Philadelphia 2035 (New Philadelphia: lawsuit, association, requirements)

[kidphilly]

Hmmm is this it

Old City Harbor Tower at World Trade Square | Alesker & Dundon, LLC

World Trade Square | Alesker & Dundon, LLC

[RightonWalnut]

Originally Posted by Marius Pontmercy

There have been tons of proposals to build on the waterfront over the years. I'm not surprised that at any given time a few of them are actually still considered active proposals. Of those maybe one or two will actually get built.

Originally Posted by kidphilly

Think your link was broke

try this

Philadelphia Planning Commission meeting, August 21 - includes agenda | PlanPhilly: Planning Philadelphia's Future

400 North Christopher Columbus Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA - Google Maps

Based on the Map this will be right next to the other approved tower next to the Ben Now with potentially 1400 more units some growun retail and good street facing makes more sense

It is a proposal from the same developers who proposed the WTC complex back in the day during the construction boom. Seems they have a new proposal. I'm sure it won't be as high as the other project but 1400 units over 4 highrise buildings? Could be roughly four 20 floor buildings. If this is the case, the DRWC is going to have a conniption. OMG THE HEIGHT! THE VIEWS OF THE RIVER!!!! 20 floors?! NEVER! What do you think this is? A city or something?

[Marius Pontmercy]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

Hmmm is this it

Old City Harbor Tower at World Trade Square | Alesker & Dundon, LLC

World Trade Square | Alesker & Dundon, LLC

World Trade Square is long dead.

Philaphilia: Dead-Ass Proposal of the Week-- September 1st

[UDResident]

Originally Posted by Urban Spaceman

It started when I mentioned how Santa Monica was destroyed by overdevelopment, in response to someone here complaining about the city choosing to preserve open space in center city instead of cluttering up every square inch with high rise parking lots and office buildings.

And why is it odd? Santa Monica has a population equal to center city's, and is a bustling metropolitan area that relies heavily on tourism and nightlife for revenue, much like CC.

The entire state of California was ruined by overdevelopment and poor planning. But apparently some people prefer a Blade Runner type future where the streets are like sardine cans and you need a gas mask to walk ten blocks. Meanwhile warehouses are crumbling in neighborhoods that are ripe for redevelopment, if only the developers had a little foresight and imagination. Development that would actually revitalize the city, not tax the aging infrastructure of center city.

But go ahead and build build build. Keep building skyscrapers on every inch of open land in CC until the narrow streets are dark all day long and the roads leading into CC are just crawling parking lots.

Actually, it was you who was complaining about Center City "already being too crowded" and trying to say Santa Monica was better than Center City when it's not even remotely on the level of any major city's core.

The entire state of California was ruined by sprawl. Even its most urban cities like San Francisco are full of cookie-cutter suburban homes with apartment buildings built into the neighborhoods full of the suburban style homes. Santa Monica is not now nor will it ever be an urban area on the level of Center City. It's not even on the level of Wilmington, because at least Wilmington is actually urban and built like a city.

Cities aren't supposed to have vacant lots and parking lots in the most important parts of their core, of which Center City has many. Nobody wants Philadelphia to be Manhattan-level dense, and if you had even remotely any sort of clue about this city you'd know that we have a history of resisting having skyscrapers lining every single block like Manhattan does. We only have two buildings over 900 ft tall. We only have 5 buildings over 700 ft tall. The vast majority of our buildings are under 300 and even under 200 ft tall. It's not the either-or situation you're making it out to be. Building up Center City more actually improves the chances of those neighborhoods being revitalized by developers because people get priced further and further out from CC.

For somebody who touts himself as an "Urban Spaceman" you sure seem to have a problem with what urban actually is.

[phillies2011]

Originally Posted by Urban Spaceman

It started when I mentioned how Santa Monica was destroyed by overdevelopment, in response to someone here complaining about the city choosing to preserve open space in center city instead of cluttering up every square inch with high rise parking lots and office buildings.

And why is it odd? Santa Monica has a population equal to center city's, and is a bustling metropolitan area that relies heavily on tourism and nightlife for revenue, much like CC.

The entire state of California was ruined by overdevelopment and poor planning. But apparently some people prefer a Blade Runner type future where the streets are like sardine cans and you need a gas mask to walk ten blocks. Meanwhile warehouses are crumbling in neighborhoods that are ripe for redevelopment, if only the developers had a little foresight and imagination. Development that would actually revitalize the city, not tax the aging infrastructure of center city.

But go ahead and build build build. Keep building skyscrapers on every inch of open land in CC until the narrow streets are dark all day long and the roads leading into CC are just crawling parking lots.

Your comparison of Center City, Philadelphia and Santa Monica is absolutely insane. Santa Monica have similar populations although depending on your definition of Center City, it's possible center city has roughly twice as many people. Even forgetting this though, the big difference is in the fact that while their actual populations may be somewhat similar, center city is located at the very densest center of a 6 million person metro. Santa Monica is the center of nothing.

Tourism and nightlife are obviously a huge industry in Philadelphia and much of that is focused in center city. Philadelphia is among the top 10 most visited cities in America though, in 2010 over 30,000,000 people visited the city... the same is certainly not true of Santa Monica. So while both cities have big tourism industries, Philadelphia's is FAR bigger than santa monica's.

To truly understand how ridiculous this comparison is though you must now consider the fact that although Philadelphia Tourism and Nightlife industries are far bigger and more profitable than Santa Monica, Tourism and Nightlife make up a TINY party of the economy of Center City.

