Development in Philadelphia

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Instead of cookie cutter mall-disguised-as-urban-mixed-Noahs-Starbucks-Mimis-etc, redevelopment in a place like Philly should mimic classic old UK urban development ala central London.

[bryson662001]

Originally Posted by Duderino

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.

There isn't all that much architecture in Philly that needs to be preserved/respected and what there is will be in or close to Center City. Also maybe a few sites in the northwest like Chestnut Hill. I can't think of anyplace in West Philly, North Philly, South Philly or the northeast that would be a loss if it fell to the bulldozer and was replaced by the OP's examples of development.

[rotodome]

Originally Posted by bryson662001

There isn't all that much architecture in Philly that needs to be preserved/respected and what there is will be in or close to Center City. Also maybe a few sites in the northwest like Chestnut Hill. I can't think of anyplace in West Philly, North Philly, South Philly or the northeast that would be a loss if it fell to the bulldozer and was replaced by the OP's examples of development.

Well, I strongly disagree with that statement!

But addressing the thread topic: I am wary of new development that, in attempting to be "historically respectful" ends up being wishy-washy and bland. in doing things like using "historical" materials and details as lightweight applique over a modern structure, as a weak attempt to "fit"...no one is fooled.
Mimicing historical buildings very rarely looks good. At its (all too common) worst, it looks cheap and forgettable. And even at its best, it ultimately dilutes the impact of the actual historical buildings.

I much prefer design that honestly looks to be of it's own time, and at the same time looks good juxtaposed against a historical context. When those historical buildings were originally built, they were contemporary, and spoke of the time that they were built. That's what good architecture should always aspire to.

[mancat100]

Originally Posted by rotodome

Well, I strongly disagree with that statement!

But addressing the thread topic: I am wary of new development that, in attempting to be "historically respectful" ends up being wishy-washy and bland. in doing things like using "historical" materials and details as lightweight applique over a modern structure, as a weak attempt to "fit"...no one is fooled.
Mimicing historical buildings very rarely looks good. At its (all too common) worst, it looks cheap and forgettable. And even at its best, it ultimately dilutes the impact of the actual historical buildings.

I much prefer design that honestly looks to be of it's own time, and at the same time looks good juxtaposed against a historical context. When those historical buildings were originally built, they were contemporary, and spoke of the time that they were built. That's what good architecture should always aspire to.

In theory I agree with this 100%, but in practice so much new architecture is just awful. Here are some examples of things in Philadphia's newer buildings that are cringeworthy. Gas and electric meters prominently placed on the front facade. Suburban-quality garage doors facing the street. Huge, ugly service entrances facing major streets rather than a side alley. Grey fire stairway doors on a major facade like a juicy pimple on an otherwise pretty face. Not lining up properly with other buildings on the block as pertaining to how they address the sidewalk. Curb cuts. Ugly parking podiums as the first several floors of a building.

Very, very few newer buildings seem to do a good job at street level due to the reasons listed above. Even some of our iconic newer buildings are guilty: Kimmel Center (look at how it addresses the corner of 15th and Spruce, PA Convention Center (look at how it addresses Race Street), the 40ish story apartment building at 8th and Walnut (look at how it addresses 8th Street), Comcast Center (see how it addresses Arch Street). Etc etc etc.

This isn't a total rejection of new architecture, just most of the new architecture that gets built around here.

[rotodome]

Originally Posted by mancat100

In theory I agree with this 100%, but in practice so much new architecture is just awful. Here are some examples of things in Philadphia's newer buildings that are cringeworthy. Gas and electric meters prominently placed on the front facade. Suburban-quality garage doors facing the street. Huge, ugly service entrances facing major streets rather than a side alley. Grey fire stairway doors on a major facade like a juicy pimple on an otherwise pretty face. Not lining up properly with other buildings on the block as pertaining to how they address the sidewalk. Curb cuts. Ugly parking podiums as the first several floors of a building.

