25-Story-Tower Proposed for 38th and Chestnut

**Swinefeld** · 04-19-2012, 12:20 AM

25 Story Tower Proposed For 38th and Chestnut | Hidden City Philadelphia

In a case that could set precedent, the Episcopal Cathedral Chapter–center of the Philadelphia diocese–is making a complicated of claim of acting in the “public interest” in its request to the historical commission to tear down two buildings on the Philadelphia register of historic places in order to build a 25 story apartment tower at 38th and Chestnut adjacent to the Cathedral and International House of Philadelphia. The request was made last Wednesday.

**mixiboi** · 04-19-2012, 01:01 AM

That is different.

**thoth** · 04-19-2012, 02:02 AM

plenty of vacant land a block north and west of here....

**ArcticSplash** · 04-19-2012, 06:18 AM

Color me skeptical, but it sounds like these folks jumped at the same excuse that Norris Square did to knock down St. Bonafice, a similar style of church in architecture.

**seand** · 04-19-2012, 09:46 AM

Actually they are getting rid of the parsonage, not the church but yeah it kind of seems like churches are just as likely as private individuals to say "we got this well situated little parcel of land lets cram as much as we possibly can on it".

On the pro, it can't be better situated for public transit, a busy university, jobs. On the con, holy jump in scale Batman.

**raider.adam** · 04-19-2012, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by seand

but yeah it kind of seems like churches are just as likely as private individuals to say

One of the biggest misconceptions is that a non-profit is inherently a more noble organization than a for profit one. It's just a private corporation that doesn't pay taxes.

**eldondre** · 04-19-2012, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by thoth

plenty of vacant land a block north and west of here....

owned by the church?
at least they aren't arguing to tear down the church for surface parking like siloam, it's a fairly interesting proposal. just because something is there doesn't mean that it should never change. the main problem in philly is that for years things were knocked down and replaced with something either better or at least of substantial utility...then things started getting knocked down and replaced with crap, or worse, nothing.

**John Goodman** · 04-19-2012, 10:35 AM

looks good to me

do it!

**Zigster** · 04-19-2012, 10:35 AM

yeah 38th and chestnut. good spot.

God forbid they tear down the low rises or the "Market at University Square" at 40th and Market.

**DCnPhilly** · 04-19-2012, 11:54 AM

Looks fine to me. I like those houses but realistically they're going to be torn down sooner or later. Better for a handsome high rise than a surface parking lot or a strip mall. Look across the street. Better looking buildings have been demolished for much worse.

**thoth** · 04-19-2012, 10:53 PM

Originally Posted by eldondre

owned by the church?
at least they aren't arguing to tear down the church for surface parking like siloam, it's a fairly interesting proposal. just because something is there doesn't mean that it should never change. the main problem in philly is that for years things were knocked down and replaced with something either better or at least of substantial utility...then things started getting knocked down and replaced with crap, or worse, nothing.

No, but if there is that kind of demand and money floating around for mega apartment towers in the vicinity, then surely the church or their development partner could work on acquiring some undeveloped land rather than demolishing historic structures. That's assuming they actually have any intention of actually building anything, which I doubt.

The main problem in philly is that the city started allowing demolition of historic structures with bad or dubious plans in place for repurposing. This one sounds like a great way to end up with another surface lot at 38th and Chestnut after financing "unexpectedly" falls through.

**thoth** · 04-19-2012, 10:58 PM

Also, that plan is hideous. And that's the rendering. You know, that's supposed to make the building look better than it is so that it gets zoning approval. Imagine what that pile of poop will actually look like in real life.

**DCnPhilly** · 04-20-2012, 11:55 AM

Unfortunately developers can't just go out and grab someone else's property because it's better suited for a project. I don't think they'd be planning this if there wasn't demand. I don't think the church is shadily looking for a way to tear these buildings down. They wouldn't benefit from it. University City is experiencing a little bit of a building boom. I don't think they'll have any problem getting this built and filling the units.

It's not the greatest looking building in the world, but I doubt it's the final proposal. The initial renderings are just used to demonstrate how the height and space will visually impact the surrounding area. Aside from the amount of space they intend to take up, the I don't think this picture has anything to do with what the building will actually look like.

**phillyaggie** · 04-20-2012, 04:52 PM

almost all the recent major building proposals in Philly makes me think this one is just going to add to the pile of ho-hum to fugly looking designs that we'll have to contend with for decades to come. Oh well. This one doesn't look too terrible, actually. And the cost of construction in this city is such that we simply can't expect anyone but with the deepest of pockets to spend money on eye-popping architecture.

**thoth** · 04-20-2012, 08:05 PM

I'm not talking about developers "grabbing" someone else's land, I'm talking about the demand that would push this project to fruition. There are literally a dozen large vacant parcels/surface lots within a few blocks of this location and two on market st 50 feet away with "Development Opportunity" signs hanging up. The HUB II, an almost identical if not more stylish project, has been stalled for years and a mid-sized church on 40th with a similar footprint has been for sale and vacant for two years.

So competent builders can't get other projects off the ground, but you're telling me that magically this church, with no development experience, is going to finance a multi-million dollar 25 story apt complex? Yeah sure.