You said, Center City's population relies heavily on tourism and nightlife for revenue? What are you smoking? As big as tourism and nightlife are, do you really think they hold a candle to the type of revenue that billion dollar corporations are making? The economy of Philadelphia is the ninth largest economy of any city on the Planet and much of that GDP is being produced in center city. Santa Monica is no where even remotely near this league.

The comparison between the two is totally ridiculous in any standard.

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

It is in many ways. 2035 will be a different time and seeing even all these little things will have a tangible difference in the long run. Imagine Philly 2010 back in 1985 and how things changed in those 25 years.

On your lnk, maybe the costs can come down and less union price drvers making conventions over priced relative to the market.

I first laid eyes on this city in 1971. It was on a Sunday, and that W.C. Fields quip applied ("I went to Philadelphia on a Sunday, but it was closed.") My first impression: It needed a bath desperately.

I moved here in 1983.

I've lived here long enough to see all sorts of changes, but not long enough to Remember What It Was Like Back In The Good Old Days, when everyone took care of things and helped old ladies across the street.

By the time I got here, that damage had been done. Those who insist none of it has been repaired since haven't been paying attention.

This city is livelier, cleaner, and more interesting than the one I moved to 29 years ago next month. It has more to do at night, a more diverse population, and more energy.

It also has worrisome poverty, lots and lots of vacant lots and crumbling warehouses, schools that still for the most part don't work, an inbred political culture and not enough jobs.

And on that last part, one of the good things - a rising population in the city center - actually could make the problem worse as office buildings become apartments and condos. (Or maybe University City is simply becoming our new office canyon.)

I'd say for now, though, that if we were to apply the famous opening sentence of "A Tale of Two Cities" to this place and parse it, "It was the best of times" outweighs "It was the worst of times."

[MarketStEl]

One more problem with this observation:

Originally Posted by Urban Spaceman

And why is it odd? Santa Monica has a population equal to center city's, and is a bustling metropolitan area that relies heavily on tourism and nightlife for revenue, much like CC.

Santa Monica is not the core city of its metropolitan area. That honor belongs to Los Angeles, a few miles back up the Santa Monica Freeway. If and when the "Subway to the Sea" gets built, Santa Monica will lie at its outer end, not its central station.

Center City is the core of the core city. It SHOULD look more like Downtown LA than like Santa Monica. (And Downtown LA remains an underpowered downtown because LA remains a polycentric city - the first and biggest such city in the country).

The entire state of California was ruined by overdevelopment and poor planning. But apparently some people prefer a Blade Runner type future where the streets are like sardine cans and you need a gas mask to walk ten blocks. Meanwhile warehouses are crumbling in neighborhoods that are ripe for redevelopment, if only the developers had a little foresight and imagination. Development that would actually revitalize the city, not tax the aging infrastructure of center city.

But go ahead and build build build. Keep building skyscrapers on every inch of open land in CC until the narrow streets are dark all day long and the roads leading into CC are just crawling parking lots.

1. In case you haven't noticed, developers have been busy converting crumbling warehouses for new uses, or knocking them down and replacing them with new stuff (if they don't catch fire first and do the developers' job for them). What do you think those construction union workers are protesting at 12th and Pearl? Why is it called The Piazza at Schmidt's? Seen those artist co-ops in Port Fishington?

2. Ever notice how tall the buildings are in Lower Manhattan? Those streets are as narrow as ours, if not more so. And the office buildings there are being converted to residences just as a number of ours are. (Edited to add: Overlooked the remark about building heights in UD Resident's comment; he's also right that Manhattanization really isn't likely here. The best candidates for that have already been built upon and are lined with fairly tall buildings now.)

3. California is very dense, but it's all detached SFRs cheek-by-jowl on small lots. It's the densest suburban sprawl you'll ever lay eyes on.

4. UD Resident is right. Surface parking lots are what you don't want to see in a dense urban core. You want to see buildings on these lots - or most of them; you do want some parks and plazas too.

5. You do know there's this thing called SEPTA, do you not?

[kidphilly]

Improvements in the Philadelphia zoning code, VII: Civic design review | Philadelphia Real Estate Blog

[RightonWalnut]

1900 Arch has started construction:
1900 Arch Street: Dusty plot no more | Philadelphia Real Estate Blog

Plans for Girard Square Block on Market East:

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/i...#ixzz24DaVVeNj

SSH Real Estate and its partners say they have secured an equity partner, National Real Estate Advisors (IBEW), and is now looking for a big store so it can start work on a planned four-story retail building in the 1100 block of Market Street, in the Girard Block.

The plan is to replace the current row of stores, "build a retail space with a large anchor on the second and third floors with an escalator straight up, and add all new stores below. And we're considering a residential tower" on the 11th St. side "and exploring a hotel" on the 12th St. side, partner Peter Soens told me.

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by Summersm343

1900 Arch has started construction:
1900 Arch Street: Dusty plot no more | Philadelphia Real Estate Blog

Plans for Girard Square Block on Market East:

Landlord seeks tenant for Market retail project

I wonder what that would mean for the albeit speculative plans of a target on the vacant lot. Maybe an opportunity for other infill. A office tower - oh we can dream. Honestly I care less about the tower and more that it would bring new jobs to the city. Again just a dream but the city needs more jobs DT. On the residential and even retail we are doing just fine. Jobs will only fuel more of the other at this point.

I wonder what a 1,000 footer and 5K jobs would do to the area at 8th and Market