Very, very few newer buildings seem to do a good job at street level due to the reasons listed above. Even some of our iconic newer buildings are guilty: Kimmel Center (look at how it addresses the corner of 15th and Spruce, PA Convention Center (look at how it addresses Race Street), the 40ish story apartment building at 8th and Walnut (look at how it addresses 8th Street), Comcast Center (see how it addresses Arch Street). Etc etc etc.

This isn't a total rejection of new architecture, just most of the new architecture that gets built around here.

I agree with you! Philadelphia really needs to give more care lately as to what gets built (...and what gets torn down!). I can think of a handful of (substantial) new buildings in Philly that I think are really good at street level, but many more bad ones.

And everyone likes old buildings. I personally love historical architecture. But the thing is, at some point you have to build new buildings, and you can't really build a new old building. It's practically, if not literally, impossible. And even if you could do it, you probably shouldn't, for reason stated above (regarding diluting & confounding the actual history, that was built on its own terms).

[couldntthinkofaclevername]

Originally Posted by bryson662001

There isn't all that much architecture in Philly that needs to be preserved/respected and what there is will be in or close to Center City. Also maybe a few sites in the northwest like Chestnut Hill. I can't think of anyplace in West Philly, North Philly, South Philly or the northeast that would be a loss if it fell to the bulldozer and was replaced by the OP's examples of development.

I can think of plenty, actually.

In West Philly, in Upper Darby, in Darby, in Chester, in Marcus Hook, in Lansdowne to name just a few off the top of my head.

Originally Posted by rotodome

Well, I strongly disagree with that statement!

But addressing the thread topic: I am wary of new development that, in attempting to be "historically respectful" ends up being wishy-washy and bland. in doing things like using "historical" materials and details as lightweight applique over a modern structure, as a weak attempt to "fit"...no one is fooled.
Mimicing historical buildings very rarely looks good. At its (all too common) worst, it looks cheap and forgettable. And even at its best, it ultimately dilutes the impact of the actual historical buildings.

I much prefer design that honestly looks to be of it's own time, and at the same time looks good juxtaposed against a historical context. When those historical buildings were originally built, they were contemporary, and spoke of the time that they were built. That's what good architecture should always aspire to.

Agreed.

That's what needs to be emphasized is what those buildings meant back then and what purpose they served. It's great to embrace history but to leave entire major pockets of the city and surrounding areas so dead completely defeats the original purpose of those places.

The old architecture was prominent for its time. Philadelphia had some of the first, most impressive large buildings, many of which have unfortunately been torn down but some of which still stand like the Wannameker Building, PNB building, the Loewes, etc. When we look at those buildings, we should see them in context with the period in which they were built. Even City Hall, at 500+ feet in a time when the only taller structures in the world were the Eiffel Tower and the Washington Monument and which was supposed to be the tallest in the world but was completed too late.

If one looks at old pictures of Philadelphia from those times and up until the early 20th Century, one can see just how impressive and grand those buildings all were for their time, including plenty of the ones that got torn down.

That's what we should be trying to honor and emulate.

[Lenses & Lights.]

Philly Live!? No, Xfinity Live! | Philadelphia Inquirer | 12/15/2011

What about this? I know the one in DT LA is nice and brings in lots of visitors.

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by bryson662001

There isn't all that much architecture in Philly that needs to be preserved/respected and what there is will be in or close to Center City. Also maybe a few sites in the northwest like Chestnut Hill. I can't think of anyplace in West Philly, North Philly, South Philly or the northeast that would be a loss if it fell to the bulldozer and was replaced by the OP's examples of development.

I am also in strong disagreement with this perspective. Philadelphia has a very unique scale and character in the vast majority of its neighborhoods. Too much of this has been obscured by modernist revisions, but with some vision and thoughtful design, I think new development can both restore the historic scale and character in most neighborhoods and also give them a sense of modern vitality.

Infill projects like these are perfect examples of achieving this balance:



Flatz@2015 Fitzwater – Much more than an infill duplex | NakedPhilly


postgreen | NakedPhilly


http://nakedphilly.com/point-breeze/...e-as-expected/