The sad new Hilton at Arch Street and Twelfth

**Phillyurban8** · 09-23-2012, 12:09 PM

Has anyone seen the little rendering of this building posted on the construction fence? It's pretty bad. All expense was spared to construct what looks to be a totally pedestrian/airport business park design. Inga will have a field day writing about it. Long ago the site was rumored to be for a W Hotel. This Hilton is a far cry from that vision.

**eldondre** · 09-23-2012, 12:15 PM

we even paid to subsidize it. you're right, looks like junk.

**jester** · 09-23-2012, 12:56 PM

Is this the most recent rendering?

**BarryG** · 09-23-2012, 01:11 PM

W is going forward at 15th and chestnut.

**Naveen** · 09-23-2012, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by eldondre

we even paid to subsidize it. you're right, looks like junk.

I agree, very bland. But we subsidize all building in this country. It's just a question of how targeted those subsidies are.

**Naveen** · 09-23-2012, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by eldondre

we even paid to subsidize it. you're right, looks like junk.

I agree, very bland. But we subsidize all building in this country. It's just a question of how targeted those subsidies are.

**eldondre** · 09-23-2012, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by Naveen

I agree, very bland. But we subsidize all building in this country. It's just a question of how targeted those subsidies are.

not all building in this country is subsidized to the same extent..particularly since were talking about sstate grant. This is a cop out. The reality is its a subsidy to union labor. Without thay extra cost more could be built and higher quality in Philadelphia. At least comcast built an excellent connection to suburban station and a nice building

**Titus** · 09-23-2012, 02:42 PM

Not even bland - It is dreadful.

**OffenseTaken** · 09-23-2012, 03:36 PM

Maybe Hilton would have paid for a sexier façade if labor costs hadn't been artificially high, but I doubt it. Most of their Home2 locations are in non-union states, and they look just as frumpy.

Besides: there's ground-floor retail space, the windows are numerous and well-proportioned, and I don't see any loading docks on either Twelfth or Arch. You guys need to cheer up.

**eldondre** · 09-23-2012, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by OffenseTaken

Maybe Hilton would have paid for a sexier façade if labor costs hadn't been artificially high, but I doubt it. Most of their Home2 locations are in non-union states, and they look just as frumpy.

Besides: there's ground-floor retail space, the windows are numerous and well-proportioned, and I don't see any loading docks on either Twelfth or Arch. You guys need to cheer up.

The point being we don't need to subsidize garbage in prime locations...there's zero public benefit here. it's not important whether hom 2 would have or wouldn't have, but someone would have. these subsidies only serve to promote the status quo that isn't serving philadelphia (or the state) well.

**Naveen** · 09-23-2012, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by eldondre

not all building in this country is subsidized to the same extent..

Right. We subsidize suburban areas much more than urban areas. And a handful of state grants coming to Philadelphia don't even come close to balancing out what suburban areas get via standard government policy.

Originally Posted by eldondre

This is a cop out. The reality is its a subsidy to union labor. Without thay extra cost more could be built and higher quality in Philadelphia. At least comcast built an excellent connection to suburban station and a nice building

Cop out? Only if you're being myopic. Because we subsidize urban areas less than suburbs, the base cost in cities is always higher. Union labor adds to it, but even minus the union labor it's much more expensive to build here than outside. The fact is suburban development subsidies are so deeply imbedded via government policy that they've become invisible. Take them away and the opportunity cost difference between urban vs. suburban shrinks dramatically even taking union labor into consideration (and in many cases is probably reversed depending on the metro and/or specific development project).

Originally Posted by OffenseTaken

Maybe Hilton would have paid for a sexier façade if labor costs hadn't been artificially high, but I doubt it. Most of their Home2 locations are in non-union states, and they look just as frumpy.

Besides: there's ground-floor retail space, the windows are numerous and well-proportioned, and I don't see any loading docks on either Twelfth or Arch. You guys need to cheer up.

I think this is exactly right. The ground floor presence is my biggest concern, and they seem to be doing it well.

**OffenseTaken** · 09-23-2012, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by eldondre

The point being we don't need to subsidize garbage in prime locations...there's zero public benefit here. it's not important whether hom 2 would have or wouldn't have, but someone would have. these subsidies only serve to promote the status quo that isn't serving philadelphia (or the state) well.

