1400 Unit Proposal for Waterfront

[kidphilly]

Anyone know anything about this?

Information Only: 400 North Christopher Columbus Boulevard, for a proposed 1,458-unit development in four high-rise structures in the Central Delaware Riverfront Overlay District (Presented by Hercules Grigos and Bill Alesker for Waterfront Renaissance Associates).

Philadelphia Planning Commission meeting, August 21 - includes agenda | PlanPhilly: Planning Philadelphia's Future

will be right next to Ingas favorite waterfront building


these are some of the old plans it would seem


Old City Harbor Tower at World Trade Square | Alesker & Dundon, LLC


World Trade Square | Alesker & Dundon, LLC

[OffenseTaken]

[phillyaggie]

everyone made a big stink about that other building next to BFB being like 20' above the 100' height restriction... this will go over quite well i'm sure! lol
Penn Praxis wants the low rise city with its grid to move across the highway, they will fume at anything new that is that tall.

doubt there is really even market for something that big down there. those waterfront square condos didn't do so well, and how many renters are we going to be getting that will fill up all these new rental high rises? so that makes me wonder what the real goal is here... get something bigger approved in order to gain value for the lot while the owner sits on it...?

[kidphilly]

everyone made a big stink about that other building next to BFB being like 20' above the 100' height restriction... this will go over quite well i'm sure! lol
Penn Praxis wants the low rise city with its grid to move across the highway, they will fume at anything new that is that tall.

doubt there is really even market for something that big down there. those waterfront square condos didn't do so well, and how many renters are we going to be getting that will fill up all these new rental high rises? so that makes me wonder what the real goal is here... get something bigger approved in order to gain value for the lot while the owner sits on it...?

Makes sense

[Sharkfood]

It's a complete puzzle to me why developers invest money in a proposal that doesn't have a remote chance of actually being built. What is there to gain?
To flip the lot with approvals for an unviable project?

You notice the guys who have a record of getting projects built do not present unrealistic proposals. Case in point: Carl Dranoff did 5 stories at 777 South Broad St.
and is doing 5 stories again at Broad & South.

Do these guys have any idea the marketing effort that's going to be required to lease 1,458 units? A project that size in an off-center location could take 10 years to
reach full occupancy.

[thoth]

Blowing up the value of land in that area by proposing big money developments?

[Naveen]

everyone made a big stink about that other building next to BFB being like 20' above the 100' height restriction... this will go over quite well i'm sure! lol
Penn Praxis wants the low rise city with its grid to move across the highway, they will fume at anything new that is that tall.

Ugh. Can't wait for them to trot out the lines about this not fitting in with the current cityscape. If people like this had been in charge of the world, we'd still be living in 1 story huts.

In any case, in a city where the unions are supposed to have so much political muscle, how is it that the "it's too high" intellectuals seems to dictate the scale of buildings? I would think the unions would want higher buildings because it means more manpower over a longer period of time which of course = more $$.

doubt there is really even market for something that big down there. those waterfront square condos didn't do so well, and how many renters are we going to be getting that will fill up all these new rental high rises? so that makes me wonder what the real goal is here... get something bigger approved in order to gain value for the lot while the owner sits on it...?

I think this may be their game plan. But I think a big reason the waterfront properties don't work here is because they are so isolated. There need to be enough people in the area before we reach a tipping point where those areas become more desirable and then developed. Something like this could do the trick...if it ever gets built, that is.

[hammersklavier]

Anyone know anything about this?

Information Only: 400 North Christopher Columbus Boulevard, for a proposed 1,458-unit development in four high-rise structures in the Central Delaware Riverfront Overlay District (Presented by Hercules Grigos and Bill Alesker for Waterfront Renaissance Associates).

Philadelphia Planning Commission meeting, August 21 - includes agenda | PlanPhilly: Planning Philadelphia's Future

will be right next to Ingas favorite waterfront building


these are some of the old plans it would seem


Old City Harbor Tower at World Trade Square | Alesker & Dundon, LLC


World Trade Square | Alesker & Dundon, LLC

Yeah, this is just Philadelphia WTC 2.0. Waterfront Associates has had that land, and that proposal, for like 20 years now and still hasn't done anything with it.

In any case, given the extreme tooth-pulling Ensemble is experiencing with its three projects, I highly doubt it will get approved.