And they wouldn't benefit from tearing the buildings down? They would circumvent historical protections in a way that would otherwise be impossible for a private developer or UPenn under the "public interest" angle of saving their building. Proposing some pie-in-the-sky apt tower makes everyone feel better until they suddenly can't get financing and build a surface lot that would get them plenty of dough with none of the tiring legwork of building a skyscraper. Sure, down the road they could sell to Penn or any developer when credit loosens up...but they could also just keep it a parking lot, like the other surface lots in the area that have resisted development for years. Everyone on this board should know by now that church development ought to be treated with skepticism. Half the undeveloped land in West Powelton is held by churches who are too incompetent or unwilling to do anything with it.

Tell me what makes you think they wouldn't do this. Because they came up with an etch-a-sketch drawing of a tower? Firstly, that's a terrible reason for bypassing historic controls and it sets a rotten precedent that you can demo stuff if you come up with an attractive proposal.

Originally Posted by DCnPhilly

Unfortunately developers can't just go out and grab someone else's property because it's better suited for a project. I don't think they'd be planning this if there wasn't demand. I don't think the church is shadily looking for a way to tear these buildings down. They wouldn't benefit from it. University City is experiencing a little bit of a building boom. I don't think they'll have any problem getting this built and filling the units.

It's not the greatest looking building in the world, but I doubt it's the final proposal. The initial renderings are just used to demonstrate how the height and space will visually impact the surrounding area. Aside from the amount of space they intend to take up, the I don't think this picture has anything to do with what the building will actually look like.

**lewblum** · 04-21-2012, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by thoth

I'm not talking about developers "grabbing" someone else's land, I'm talking about the demand that would push this project to fruition. There are literally a dozen large vacant parcels/surface lots within a few blocks of this location and two on market st 50 feet away with "Development Opportunity" signs hanging up. The HUB II, an almost identical if not more stylish project, has been stalled for years and a mid-sized church on 40th with a similar footprint has been for sale and vacant for two years.
.

I imagine this has a lot to do with economics. The church already owns this piece of land, which they've owned for over 100 years. So your land price is essential zero. That's not the other case at these other sites where the land was purchased for possibly millions of dollars, so more return is required on the investment. Also, the Market St lots are part of the Science Center which requires uses related to labs and r&d. As for residential uses, I would imagine that you could fetch higher rents at 38th and Chestnut than you could at 40th and Chestnut (Hub II).

As for the design, it looks just like the Sansom towers one block away. Which suck. At least this has active ground floor uses I guess. But I've never been thrilled by BLT architects.

**lewblum** · 04-21-2012, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by Zigster

God forbid they tear down the low rises or the "Market at University Square" at 40th and Market.

yes please.

**thoth** · 04-21-2012, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by lewblum

I imagine this has a lot to do with economics. The church already owns this piece of land, which they've owned for over 100 years. So your land price is essential zero. That's not the other case at these other sites where the land was purchased for possibly millions of dollars, so more return is required on the investment. Also, the Market St lots are part of the Science Center which requires uses related to labs and r&d. As for residential uses, I would imagine that you could fetch higher rents at 38th and Chestnut than you could at 40th and Chestnut (Hub II).

As for the design, it looks just like the Sansom towers one block away. Which suck. At least this has active ground floor uses I guess. But I've never been thrilled by BLT architects.

I still don't see any guarantee that the church would actually be able to competently manage this development even starting with $0 land costs.

On top of that, there is still the precedent factor. You're basically saying that if someone wants to demo historic property, they can work through non-profit owners who cry poverty in order to circumvent historic controls. Remember the church on Spring Garden?

These buildings are certified historic, in good condition and can still serve as viable, profit earning real estate in their current state (there are dozens of offices in similar structures up and down this stretch of Chestnut and Walnut). There is no shortage of developable land in the proximity for high-density residential use (or mixed use in the case of the science center land) that would not require demolition of historic structures. I see no legitimate reason to make an exception.

Rents at 38th and Chestnut and 40th and Chestnut are not radically different.

**lewblum** · 04-21-2012, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by thoth

On top of that, there is still the precedent factor. You're basically saying that if someone wants to demo historic property, they can work through non-profit owners who cry poverty in order to circumvent historic controls. Remember the church on Spring Garden?

These buildings are certified historic, in good condition and can still serve as viable, profit earning real estate in their current state (there are dozens of offices in similar structures up and down this stretch of Chestnut and Walnut). There is no shortage of developable land in the proximity for high-density residential use (or mixed use in the case of the science center land) that would not require demolition of historic structures. I see no legitimate reason to make an exception.

This I agree with. There's no reason that they can't preserve the buildings and build essentially the HUB I on their corner garden lot. They just want more profit. And as a City, be it though historic preservation or the zoning code and ZBA, we need to learn how to say "no" in order to preserve the tiny little things that make Philly unique.

**DCnPhilly** · 04-21-2012, 08:56 PM

I'm not too upset about losing these two buildings, but that's not to say someone shouldn't be. What's the point of certifying something historic if its so easy to tear down. This isn't the first or most monumental time this has happened.