Philadelphia's Champs Elysee? (homes, restaurants, shops)

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

Problem is stuff like this was built with basically no street frontage and barrier to development and pedestrian connectivity

ben franklin parkway philadelphia - Google Maps

Okay. Why can't we just get rid of the second row of trees there next to the middle lane? And then build a sidewalk extending back to the dotted line in the outer lane? Then get rid of those trees, lamps, and grassy areas and put the buildings there.

[kidphilly]

Redesigning the Parkway

$19M in Parkway renovations now officially underway

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

Redesigning the Parkway

$19M in Parkway renovations now officially underway

Great links. It's ironic that some of the arguments people are making in those threads against development on the Parkway are the same arguments I made against development in my old DC neighborhood (more greenspace, preserving character, etc.). The difference, however, is that Philadelphia is looking to do something on a grand scale whereas DC just wants to convert an old park into an in-the-city suburban style shopping mall. I also think that the designers intended for the Parkway to be a lively, bustling boulevard. I'm not so sure that Congress allowed Frederick Law Olmsted to design a park in Northwest DC in hopes that it would one day serve as the future home of a TJ Maxx.

Unless the ghosts of great baseball players past congregate on those fields for a nightly game, I don't think they're worth keeping.

[kidphilly]

Interesting image from a model of an original plan

[couldntthinkofaclevername]

Originally Posted by BPP1999

Look at that picture again. Aside from a few museums and buildings, all I see are trees. Looks like William Penn's "greene countrie towne," which is what most city residents want Philadelphia to be (or at least this is what the NIMBY's want).

Look at the picture of Paris. It's wall-to-wall development/density. I'm not saying I think the Parkway should look just like Paris but I would argue for more residential hi-rises and less ballfields.

No. It's not even remotely suburban.

Think for a second here. Paris is Paris. It was built out a long time ago. Here is what anybody who is trying to talk about what should go where should think: What would that look like outside of Paris, in a place like Philadelphia? It would look like every other city in the US and elsewhere, just another stretch of urban development when there's already a ton around the city.

That looks good to people because it's in Paris. You take away the name of Paris and it doesn't look so good all of the sudden.

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

Hmm. I don't think it would take any more emphasis off the Museum than the shops currently along the Champs take away from L'arc de Triomphe.



http://press.visitphilly.com/uploads/photos/1336_l.jpg

That is a great view and it's even more majestic when all of the banners are hanging during the warmer months (especially the banners on the museum for its special exhibitions). It would be great to have a series of shops, restaurants and the like spanning the entire distance from the Museum to City Hall. I mean, imagine how boring the walk from L'arc de Triomphe to the Louvre would be if there were nothing in between but trees and a few soccer fields.

Yes, it would.

I agree, but not if they're buildings. I already suggested having pop up shops of high quality things and high quality food. There's no need to build anything there.

Originally Posted by bryson662001

If there was a need for more shops/resturants/hotels etc. I would rather see them on Market East and east Chestnut st. The parkway is ok the way it is except to keep adding cultural attractions where they can be shoehorned in. Other then the ball fields there isn't much room left.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by jm02

Look again at the picture of the Champs Elysee. It is lined with dense residential construction, hence the ability to to support retail at street level. The Parkway is need that: a parkway. I don't see the city able to support a retail corridor there, as it would necessiate filling in the fairly large amount of greenspace with housing/condo development. Keeping it as an extension of Fairmont Park within walking distance of CC that houses several museums along with some ball fields and a place to unwind seems to work fine. There are enough areas that could benefit from improved retail development (East Chestnut? Market East?) without having to sacrifice the greenspace on the Parkway.

Agreed again.

You'd be taking something that is completely unique to Philadelphia and making it like somewhere else. How is that a good thing?

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by couldntthinkofaclevername

You'd be taking something that is completely unique to Philadelphia and making it like somewhere else.

Exactly. The parkway in its current form has always been a huge, unique asset to Philadelphia, and will only be more so with several museum-related projects, a brand new Mormon Church and potential large-scale hotel conversion (1801 Vine). There is certainly some room for residential growth on the periphery (e.g., some of the surface parking lots nearby that could be more mid-rise as opposed to high-rise), but the current model is really a great one -- particularly as it makes for a pleasant transition into Fairmount Park.

As others have noted, it's far more appropriate to concentrate residential/commercial development in the under-performing sections of Center City rather than building up a whole other corridor, even if that was part of the original plan.

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by couldntthinkofaclevername

You'd be taking something that is completely unique to Philadelphia and making it like somewhere else. How is that a good thing?

How can the Parkway be unique to Philadelphia when it was ostensibly modeled after the Champs-Elysees? The Swan Fountain, Logan Circle and the Free Library are carbon copies of Place de la Concorde and its surrounding structures. And yet you think the Parkway is "completely unique" to Philadelphia and that we're "making it like somewhere else?" I'd hate to be the one to tell you, but it looks like that boat sailed about a hundred years ago.

