Sidney Hillman Center - New High Rise

[rojnish]

Changing Skyline: Planned Chestnut Street skyscraper has pedestrian design

http://www.philly.com/philly/enterta...#ixzz1TUn28f00

[Mr Morley]

It's a damn shame that the Medical Center is going to get knocked down -and I have no doubt that it is. It would be nice if something comparable replaced it.

I've got a question and this is likely the best place to answer it: an architect named Magaziner designed the best movie palaces in Philly in the 20s. Was he the same guy who designed the Medical Center or was there a son or other relative?

Also, when Inga calls a building "quirky" that means she doesn't actually like it even though she thinks she's supposed to, right?

[Scoats]

The medical center is somewhat underwhelming at the moment, but if it was cleaned up, it could be a real eye catcher.

It would be a real shame to lose the medical center. It is a real prime example of that era. In the future, it will probably be a similar situation to now, with all those Furness buildings that were lost and now regretted. At least a high rise is better than what replaced most of the lost Furness buildings.

[Bob_Head]

It's a damn shame that the Medical Center is going to get knocked down -and I have no doubt that it is. It would be nice if something comparable replaced it.

I don't know. The Medical Center is a somewhat tepid piece of work. I understand the desire and even the need to preserve buildings of the Modernist era, but I'm not sure this building is significant enough,

It's a good example of the unique dilemma facing architectural preservation....preserving other art forms has a minimal impact on society. Preserve old films, documents or recordings, and they just go sit on a shelf in a nice, climate-controlled vault somewhere. Architecture, not so much. The proposed building will add people to that area, and hopefully the vibrancy that can come with it. The current building, as it stands is overlooked and under appreciated, and poorly utilized. It doesn't detract from the neighborhood, but obviously it's not very useful right now, and there's no guarantee it ever will be. Architectural preservation has its own real-world costs.

File it under "don't know what you've got `til it's gone," but architectural preservation will always be a loosing battle. Look at St. Louis' magnificent Arcade/Wright Building--truly a beautiful and significant building. Unfortunately, it's also a rotting hulk. Right now it has no commercial value, so it sits. Even if someone or some group were to buy it and preserve it, to what end? A big, beautiful, empty building? At its core, architecture is about usefulness. If it's not useful, a building is a failure. I've come to the reluctant conclusion that buildings are like sand mandalas, where part of their beauty is their ephemeral nature. Perhaps if we just accept they're only temporary, we'll appreciate, enjoy and care for them a little bit more.

[Mr Morley]

I don't know. The Medical Center is a somewhat tepid piece of work. I understand the desire and even the need to preserve buildings of the Modernist era, but I'm not sure this building is significant enough,

It actually represents a really short moment in post-War Modernism where Frank Lloyd Wright was a massive influence, so the building has features (notably the way it turns off the grid) which you wouldn't find in other International Modern buildings.

To the trained eye, it's got a lot going for it, but it's just at the age where most people only see it as another ugly Modern building. But the thing which really seals it fate is not the architecture but the size: it's too low density for the large site it sits on, which means it will eventually be replaced with a tower.

Personally, what I'd like to see it it used as the podium for a larger (residential) structure, something like what Norman Foster did with the Hearst Building in NYC.

And while I'm here (again), I'd like to take issue with Inga's notion that it presents a "blank wall" to Chestnut St. It does no such thing, as the Chestnut facade is articulated by the way that the whole building sits at an angle to the street, and there is a low, Wrightiian entrance on that face. It also fits in well in terms of scale with the two churches across the street, one of which is of course Furness' great (but sadly diminished) Unitarian church.

[eldondre]

for all practical purposes it presents a blank wall to chestnut st, inga is correct. it's not an ugly building but in order to make it a good neighborhood you have to gut the facade. unlike the SOB where the street level problem can be easily addressed without undermining the building's design, the squat bunkerlike nature of this building precludes reuse.

