Penns Landing Redesign (Clark: 2013, neighborhoods, construction)

[jasomm]

The consultant for redesigning Penn's Landing had a public meeting 10/15/2013 and release some initial designs, images, and models.
PlanPhilly | DRWC, Hargreaves Associates, give first look at Penn's Landing's future



You can download Hargreaves presentation here:
DRWC: Penn's Landing Public Meeting Presentation



I think it is just ok...
There is a park and redevelopment area under construction in Cincinnati, OH that has many similarities; riverfront park and multi use trail, major highway running between city and river, etc. I think the design there is more impressive, but have a look at their work as see if you agree (Smale Riverfront Park - Park Planning)

Also... I've been playing with some ideas ever since The Delaware Waterfront Corporation released its master plan, and put together some images here using Google Earth.

Any feedback is welcome. I'm trying to blend the best ideas from Hargeaves's design, Cincinnati's riverfront, and any other ideas people have had for me, to see if I(we) can come up with something to help optimize Philly's end result.

[MikeNigh]

I like yours better. I wasn't exactly impressed with the one they proposed, it seemed very heavy on the idea that someone else was going to build some towers.

I'd like to see penn's landing become a "kind of" fishermans wharf. I think the big differences between fisherman's wharf and penn's landing is fisherman's wharf has the main trolley going through it, a main road, more less seamless integration with the city, and looks out on to a beautiful bay.

Penns landing at the moment is more like something within walking distance to old city. At the moment I guess it is a kind of other oval on the water.

I think we need to hold of on the river trolley line... Unless it is going to some how loop into and make a nearby connect to the MFL. We don't need to invest in any more poorly connecting PT, already got enough that needs reworked. I'd like to actually not have to live within walking distance of work. The better things connect, the more neighborhoods I can choose to live in.

[jasomm]

Thanks!.. totally agree, and saw (and responded to) those sentiments over on skyscrapperpage.

Added a few slides (in the link above) showing a light rail alignment that could maximize its potential.

[RightonWalnut]

I like your design much better! So much more elegant. I love the placement of your highrises much more than the awkward cluster of highrises planned by Hargreaves. In your design the highrises fit much better with the green space and the current conditions of Penn's Landing. What are we paying them for??! We should pay you!

[jasomm]

put some updated renderings on this slide show.

includes a vertical build up now.

[FBJ]

Originally Posted by jasomm

put some updated renderings on this slide show.

includes a vertical build up now.

Penn's Landing been long overdue for a makeover

[mcguirk]

Originally Posted by FBJ

Penn's Landing been long overdue for a makeover

It's never going to work unless 95 is underground, or capped. No revitalization plan will work.

[FBJ]

Originally Posted by mcguirk

It's never going to work unless 95 is underground, or capped. No revitalization plan will work.

It still should be a lot added to the area to make it even more appealing

[Clark Park]

It's a good start, but I think it is a rather conservative and uninspired proposal. I realize funds may be limited, but in my view the area from Market Street to Chestnut should cover over I-95 and be part of the plan.

[jasomm]

Originally Posted by Clark Park

It's a good start, but I think it is a rather conservative and uninspired proposal. I realize funds may be limited, but in my view the area from Market Street to Chestnut should cover over I-95 and be part of the plan.

I definitely would prefer if Chestnut-Market where also capped as well. If designing Penns Landing in a vacuum.

The Hargreaves proposal only adds decking between Sansom Walk-Walnut. I figured adding Walnut-Dock (200% increase in the proposed decking area) was a feasible improvement. Whereas adding that section AND the Market-Chestnut area (500% increase in the proposed decking area) would be a bit to fantastical to take seriously.

The other thing to consider is the corridor of development on Delaware Ave. The Riverfront plan's stated goal is to promote a string of developments from Port Richmond/Fishtown down to about Snyder Ave. Capping over Delaware Ave is key for a Penns Landing design to tie in with the city... BUT if Delaware Ave has a 1/4 tunnel (from Market to Walnut) It will cut the string of development in two, deter anyone from wanting to bike or walk through that span, and take away any the potential for (Delware Ave street-facing development. The design ideas I had kept everything facing Delaware Ave open to commercial development (except < 600' from Chestnut-Walnut, which has entrance/exits for the parking garage), but also allows those same developments to have frontage on the pedestrian boulevard / river trail that runs from South-Market (sometimes through a second story).

You COULD cap I-95 only (not cap Delaware Ave) from Chestnut-Market, but I-95 elevation here makes that impractical. If that cap were open space, you would look over a Delaware canyon of pavement, across to nice/new Penns Lending, but need to walk to Chestnut or Market to access it anyway. Or you could cap it with development (somewhat like I-670 in Columbus, OH). But the height that even 1-3 stories, over I-95 would require would then block off the views of the entire city form Penns Landing, and isolate it almost as much as I-95 does by itself.

Perhaps a very wide pedestrian bridge (the width of Market Street) could be a viable alternative? I just figured using the exiting market street bridge, and convert it to pedestrian only was a cost-efficient way to go.