Armory Apt's

[eldondre]

Broad Street Armory headed for development | Passyunk Post

[Eastcoast]

Thank god.

I was waiting for a massive fire to wipe that place out once and for all.

I'd rather see condo conversion than straight up rentals but that's just me.

[tsarstruck]

No banks are funding condos right now. Doesn't mean that condo conversion can't happen later.

[JakeL]

Great news, Broad St needs more large scale residential like this. I really hope they shore up the building asap, as I know there has been some major structural damage like the partially gone roof.

[JakeL]

The plan is to demolish the armory and build a new 6 story apartment building there. Bummed that the armory has to go, but given its state, sounds like there wasn't much hope for it. Rending and details on Hidden City: Developer Plans Demolition Of Third Regiment Armory For Six-Story Apartment Complex–Updated With Rendering | Hidden City Philadelphia

[eldondre]

50 units, 52 spaces, courtyard entrance on broad st.

[ambiguator]

The 1:1 parking ratio is too much.
Look at 777 Broad St: the lot is never more than half full.
This place is *literally* on top of the BSL.
More than 20% of residents in this neighborhood walk or bike to work.
Many do not even have access to a car.
Inviting another 52 cars to the neighborhood is shortsighted and a huge waste of space.
Literally half the lot will be covered with asphalt.
3/4 of the ground floor will be for parking.

Overall, this proposal is extremely boring and disappointing.
100% homogenous apartments (all 2 bedrooms), minimal amenities, no common space for residents, a ground floor full of cars, and a 5 - 8 foot wall along all 3 off-street sides.

There's nothing transit-minded or urbanist about it, nothing innovative whatsoever, and it's a real missed opportunity to activate South Broad.

[the mule]

The homes Carosella has built in G-Ho are pretty attractive and well built. He seems to be the type of developer who excels at new construction, and that kind of success doesn't always translate into restorations of existing structures. There is far more exposure to risk for him and potential for delays as unforeseen conditions are encountered during the project. Add on top of that that this project is likely to be completed using union labor. A project of this size on Broad St. would get picketed to death if it was done open shop. So combine using union labor to rehab a building of this size in its current condition and there are tons of cost implications and risks of delays. Building a new building eliminates most surprises and can be potentially completed quickly and put into service.

I like to see buildings repurposed whenever possible, but I don't know that he's being unreasonable by proposing the Armory's demolition. Honestly I don't think this building is very attractive either, though the new design leaves something to be desired as well.

Either way, I'm happy to see something finally happen with this significant parcel. South Philadelphia's revival seems to have no end, so long as AVI doesn't derail it.

[Naveen]

The 1:1 parking ratio is too much.

Yeah.

As to the proposal being boring...well, what did you have in mind instead?

[Malloy]

There's nothing transit-minded or urbanist about it, nothing innovative whatsoever, and it's a real missed opportunity to activate South Broad.

Adaptive reuse of a 130 yo building on SBroad. Ya - nothing urban or transit oriented here.

[eldondre]

Adaptive reuse of a 130 yo building on SBroad. Ya - nothing urban or transit oriented here.

theyre knocking it down. I do find the setback from broad a bit puzzling and they probably could up the unit to parking ratio.

[DCnPhilly]

theyre knocking it down. I do find the setback from broad a bit puzzling and they probably could up the unit to parking ratio.

I wish they could reuse the Armory, but this isn't as bad as it could be. I thought the pitch was a little odd though. I felt like all the parties pushing for the demolition had a vested interest in that demolition. I'm sure the building is rough, but the city does have a nack for exaggerating dire situations. I have no doubt that the primary reason to tear down this building is so the new project can have parking.

[five apples]

I wish they could reuse the Armory, but this isn't as bad as it could be. I thought the pitch was a little odd though. I felt like all the parties pushing for the demolition had a vested interest in that demolition. I'm sure the building is rough, but the city does have a nack for exaggerating dire situations. I have no doubt that the primary reason to tear down this building is so the new project can have parking.

Try getting that built without parking in this hood. In the end 1:1 is probably excessive for the building but I can't imagine this getting through the neighborhood without parking. If they end up with lots of empty spots then perhaps they can rent spaces out to neighbors. We aren't NYC, lots of people have cars. It is especially important for everyone who does the reverse commute, which there are many.

[DCnPhilly]

Try getting that built without parking in this hood. In the end 1:1 is probably excessive for the building but I can't imagine this getting through the neighborhood without parking. If they end up with lots of empty spots then perhaps they can rent spaces out to neighbors. We aren't NYC, lots of people have cars. It is especially important for everyone who does the reverse commute, which there are many.