[Mr Morley]

for all practical purposes it presents a blank wall to chestnut st, inga is correct.

the building has an etrance, windows and gardens on Chestnut Street. Under what "practical purposes" is that presenting a blank wall?

[eldondre]

the building has an etrance, windows and gardens on Chestnut Street. Under what "practical purposes" is that presenting a blank wall?

while I suspect that you are unfamiliar with the concept of practicality, a blank wall followed by a fence presents a blank wall, for practical purposes, to the street. if you wanted to rip off the first floor facade and open it to the street you could probably save the building and improve the street in a real sense. if preservationists are willing to sacrifice those things, then save it.

[Mr Morley]

while I suspect that you are unfamiliar with the concept of practicality,

What makes you think that. And, more importantly, what does that have to do with anything?

a blank wall followed by a fence presents a blank wall, for practical purposes, to the street.

The wall on the eastern end of the building (which is only about 20 long) isn't blank: it's articulated with black marble and a large, Neutra-style sign for the buildings. With the exception of the entrance, the rest of the Chestnut St facade is (badly tended) garden.

Question: is the fenced-in churchyard on the otherside of the street also a "blank wall"?

What about the Greenfield school in the next block? Which actually presents a three-story blank brick wall along 22nd St? Is that acceptable?

if you wanted to rip off the first floor facade and open it to the street you could probably save the building and improve the street in a real sense. if preservationists are willing to sacrifice those things, then save it.

I'm curious: in what school of architectural preservation does "ripping the whole first floor facade" off a three-story building constitute "saving" it?

And just so we're on the same page here, this is the facade we're talking about:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=2200+c...144.37,,0,0.47

[Bob_Head]

To the trained eye, it's got a lot going for it, but it's just at the age where most people only see it as another ugly Modern building.

Well, that's because most people don't have a trained eye. Most never did.

But the thing which really seals it fate is not the architecture but the size: it's too low density for the large site it sits on, which means it will eventually be replaced with a tower.

That, and the fact that the Male Apparel Industry of Philadelphia ain't what it used to be. What is? The simple reality is, in a city of any age, most buildings will replace something that's already there. And remember that architecture may be an art, but it's not a pure art. It's art in service to commerce. That's a huge distinction.

Personally, what I'd like to see it it used as the podium for a larger (residential) structure, something like what Norman Foster did with the Hearst Building in NYC.

That thought had crossed my mind, but that's not an inexpensive option. And I personally use the Hears Building as an example. Rather than a welcome addition to a nice old building, it looks like an old building with a giant, viagra-induced hard on.

[Mr Morley]

That, and the fact that the Male Apparel Industry of Philadelphia ain't what it used to be.

The health clinic is staying and getting space in the new building, at least under the current deal.

As to the Hearst building, it was actually built to have a tall tower on top of it; WR Hearst -as he often did- ran out of money once he got the podium part of the building built, so it sat as a six-story stump for decades. I don't think Lord Foster's design is bad, but I don't really care for anything he's done, so it doesn't really inspire me, either.

In the case of the health center, were I the architect (in an ideal world), I'd push to dismantle the facade and save it, then demolish the entire building and build something new, reusing the original facade as cladding on the base, saving the costs associated with proping up and old structure duirng construction.

I think a good architect could come up with a really interesting, prismatic tower to sit on top of that base, as the footprint is quite complex.

Don't get me wrong; I don't think the loss of the health center will be major, but I do think that in 30 years, it's the sort of building people will look at pictures of and ask, "Why in the hell did they tear that down?"

[DCnPhilly]

Yeah, one day we'll be looking back and thinking "why did we tear that down?" But at the same time, Bob_Head is right. Saving architecture isn't like saving a painting. We can't just put a building in a museum vault and bring it out when we want to look at it. Perhaps less fortunately, we can't tell developers, "hey, instead of tearing this place down, how about you build it on this vacant lot a few blocks away."