I don't see the point in having a great museum that people cannot or do not want to walk to. Development along the Parkway would make it much more inviting. Do I think it will all happen in 20 years? No. But do I think we should continue laying the building blocks for a great boulevard for successive generations 40, 50 or 60 years from now. Yes. It took the Champs-Elysees 400 years to get where it is today.



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...elysee1890.jpg

Originally Posted by couldntthinkofaclevername

Yes, it would.

That just doesn't make any sense to me. Nobody ever says, "You know, all of those buildings along Broad and Market really do take the emphasis off City Hall." It's quite the contrary. The first time I brought my fiancee home and we turned onto Broad, her first question was, "Oh. What's that building there?" The way City Hall is situated, you could build 50 more skyscrapers and it still wouldn't diminish its awesomeness. The same applies to the Art Museum. Because it sits directly at the end of the Parkway, there's no way you could avoid looking at it.

Do the buildings in this photo divert your attention away from the structure in the middle?



http://www.bridgeandtunnelclub.com/b...hall/index.htm

[pman]

Originally Posted by Duderino

Exactly. The parkway in its current form has always been a huge, unique asset to Philadelphia, and will only be more so with several museum-related projects, a brand new Mormon Church and potential large-scale hotel conversion (1801 Vine). There is certainly some room for residential growth on the periphery (e.g., some of the surface parking lots nearby that could be more mid-rise as opposed to high-rise), but the current model is really a great one -- particularly as it makes for a pleasant transition into Fairmount Park.

As others have noted, it's far more appropriate to concentrate residential/commercial development in the under-performing sections of Center City rather than building up a whole other corridor, even if that was part of the original plan.

the current parkway leaves a lot to be desired, it's essentially an unfinished product that's become more highway than parkway. the original intent was also to have a subway running underneath that merged with the bsl at 15th st.

[couldntthinkofaclevername]

Originally Posted by Duderino

Exactly. The parkway in its current form has always been a huge, unique asset to Philadelphia, and will only be more so with several museum-related projects, a brand new Mormon Church and potential large-scale hotel conversion (1801 Vine). There is certainly some room for residential growth on the periphery (e.g., some of the surface parking lots nearby that could be more mid-rise as opposed to high-rise), but the current model is really a great one -- particularly as it makes for a pleasant transition into Fairmount Park.

As others have noted, it's far more appropriate to concentrate residential/commercial development in the under-performing sections of Center City rather than building up a whole other corridor, even if that was part of the original plan.

Sometimes developers have to be saved from themselves. Think of all of the ugly or otherwise unappealing things that could've been built in Philadelphia over the years but thank God weren't because of funding issues or other things.

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

How can the Parkway be unique to Philadelphia when it was ostensibly modeled after the Champs-Elysees? The Swan Fountain, Logan Circle and the Free Library are carbon copies of Place de la Concorde and its surrounding structures. And yet you think the Parkway is "completely unique" to Philadelphia and that we're "making it like somewhere else?" I'd hate to be the one to tell you, but it looks like that boat sailed about a hundred years ago.

I don't see the point in having a great museum that people cannot or do not want to walk to. Development along the Parkway would make it much more inviting. Do I think it will all happen in 20 years? No. But do I think we should continue laying the building blocks for a great boulevard for successive generations 40, 50 or 60 years from now. Yes. It took the Champs-Elysees 400 years to get where it is today.



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...elysee1890.jpg



That just doesn't make any sense to me. Nobody ever says, "You know, all of those buildings along Broad and Market really do take the emphasis off City Hall." It's quite the contrary. The first time I brought my fiancee home and we turned onto Broad, her first question was, "Oh. What's that building there?" The way City Hall is situated, you could build 50 more skyscrapers and it still wouldn't diminish its awesomeness. The same applies to the Art Museum. Because it sits directly at the end of the Parkway, there's no way you could avoid looking at it.

Do the buildings in this photo divert your attention away from the structure in the middle?



Philadelphia City Hall, Center City, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Because the Champs-Elysee does not look like the Parkway. Except.. it didn't. Nice try at condescension though. It really helps you make your point

Why on Earth would continuing the urban corridor help anything? You'd ruin what currently makes the Parkway great.. for what exactly? I already mentioned ways to make it more inviting without building a damn thing yet you conveniently seem to keep avoiding them.

Funny.. those two examples are absolutely nothing alike. Maybe that's why nobody says that.

That building has emphasis because it is so grand and tall. The Museum on the other hand has emphasis because of the way the Parkway currently is, as it should be.

[couldntthinkofaclevername]

Originally Posted by pman

the current parkway leaves a lot to be desired, it's essentially an unfinished product that's become more highway than parkway. the original intent was also to have a subway running underneath that merged with the bsl at 15th st.

That's why they need to do what I suggested in this post: //www.city-data.com/forum/22286820-post4.html

I agree about the subway as well but unfortunately, the subway seems to be the one thing the city does not want to develop or finish. All of these improvement projects in various places and they don't think finishing the subway so it goes underground everywhere that it currently isn't running is something that needs to be done.