Development in Philadelphia (apartments, loft, houses)

[BajanYankee]

Do you think this type of development would be good for the city? Or do you feel that it would rob Philly of some of its character?


NoMa - YouTube

[kidphilly]

I think this type of development in areas like the loft district (or even North Broad between Vine and Temple) or the De Waterfront would be a great compliment. Potentially even in U City or the Navy Yard/old produce warehouse area.

They can be additive, though would not work well on that scale in the center city core

[Pine to Vine]

It's not an either or question. It's simply a matter of where such development is proposed. No, it should not go into neighborhoods such as Society Hill or Rittenhouse Square. On the other hand, such development has been successful in former brownfields such as Northern Liverties:


The Piazza at Schmidt's - YouTube

[bryson662001]

I am confused. Is all this development going to a new area.... NOMA? .....that wasn't developed before?

The only place in Philly that might benefit from that but doesn't already have it would be the Navy Yard or maybe near the sports complex in South Philly. Many of those larger buildings look like the architecture that is currently going up all over the city. I think we have more than enough of that already, it's not pretty. The other underdeveloped sites in Philly, say North Philly or West Philly wouldn't/couldn't support it.

[big mike 80]

I'm from Philly and lived in the DC area for some years. The culture of DC is its lack of Natives, I can't say its a lack of culture. Its a transient culture. Large Scale development in Philly would be a product of its culture and is built around it. A development by its self is devoid of culture it is the people that bring culture to it. An example of this is the Piazza. The stone Plaza is a product of past cultures but by itself is just a stone plaza. Being in the middle of an artist enclave of the city, the people bring life and Philly to it. That being said there are plenty of areas in Philly that could use some large scale development. Like the old food distribution center in south Philly, Navy Yard, Sports complex, Major TOD's along the BSL and MFL. This city is rising from the ashes of the Post Industrial waste land.

[Boompa]

I've seen these kinds of developments and they are ugly. Just like Suburban Malls you won't even be able to tell what city you are in. Build Row houses with garages in the rear and apartments over First Floor Stores

[big mike 80]

Originally Posted by Boompa

I've seen these kinds of developments and they are ugly. Just like Suburban Malls you won't even be able to tell what city you are in. Build Row houses with garages in the rear and apartments over First Floor Stores

I agree.

Does anyone have any news or pics of recent developments and construction. 2116 chestnut, 1919 market, ect...

[couldntthinkofaclevername]

Originally Posted by big mike 80

I agree.

Does anyone have any news or pics of recent developments and construction. 2116 chestnut, 1919 market, ect...

Check out the Philadelphia 2035 thread.

kidphilly does a great job of keeping us all updated on there.

[bryson662001]

Originally Posted by big mike 80

I agree.

Does anyone have any news or pics of recent developments and construction. 2116 chestnut, 1919 market, ect...

Google Skyscraperpage (does not compete with city-data, it's about architecture and development) and go to City Compilations/Philadelphia. All the projects with pictures are in there.

[Duderino]

As big mike 80 already explained, development must keep in mind culture and context. I personally am leery of large scale projects (e.g., the NoMa project) that appear to just completely replace previously existing neighborhoods as though they never existed. DC is actually a pretty good city to look to as a model for keeping context and history in mind. However, some of the new development you find there does give off too much of a sterile, "New Urban" Anywherecity, USA vibe.

Of course, this is not unique to DC and certainly you find the same kind of development in Philadelphia (although not quite on as much of a large scale), but basically my point is that Philly has such a strong architectural identity that should not be completely ignored in new development projects, especially in terms of neighborhood infill. That does not mean totally replicating old architecture (which can come off as forced) but rather complementing and adding to it.

In short, properly re-developing older cities like Philadelphia is not an easy feat, and really needs to strike a delicate balance of architectural integrity, uniqueness, quality of building materials, respect for historic/neighborhood character and sticks to the major tenets of urban form (e.g., no surface parking lots, street-level continuity, pedestrian friendliness, and enhancing vibrancy through a mix of uses). It's really a matter of getting developers and neighborhood groups to understand and accept these ground rules.