Philadelphia has lost a lot of its architectural stock. But at the same time, would our skyline be as impressive if we preserved everything on West Market Street? It's certainly debatable, but I don't want to look out my bedroom window and wake up to Boston.

Historically, Philadelphia has fared a lot better than other major cities. We have an economically unimpressive 50 years to thank for that. New York and Chicago spent the better half of the last century clearing and building, clearing and building, but in Philadelphia we have a kind of preserved state of decay. Being in Philadelphia every day it's hard to see, but when people visit they are often overwhelmed with our vast and ecclectic architectural portfolio. It's not surprising that so many Philadelphians with no education or professional knowledge of architecture routinely rattle off names like Furness and Hale. I love it.

Another thing that adds to our city's uniquely humbling skyline is exactly what this "boring" building brings to the table. With no real skyscrapers before 1988, Philadelphia isn't a wall of glass like New York or Chicago. It's a three dimensional cave floor of skyscrapers, church steeples, and masonic high rises from the Gilded Age that looks like a different city from every angle. If we lose one, small mid-century building to add to that, I won't lose any sleep. I can think of at least ten other buildings from that and other eras, nearly as endangered, that deserve this kind of attention. Unfortunately preservationists tend to flock around buildings under the wrecking ball rather than putting their attention on the ones that can realistically be saved.

[Bob_Head]

With no real skyscrapers before 1988, Philadelphia isn't a wall of glass like New York or Chicago.

Conversely, Chicago's downtown basically started with a clean slate after the great fire. With a decade the age of steel and glass had begun. Urban renewal is easier when the public isn't given a choice.

[DCnPhilly]

Conversely, Chicago's downtown basically started with a clean slate after the great fire. With a decade the age of steel and glass had begun. Urban renewal is easier when the public isn't given a choice.

Yep. And of course Chicago is known as the birthplace of the skyscraper. San Francisco, Seattle, and a lot of war-torn Southern cities were faced with the same clean slate.

[Mr Morley]

Historically, Philadelphia has fared a lot better than other major cities. We have an economically unimpressive 50 years to thank for that. New York and Chicago spent the better half of the last century clearing and building, clearing and building,

Having spent a fair amount of time looking at NYC archtiecture, both in person and online, there are plenty of blocks in Manhattan (especially in Midtown) which are at least as embarrassing as the rough parts of CC, lined with boring six-story tenenments with exceedingly questionable signage and awnings over the shops at their bases. When it comes to Manhattan, people tend to think of a few key areas which are well-polished, but there's plenty of filler up there as well.

Working my way through Philadelphilia recently (Philaphilia), I was really surprised how many Victorian skyscrapers we've lost, especially around City Hall (to development) and in Old City (to the National Park Service).

[DCnPhilly]

Having spent a fair amount of time looking at NYC archtiecture, both in person and online, there are plenty of blocks in Manhattan (especially in Midtown) which are at least as embarrassing as the rough parts of CC, lined with boring six-story tenenments with exceedingly questionable signage and awnings over the shops at their bases. When it comes to Manhattan, people tend to think of a few key areas which are well-polished, but there's plenty of filler up there as well.

Working my way through Philadelphilia recently (Philaphilia), I was really surprised how many Victorian skyscrapers we've lost, especially around City Hall (to development) and in Old City (to the National Park Service).

Oh no doubt. New York and Chicago are obviously a lot bigger and have had more to spare, but I would say when it comes to per capita "old stuff", we have a lot more than most major American cities, if not all.

Even worse than midtown Manhattan is downtown DC. I have this book Capitol Loses and it is just plain depressing. I mean it's a very impressive and monumental city to drive into, but realistically much of what makes DC monumental was built between the 20s and 40s, eliminating any Victorian or ecclectic grandeur to recreate this cohesive Roman representation. It's fake.

And then you get "downtown". Take the blandness of Philadelphia's West Market Street, and then chop off everything but the first 12 floors so you have the sterility of a boring office building's trunk with no contribution to the skyline. Truthfully, with the exception of DC's rowhomes and a few relatively old apartment buildings, functional DC looks like a bunch of fax machines stacked side by side. It's painfully boring.

