When Preservation collides with utility and common sense

[eldondre]

Gallery's suggestions singularly focus on preservation to the exclusion of both common sense and utility as well as the good of broad st itself.

The day's other big project concerned the proposed 25,000-square-foot Rodeph Sholom extension, to be erected on what is now a surface parking lot on the building's south side...The extension, designed by KieranTimberlake, will house offices, an early learning center, additional worship spaces, and a new entrance...in opposing the design, John Gallery of the Preservation Alliance, pointed out that the addition does impact on this side, and that the new building should be pushed further back from Broad Street ...Gallery also contended that the new building — which features a limestone facade on Broad, a glass piece at the corner, and portico on the south side — "visually competes" with the landmark and doesn't "take any cues" from it and so is not in conformance with Secretary of the Interior standards. ..James Timberlake explained that the short bit of plain limestone frontage was intended as an "honorific" referencing the older building's dominant material, and that the use of glass was intended not only to differentiate it from the synagogue — in conformance with historic preservation standards — but to bring light and a sense of openness to the entire complex.

Historical Commission gives conceptual go-ahead to Toll Bros. New Market project | PlanPhilly: Planning Philadelphia's Future
in no way, shape, or form is moving the building back from broad st a good idea. I wouldn't mind if it were glass entirely on broad (dropping the limestone) but what would they put in the setback, parking? gallery, stfu.

[thoth]

Please develop the **** out of this crappy lot. Then we're only a Goodyear service station and two ocean sized parking lots away from Broad and SG being a real urban intersection.

[carloss]

I can't really tell the impact of the new building from the renderings, but I'm usually inclined to trust Mr. Gallery's judgment. How far of a setback did he suggest? It might impact the liveliness of Broad St. but I don't think he's suggesting to turn the space into a parking lot.

On a related note, does anyone know what became of the plans for the PA Ballet's new (partially-set-back) home on North Broad?

[raider.adam]

Is North Broad a historic district? No, so I am not sure why a new structure has to be relevant to an existing structure.

[thoth]

Is North Broad a historic district? No, so I am not sure why a new structure has to be relevant to an existing structure.

I would go out on a limb and guess that the synagogue is individually certified. As the addition would modify the original structure, it triggers a hearing.

[raider.adam]

I would go out on a limb and guess that the synagogue is individually certified. As the addition would modify the original structure, it triggers a hearing.

I understand that point. I am referring to the part about how they say the addition ""visually competes" with the landmark and doesn't "take any cues" from it".

Just seems rather restrictive. I think that is where you have to be careful about the differences of preservation and forcing people to live in the past when they want to move forward.

[eldondre]

I can't really tell the impact of the new building from the renderings, but I'm usually inclined to trust Mr. Gallery's judgment. How far of a setback did he suggest? It might impact the liveliness of Broad St. but I don't think he's suggesting to turn the space into a parking lot.

perhaps this is a good reason why you should not trust his judgement

the new building should be pushed further back from Broad Street so that it connects only on the plainer, more utilitarian brick rear of the existing structure

if you look closely at the rendering you can see where the facade changes towards the back (where an addition was already built some time ago). that would push it pretty far back from broad st and for what?

I understand that point. I am referring to the part about how they say the addition ""visually competes" with the landmark and doesn't "take any cues" from it".
Just seems rather restrictive. I think that is where you have to be careful about the differences of preservation and forcing people to live in the past when they want to move forward.

not only restrictive but arbitrary.

[carloss]

At any rate, the Historical Commission did approve the design (and it really doesn't take that much effort to convince them to approve something), so isn't Gallery's criticism beside the point now? Or is it likely for the decision to be appealed?

[Titus]

Gallery's suggestions singularly focus on preservation to the exclusion of both common sense and utility as well as the good of broad st itself.

Historical Commission gives conceptual go-ahead to Toll Bros. New Market project | PlanPhilly: Planning Philadelphia's Future
in no way, shape, or form is moving the building back from broad st a good idea. I wouldn't mind if it were glass entirely on broad (dropping the limestone) but what would they put in the setback, parking? gallery, stfu.

No number of setbacks would improve the look of this butt ugly addition.

[raider.adam]

not only restrictive but arbitrary.

I just find it sort of interesting because if say you owned the lot and was going to build an independent building 6 stories tall that would block the whole side of the temple, there is nothing a historical designation could do and you could make it look like whatever you want, right?

[eldondre]

adam, I'd think so but perhaps there are others better versed

No number of setbacks would improve the look of this butt ugly addition.

it's the "nod to the past" that's screwing it up imo. forget about the past, that building speaks for itself. probably the biggest thing they could do, imo, is to move the entrance to broad st.

[Naveen]

Is North Broad a historic district? No...

Are you sure? It feels like that Goodyear and that parking lot across the street have been there forever.

I would go out on a limb and guess that the synagogue is individually certified. As the addition would modify the original structure, it triggers a hearing.

Is the addition actually connected to the new building? Even if not, I suppose it's still considered an addition because it's on the same property.

Regardless of whether or not they set it back from Broad (which I'm inclined to say they should not do), will this new addition bring more foot traffic to N. Broad? I think that's more important than the architectural or historical ramifications.

[raider.adam]

Regardless of whether or not they set it back from Broad (which I'm inclined to say they should not do), will this new addition bring more foot traffic to N. Broad? I think that's more important than the architectural or historical ramifications.

Except that really isn't something you can refuse zoning on.

A prestigious synagogue wants to expand their temple onto an adjacent parking lot on North Broad. I can live with that.

[eldondre]

Except that really isn't something you can refuse zoning on.

A prestigious synagogue wants to expand their temple onto an adjacent parking lot on North Broad. I can live with that.

although it's not the historical commission's job, it would be a good idea if the zba requested they move the entrance to broad, imo. fwiw, when this is built, their daycare center at the old burger king will move freeing up that parcel for some other use.

[raider.adam]

although it's not the historical commission's job, it would be a good idea if the zba requested they move the entrance to broad, imo. fwiw, when this is built, their daycare center at the old burger king will move freeing up that parcel for some other use.

I'm curious why they have the entrance on the side.

[seand]

their daycare center at the old burger king will move freeing up that parcel for some other use.

*Joking* Man, doesn't that violate child labor laws or something. And I suppose Bacon Cheeseburgers are out at that location as well. *Joking*

[tsarstruck]

I just find it sort of interesting because if say you owned the lot and was going to build an independent building 6 stories tall that would block the whole side of the temple, there is nothing a historical designation could do and you could make it look like whatever you want, right?

Historical building, my understanding is yes, they could. Historical building within a historical _district_ however, and my understanding is they'd need the commission's approval.

[GroJLart]

Gallery's suggestions singularly focus on preservation to the exclusion of both common sense and utility as well as the good of broad st itself.

in no way, shape, or form is moving the building back from broad st a good idea. I wouldn't mind if it were glass entirely on broad (dropping the limestone) but what would they put in the setback, parking? gallery, stfu.

I had the exact same reaction when I read Gallery's stupid remarks.

[carloss]

I reiterate that Gallery's suggestions were rejected by the commission, so...

[NickFromGtown]

No building on almost any part of Broad St should be shorter than 4 storeys. This organization should do what Friends Select did. Build a multi-use building which subsides their operations. With the proximity to the subway, it makes sense here. We need to more effective use of our space.