[Jayfar]

Yeah, this is just Philadelphia WTC 2.0. Waterfront Associates has had that land, and that proposal, for like 20 years now and still hasn't done anything with it.

In any case, given the extreme tooth-pulling Ensemble is experiencing with its three projects, I highly doubt it will get approved.

Is that this? World Trade Square - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

World Trade Square | Philadelphia PA

Philaphilia: Dead-Ass Proposal of the Week-- September 1st

Oh yes, and this from 2008:

World Trade Center story draws response | PlanPhilly: Planning Philadelphia's Future

[concourse]

everyone made a big stink about that other building next to BFB being like 20' above the 100' height restriction... this will go over quite well i'm sure! lol
Penn Praxis wants the low rise city with its grid to move across the highway, they will fume at anything new that is that tall.

doubt there is really even market for something that big down there. those waterfront square condos didn't do so well, and how many renters are we going to be getting that will fill up all these new rental high rises? so that makes me wonder what the real goal is here... get something bigger approved in order to gain value for the lot while the owner sits on it...?

The second paragraph is the reason the first paragraph wants what it does. The DRWC doesn't think that the riverfront can absorb enough new housing to build high rises and fill in vacant land. They're probably right.

[phillyaggie]

^ that's the thinking that leads to ideas like some project having "too much" density.
I don't accept that; it's one thing to project what sort of demand an area might attract, and quite another to dictate a type of development that should then go into that private land. Did anyone really expect such a big apartment building boom even 5 years ago? The city (and where applicable, the neighborhood groups) ought to be working to lay down good infrastructure or keep what's there clean and accessible...and rest, let organic demand work its way to the market. Perhaps Philly market wants high rises and not the same lame ass row after row...especially in a neighborhood with clean slate, where any sort of development can be made from scratch and you don't have to "blend in" per se.

[concourse]

^ that's the thinking that leads to ideas like some project having "too much" density.
I don't accept that; it's one thing to project what sort of demand an area might attract, and quite another to dictate a type of development that should then go into that private land. Did anyone really expect such a big apartment building boom even 5 years ago? The city (and where applicable, the neighborhood groups) ought to be working to lay down good infrastructure or keep what's there clean and accessible...and rest, let organic demand work its way to the market. Perhaps Philly market wants high rises and not the same lame ass row after row...especially in a neighborhood with clean slate, where any sort of development can be made from scratch and you don't have to "blend in" per se.

We have a zoning code and I accept that even with all its faults so that means I think government has a place in telling private land owners how they can build. I also support higher density. I also believe that it's quite plausible the idea that the waterfront cannot support that many new units. I have mixed feelings with the resultant conclusion that you need to limit the height of buildings to spread the units across more land area. The biggest reason that I am generally fine with the 100 foot height limit overlay is that I think it would be a bad outcome to have more developments like Waterfront Square that provide absolutely no streetscape. If the zoning code encourages buildings to provide a streetscape and commercial uses then I don't really care about the height.

Do these taller proposals actually proposals actually provide more density per square foot of land area than 100 foot tall building with more lot coverage?

[supersupper]

Some people here should play more games because they certainly don't have a grasp on reality.

Monopoly: you buy property- build a house, add more houses, then build something bigger. You can't start off with a large hotel.

SimCity: you are given property- build a few things and watch it grow from small to large. You can't start off with a huge thing or your city will crash in on itself.

When an area becomes dense enough to support larger buildings, developers buy-out those current living there because they can even then make even more money building larger. Delaware Ave has little density of residents, and building large is wishful thinking (Waterfront Sq, for example). There's nothing wrong with that if the only consequence is a bankrupt developer (Waterfront Sq, for example). but they F*up the potential for the neighborhood in the process (Waterfront Sq, for example). That's what people who live in the area try to prevent. People yelling anti-nimby crap usually have no skin in the game.

All this talk about density in Philly cracks me up because if a martian landed here and read PhillySpeaks or Skycrapper.com, they'd think there were tons of people with tons of money dying to live in this city but can't because there's no place to shop and no huts to live in .

[phillyaggie]

Did I say I wanted something bigger? No. I'm only saying that there is room between dictating a rowhome neighborhood where there isn't one now, and something else. This city, like any other, could use a broader mix of housing.