[Mr Morley]

It's crossed my mind more than once recently that DC's extremely strict heigth regulations (IIRC, they use the old Roman rule, which is that a building can't be more than twice as high as the street it is on is wide) has led to an extremely uninspired skyline.

[DCnPhilly]

It's crossed my mind more than once recently that DC's extremely strict heigth regulations (IIRC, they use the old Roman rule, which is that a building can't be more than twice as high as the street it is on is wide) has led to an extremely uninspired skyline.

I understand why the restrictions are in place. Without them, Rome would be eclipsed. The city's footprint isn't large enough to have an area designated for skyscrapers like London or Paris, so Arlington ends up looking like the defacto downtown to most tourists.

Unfortunately the restrictions require developers to maximize their space, whereas in other cities you can get creative with the upper levels which doubles as corporate advertising. DC has only recently developed a nack for preservation of anything unequated with a national identity, and even then you have such a small community of lifers in that city, it's hard to save a building that 90% of the town doesn't identify with. Go Philly

[eldondre]

What makes you think that. And, more importantly, what does that have to do with anything?

you, and your ability to understand practicality

The wall on the eastern end of the building (which is only about 20 long) isn't blank: it's articulated with black marble and a large, Neutra-style sign for the buildings. With the exception of the entrance, the rest of the Chestnut St facade is (badly tended) garden.

no, its blank and largely unbroken. there i then an entrance, and a windows e back from the street. in other words, it's dead at street level.

I'm curious: in what school of architectural preservation does "ripping the whole first floor facade" off a three-story building constitute "saving" it?

well, assuming there is more to the building than the first floor facade, it would be the school of compromise. I thought you might not realize that the building was more than the first floor facade and the blank wall. I do think that if you ripped out the wall and put in street fronting retail you could save the rest of the building while improving the urban fabric. you'd also need to exempt the developer from parking requirements. were did you get he idea that the proposal came from a school of preservation?

DC-skylines aren't everything but more importantly, much like the chicago fire, the removal of the chinese wall was an opportunity to build new where nothing much had been before (or more specifically, railroad tracks...did you see the size of the supports they unearthed for the murano?) it was a bit difference than the buildings that were knocked down for dilworth and the parkway or even independence mall. some things it makes sense to lose those things though I never much particularly cared for the clearcutting down at independence mall. what's wrong with DC is uniformity. still, unless you're a modernist and (and I assume that unless you're older, you're not) there hasn't been much of interest built in most places...otoh, the city is better without buildings such as hillman which might be interesting for a student but add little value to the city.

[DCnPhilly]

DC-skylines aren't everything but more importantly, much like the chicago fire, the removal of the chinese wall was an opportunity to build new where nothing much had been before (or more specifically, railroad tracks...did you see the size of the supports they unearthed for the murano?) it was a bit difference than the buildings that were knocked down for dilworth and the parkway or even independence mall. some things it makes sense to lose those things though I never much particularly cared for the clearcutting down at independence mall. what's wrong with DC is uniformity. still, unless you're a modernist and (and I assume that unless you're older, you're not) there hasn't been much of interest built in most places...otoh, the city is better without buildings such as hillman which might be interesting for a student but add little value to the city.

Oh I don't disagree. But while a skyline doesn't make a city, it does contribute. While the removal of the Chinese Wall gave us a clean slate for a business district, unlike Chicago or Seattle, it didn't level the entire city. It gave us the opportunity to remake a small portion of the city's landscape. What I like about our skyline is that it pays homage to our history. From any entrance point, church steeples contributes as much as Liberty Place. Skyline or otherwise, you're right in that Hillman doesn't contribute. It would be better preserved in West Philadelphia or Chestnut Hill, but in Center City, even in the 50s, it wasn't the place for this kind of architecture.