELOVED PHILLY. To be AS HE KNEW IN LONDON. NO GREEN FOR THE MASSES.... HE MEANT IT.
PENN wanted Green Space he saw London lacked in the poor crowded neighborhoods. HE WANTED ALL TO HAVE A GARDEN. HOW CONTEMPORARY OF HIM.
I would have wished Philly still left the tight Rows and did not continue PLAIN ROWS..... IN THE 20th CENTURY AT LEAST.
I was surprised of a selling price of the one on Redfin in 1913 for $157.000. But apparently the neighborhood is gentrifying. But still full of blight all around. Some streets are narrower and there are Alleys here. But more homes in them too.
I can't believe these may eventually go for $300.000 when gentrification is more complete.... But great Philly can get People to put money into them and the value skyrockets.
Anyway, my point is. Tight Rows for the masses were about getting..... THE MOST HOMES IN THE SPACES AND STREETS FOR THE HIGHEST PROFITS. BUT ALSO CHEAPER TO BUYERS. BY MASS PRODUCING THEM IN ASSEMBLY-LINE FASHION.
These past eras had PLENTY OF CRAFTSMEN who could have still fairly cheaply.... HAVE ADDED ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES MOST LACK. THAT WAS LEFT TO THE HIGHER-CLASSES HOMES. Cities that DID NOT LET BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS CALL THE SHOTS.... Got far less Rows. BOSTON LEFT ROWS IN THE 20th CENTURY FOR ITS .... TRIPLE-DECKERS.... I don't dislike them. Lots of green space around. Chicago even built 2-3 flats as called there.
Ironically as I lived in Chicago in my past. The Rows it did get were higher-End Victorian ones in the late 1800s. They are still valuable today for their craftsmanship in the right neighborhoods..... worth Millions.
The 20th century saw Rows built ended there. Why the city has all kind of varieties of homes in the same block. All neighborhoods were required by the city to have set-backs from streets with green space and Alleys were standard.... after all .... after the GREAT FIRE. CHICAGO STARTED OVER AGAIN WITH PHILLYS ORIGINAL STREET GRID OF NONE OTHER THEN .... WILLIAM PENN.
Outside of Philly though few Row neighborhoods through PA EVER GENTRIFY TO SUCH VALUES or such money invested in their interiors. But much smaller cities have these kinds f Rows remind the Cheapest housing there.
Near me in older Cities like my hometown where my Mother still lives. ..... Row homes still go for $20,000 and less for fixer-uppers.... and $25,000-$30,000 for those fixed up if lucky. We are talking areas still seen as depressed. Gaining families from Philly moving into them. Buying and renting them for better schools for their kids. Lower crime. But growing and drugs. They not come for plentiful jobs though......
Apparently, Brandywine is planning to develop a 500' tower on the Salvation Army lot it acquired from Basciano. It will have a residential and office component to it. I have also heard that the design will be REVOLUTIONARY!
Apparently, Brandywine is planning to develop a 500' tower on the Salvation Army lot it acquired from Basciano. It will have a residential and office component to it. I have also heard that the design will be REVOLUTIONARY!
Isn't a park supposed to be built on the specific spot where the Salvation Army store was? I knew someone who died there. Yep, let's just forget about what happened there and plop a building on it.
Plus there's PFD full firehouse(engine, ladder, emt)in that block which serves CC which is vital.
Where will that go?
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,666,340 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyb01
Isn't a park supposed to be built on the specific spot where the Salvation Army store was? I knew someone who died there. Yep, let's just forget about what happened there and plop a building on it.
Plus there's PFD full firehouse(engine, ladder, emt)in that block which serves CC which is vital.
Where will that go?
This is why I'm having the problem about, what seems to me to be a contest, of how many tall buildings can be crammed in. Fire department engine houses are essentials & parks are connected to quality of life.
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.