Waterfront Square was built because that was the property the private developer owned; building as many units along the waterfront would have required far more land, which the owner didn't have. Who has the skin in that game?-- the owner, not you.

Besides, show me one decent place in Philly where something currently in place was knocked down in recent memory by new landlord in order to build something bigger/denser. Usually when properties get knocked down, we end up with empty surface lots. Only "successful" example I can think of is the Society Hill Towers, and that is now going on 50 years old?

[phillyaggie]

We have a zoning code and I accept that even with all its faults so that means I think government has a place in telling private land owners how they can build. I also support higher density. I also believe that it's quite plausible the idea that the waterfront cannot support that many new units. I have mixed feelings with the resultant conclusion that you need to limit the height of buildings to spread the units across more land area. The biggest reason that I am generally fine with the 100 foot height limit overlay is that I think it would be a bad outcome to have more developments like Waterfront Square that provide absolutely no streetscape. If the zoning code encourages buildings to provide a streetscape and commercial uses then I don't really care about the height.

Do these taller proposals actually proposals actually provide more density per square foot of land area than 100 foot tall building with more lot coverage?

to be perfectly clear, i don't think these proposals are serious and i doubt they will actually ever get built.

all the same, i don't agree with a 100' overlay. It's a desperate ploy to try to make one urban form appear everywhere...some sort of artificial uniformity. interesting places happen when there is a good mix of built form that builds up organically.

[concourse]

to be perfectly clear, i don't think these proposals are serious and i doubt they will actually ever get built.

all the same, i don't agree with a 100' overlay. It's a desperate ploy to try to make one urban form appear everywhere...some sort of artificial uniformity. interesting places happen when there is a good mix of built form that builds up organically.

You think it comes organically? I don't know. I don't think anywhere else in the city has a 100' limit and I have no idea if it will create a nice waterfront. I do think that if you give developers no zoning requirements they'll build towers surrounded by parking lots with no commercial and absolutely no streetscape.

[hammersklavier]

Is that this? World Trade Square - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

World Trade Square | Philadelphia PA

Philaphilia: Dead-Ass Proposal of the Week-- September 1st

Oh yes, and this from 2008:

World Trade Center story draws response | PlanPhilly: Planning Philadelphia's Future

That very one.

[Naveen]

I do think that if you give developers no zoning requirements they'll build towers surrounded by parking lots with no commercial and absolutely no streetscape.

Agree, but I think there is a middle-ground between "no zoning requirements" and "nothing can be over X00 feet, and multiple zoning committees, civic groups, and chattering-class critics will have more sway than the developer in shaping this project".

And keep in mind, when we look at the ghastly-designed suburbs, it's the zoning requirements which made them develop that way as much as developers with no vision.

Personally speaking, I hate height restrictions outside of purely residential neighborhoods, but I do favor zoning and civic pressure to push developers for better aesthetics and usability (such as street-level retail, instead of parking garages).

[kidphilly]

Agree, but I think there is a middle-ground between "no zoning requirements" and "nothing can be over X00 feet, and multiple zoning committees, civic groups, and chattering-class critics will have more sway than the developer in shaping this project".

And keep in mind, when we look at the ghastly-designed suburbs, it's the zoning requirements which made them develop that way as much as developers with no vision.

Personally speaking, I hate height restrictions outside of purely residential neighborhoods, but I do favor zoning and civic pressure to push developers for better aesthetics and usability (such as street-level retail, instead of parking garages).

Is there any provisions in the zoning code about developed space, meaning % non asphalt, parking (given a certain footprint (removed from street facing), and street alignment. Free market will be what it is at some level but a large scale project that pushes even parking to the rear and aligns to face the street would go a long way.

This is actually a fairly pivital lot at this point in many ways, especially since the other is now basically approved next store

Just south of the loop in Chicago there seems to be some examples where high rises now meee the street at a human level and still gain height and a more modernistic neighborhood.

There are many things I would personally love to see here but as someone not paying for it or moving in it really isnt my choice.

[Jayfar]

As I recall, DiCicco, the councilman behind the extension of the original zoning overlay, including the height restrictions, at some point expressed ignorance of its impact on the proposed World Trade Center site.

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documen...s/11D0259P.pdf