Philadelphia 2035 (Franklin, Riverside, Franklintown: calculated, borders, pleasant)

[timeEd32]

Really confused as to why anyone who lives in a suburb of a city would not want to see that city grow and thrive.

[kyb01]

Originally Posted by cpomp

O I know. Of course there is a lot of positive feedback as well, but with every positive there seems to be a negative, and bitter people who don't live in the city hate seeing it succeed.




I follow some facebook threads about development in Media PA (my hometown), Media is going thru a building renaissance as well, and I see the same negative crap on there as well. A lot of naysayers who don't like growth and change.

All, I can say right now is that after so much stagnation in the area over so many years people got used to "no growth/slow growth" so too much change scares them. Plus, I still believe that some of the fear is related to generations shifting.

[AJNEOA]

Originally Posted by Pine to Vine

Well, there's "councilman's prerogative" and other blessings they need to collect before any dirt is shoveled. It's hard to know how much of that has taken place. At least it's in Squilla's sandbox and not Kenyatta's.

It's such a joke. A major city like Philadelphia should have a clean and logical process with the right agencies/players to make determinations based on zoning and other relevant variables. Councilman prerogative is a crooked term in itself IMO.

[southbound_295]

Originally Posted by timeEd32

Really confused as to why anyone who lives in a suburb of a city would not want to see that city grow and thrive.

I don't think that people in suburbs don't want the city to grow & thrive. Different people have different views for new construction.

Many people remember what the Gallery replaced. It was not a visual improvement. Those same people remember the gentrification of Society Hill & the mantra of blending the new with the old. That doesn't make people with different views bitter, as one poster likes to say, while expecting respect for his views.

When the gentleman's agreement was broken, many people were irate & the new version had the height placement relegated in one area, which calmed people down. While the Gimbels building didn't have the grandeur of the other department stores, tearing it down was a giant mistake, on the level of building a 1970s suburban mall building in place of buildings from the early 1800s. Both are long-term errors of judgement.

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by cpomp

I've been reading some press on it, and people are still complaining... "Its out of character with the neighborhood, too tall, overshadows the Residence Inn, its too glassy, doesn't match Wanamakers"


I am like you've got to be kidding me, this once again is the exact crap I constantly complain about with Philadelphia and this negative, miserable, narrow minded attitude. Why can't people be happy with progress and change?


I just hope this building actually comes to fruition, but I could see it turning into another Family Court Building, or remaining a vacant lot.

Don't get me wrong: Just because I consider its architecture uninspired doesn't mean I don't want to see it built. Even a BLTa-designed building on that site would be better than keeping it a parking lot.

But that "why do they all have to be blue?" remark notwithstanding, the complaints you recount above strike me as way uninformed.

[MarketStEl]

Regarding "councilmanic prerogative":

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, and in this case I think I might be, but I thought that only got to be exercised if a project required a variance or rezoning to proceed.

Unless I'm mistaken, this lot is zoned CMX5, the densest of the city's zoning categories - and one with no height limit (it's FAR-based). Which means that the developer should be able to pull permits with no problem.

The reason I think I'm wrong? Liberty Place's lot was also zoned in this most dense category (which had a different label under the old zoning code), and it did go through the Council sausage grinder.

[kyb01]

Originally Posted by southbound_295

I don't think that people in suburbs don't want the city to grow & thrive. Different people have different views for new construction.

Many people remember what the Gallery replaced. It was not a visual improvement. Those same people remember the gentrification of Society Hill & the mantra of blending the new with the old. That doesn't make people with different views bitter, as one poster likes to say, while expecting respect for his views.

When the gentleman's agreement was broken, many people were irate & the new version had the height placement relegated in one area, which calmed people down. While the Gimbels building didn't have the grandeur of the other department stores, tearing it down was a giant mistake, on the level of building a 1970s suburban mall building in place of buildings from the early 1800s. Both are long-term errors of judgement.

Actually "height placement" seems to be no longer relegated to one area in Center City. The LDS tower, aka The Alexander, going up at 16th and Vine, while not quite a super tall, is much higher than anything anyone ever thought would happen there.

[southbound_295]

Originally Posted by kyb01

Actually "height placement" seems to be no longer relegated to one area in Center City. The LDS tower, aka The Alexander, going up at 16th and Vine, while not quite a super tall, is much higher than anything anyone ever thought would happen there.

16th is west of city hall. The new version of the gentleman's agreement keeps the height west of city hall.

[cpomp]

Originally Posted by southbound_295

16th is west of city hall. The new version of the gentleman's agreement keeps the height west of city hall.

How about some supertalls in Callowhill?

[kyb01]

Originally Posted by cpomp

How about some supertalls in Callowhill?

Seriously though there is one parcel of empty land left at 18th and Callowhill where something might be built. It borders the tunnel portion of the rail park project.

There's also the abandoned Inquirer Building (increasingly turning into an eyesore and weirdly has not been tagged with graffiti since it's obviously empty) and the adjacent parking lot at 15th/16th Sts. Blatstein hasn't said anything, publically, about it for at least a year.