Oh, I completely get that. But I still think parking is a factor in convincing people that the existing building is not salvageable.

[five apples]

Oh, I completely get that. But I still think parking is a factor in convincing people that the existing building is not salvageable.

I agree, I would say that if they came forward saying they were going to redevelop that building and not tear it down and didn't have the possibility of parking people would go ape.

[carloss]

I wish they could reuse the Armory, but this isn't as bad as it could be. I thought the pitch was a little odd though. I felt like all the parties pushing for the demolition had a vested interest in that demolition. I'm sure the building is rough, but the city does have a nack for exaggerating dire situations. I have no doubt that the primary reason to tear down this building is so the new project can have parking.

There's nothing that says they couldn't tear down the shed (which takes up about two-thirds of the actual building) and keep the facade, or even convert the shed into a garage. One of those would have been the closest to a win-win scenario, if the developer was inventive enough and the building was sound enough for a restoration.

[eldondre]

Try getting that built without parking in this hood. In the end 1:1 is probably excessive for the building but I can't imagine this getting through the neighborhood without parking. If they end up with lots of empty spots then perhaps they can rent spaces out to neighbors. We aren't NYC, lots of people have cars. It is especially important for everyone who does the reverse commute, which there are many.

you don't have to be nyc to not have 1:1 parking, let's not get carried away. it's true lots of people whine (let's call them hypocrites) about parking (when they themselves park on the street) but if there are unused spaces it means too many were built. the fact is lots of south philly households actually do not have cars, probably fewer than any other part of the city outside center city.

[five apples]

you don't have to be nyc to not have 1:1 parking, let's not get carried away. it's true lots of people whine (let's call them hypocrites) about parking (when they themselves park on the street) but if there are unused spaces it means too many were built. the fact is lots of south philly households actually do not have cars, probably fewer than any other part of the city outside center city.

You base that statement on South Philly on what?

I can also throw out that for every house of Hipsters with just fixies there is an old school house with two cars.

I actually rather they not have a more than 1:1, and maybe they reconfigure the building to have less parking or maybe more bike racks, but that building doesn't get developed with parking. It isn't about what a bunch of people on this board want, but it is the reality of the situation. If the developer can get the community to not oppose demolition in order to maximize his profit, than that is what he is going to do. That is how it works.

Lots of people bitch about Nimby's, well I find people who nit pick every freaking design that comes across as being too blah blah, just as obnoxious to be honest.

Having said all of that, I wish they saved it. GroJart in 10 years will have an article about it getting torn down and I will get all upset reading it.

[DCnPhilly]

You base that statement on South Philly on what?

I can also throw out that for every house of Hipsters with just fixies there is an old school house with two cars.

I actually rather they not have a more than 1:1, and maybe they reconfigure the building to have less parking or maybe more bike racks, but that building doesn't get developed with parking. It isn't about what a bunch of people on this board want, but it is the reality of the situation. If the developer can get the community to not oppose demolition in order to maximize his profit, than that is what he is going to do. That is how it works.

Lots of people bitch about Nimby's, well I find people who nit pick every freaking design that comes across as being too blah blah, just as obnoxious to be honest.

Having said all of that, I wish they saved it. GroJart in 10 years will have an article about it getting torn down and I will get all upset reading it.

LMAO! I love the last sentence! Thank you for that! I'm sure I will too :-P

I think people look at all the hipsters on bikes and forget how massive South Philly actually is. There are far more car dependent households down there than not. And honestly you can't really blame the residents, even the ones that live near the Broad Street Line.

The buses and subway are convenient if you work in Center City or University City, but the public transportation available to South Philly is not at all convenient to New Jersey, other parts of the city, and the suburbs. The fact that the PPA has to ignore the thousands of illegally parked cars on the Broad Street and Oregon Avenue medians, and even more parked cars blocking intersections, indicates that any project adding residents needs parking.

That said, instead of more surface lots, I'd rather see smarter parking underground or a multi-level parking garage with more than a 1:1 unit to car ratio designed with the intention of leasing spaces to neighboring residents.

[eldondre]

You base that statement on South Philly on what?

I can also throw out that for every house of Hipsters with just fixies there is an old school house with two cars.

having read about car ownership in philly. even before the histpers moved in it had the highest proportion of households without cars...it's just far more dense than most places. even if half the population doesn't have a car, you'll still lack spaces from two car households, visitors, and density. perhaps not surprisingly as you get further south towards the stadiums, car ownership increases dramatically.

people are entitled to their opinions on design. the fact that they need permission to not have parking is really the root of the problem. since it's on broad st parking requirements for approval should be zero. they should not need neighborhood approval at all.