I agree. I just think from an aesthetic/urban design perspective, the building doesn't even rank among Center City's top 1,000 reasons for getting dickhurt.

**carloss** · 09-23-2012, 04:54 PM

Predictably bland, but really, it's a Hilton, and it still beats an empty lot. Hopefully the remaining lots in the area, esp. 13th & Arch and (barring Chinatown resident opposition) 9th & Arch, will be utilized for some more exciting designs in the near future.

At the moment, it's all on the W to be bold and not disappoint...

**FrankStar** · 09-23-2012, 05:20 PM

Wow! It looks like - wait for it -

A hotel.

**MarketStEl** · 09-23-2012, 05:23 PM

...um, it's a Hilton extended-stay hotel.

My impression is that new construction hotels in this market segment are ALL bland and frumpy, on a par with mid-priced motels (La Quinta, Quality Inn, etc.).

The only reason that the Marriott Residence Inn and Homewood Suites in University City aren't that bland is because they recycled existing buildings - a former bank with an exuberant Art Deco facade on its lower floors in the Marriott's case.

Edited to add: Come to think of it, the nearby Hilton Garden Inn atop the Gallery parking garage isn't sexy or exciting either. That nameplate is in the same market segment, IIRC.

**eldondre** · 09-23-2012, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by Naveen

Right. We subsidize suburban areas much more than urban areas. And a handful of state grants coming to Philadelphia don't even come close to balancing out what suburban areas get via standard government policy.
Cop out? Only if you're being myopic. Because we subsidize urban areas less than suburbs, the base cost in cities is always higher. Union labor adds to it, but even minus the union labor it's much more expensive to build here than outside. The fact is suburban development subsidies are so deeply imbedded via government policy that they've become invisible. Take them away and the opportunity cost difference between urban vs. suburban shrinks dramatically even taking union labor into consideration (and in many cases is probably reversed depending on the metro and/or specific development project)
I think this is exactly right. The ground floor presence is my biggest concern, and they seem to be doing it well.

this is largely incorrect. This project is being subsidized at an extremely high rate. The suburbs support welfare for the city and the country. The problem is that the subsidies support the status quo (unreasonably high cost of labor) which actually prevents the city from becoming self sufficient.to view these subsidies as some sort of offset is shortsighted. Not coincidentally the suburbs broke union dominance there in the 70's and have done well ever since. Street level retail should ne a bare minimum not a reason for a subsidy. I'd also point out thay subsidies for large chains are extremely high regardless of their location.
It looks like a craptastic hotel...specifically

**Phillyurban8** · 09-24-2012, 12:05 AM

It's only slightly better than our beige Hyatt on Columbus Ave. Gawd, what happened to architecture in Center City?

**Hospitalitygirl** · 09-24-2012, 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by MarketStEl

...um, it's a Hilton extended-stay hotel.

My impression is that new construction hotels in this market segment are ALL bland and frumpy, on a par with mid-priced motels (La Quinta, Quality Inn, etc.).

The only reason that the Marriott Residence Inn and Homewood Suites in University City aren't that bland is because they recycled existing buildings - a former bank with an exuberant Art Deco facade on its lower floors in the Marriott's case.

Edited to add: Come to think of it, the nearby Hilton Garden Inn atop the Gallery parking garage isn't sexy or exciting either. That nameplate is in the same market segment, IIRC.

Well there you go again...interjecting common sense and reason in this thread.

You are correct, of course.

**Scoats** · 09-24-2012, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by MarketStEl

Come to think of it, the nearby Hilton Garden Inn atop the Gallery parking garage isn't sexy or exciting either. That nameplate is in the same market segment, IIRC.

Actually I think that one looks great, especially when you take into account that it is atop a crappy parking garage.

As to the Home2, meh but I've seen worse.

**Scoats** · 09-24-2012, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by Phillyurban8

It's only slightly better than our beige Hyatt on Columbus Ave. Gawd, what happened to architecture in Center City?

That's another one that I like. Maybe we experience the Hyatt differently. Do you mostly see it from Columbus Ave? If so, I might agree with you.

I mostly see it going south on 95, and it looks great, a modern deco-ish tower in the city center. The design also makes good use of its river location.