Design Review Board

[bvan]

That is possible. I wonder if there is a sense that that has been happening in Boston...

HOWEVER!!! It isnt like we have architects taking huge chances and putting up dramatic, new, unique and groundbreaking new buildings here.

My point here is just that we would probably be weeding out the garbage, not toning down the groundbreaking stuff...

The point about changing tastes is true.

Your point about the zoning being unfinished could be why Altman refused to return a design review board in the two week window as requested.

That two week window is a bad idea. Properly designed legesltion and boards like this take time to create. We should be getting rid of problems, that likely would have ended up being a new problem.

[bvan]

Seems like the professionals like it.
I agree with them.
Notice they referenced HUdson Yards, which has its own post here also, for those interested...

http://www.planphilly.com/node/3005

Contrary to earlier reports, design review is on the fast track in Philadelphia, with plans to implement the reform being drawn up right now.
While a recent Inquirer article suggested the city’s new deputy mayor for planning and commerce, Andrew Altman, opposed the rapid implementation of a design review board, Altman himself said on Wednesday that the paper “didn’t get it right.”
Altman is indeed leery of rushing other reforms – from inclusionary housing to green building requirements. But on design review he’s all systems go.
“We are looking at design review to bring to the mayor and the city council,” Altman said. “I think there are some reforms you can do in the short term.”
To that end, the City Planning Commission will present suggestions for legislation to City Council next week.
New projects in Philadelphia must already clear zoning and planning reviews, but no part of city government is empowered to judge whether a building is simply ugly. In cities like Boston, Baltimore and Atlanta, a design review board staffed by architects and designers reviews all sizeable projects to encourage – and sometimes enforce – a higher standard of architecture.
But there is a devil, Altman believes, in the details.
“Design review has to be carefully structured so it’s fair and open, and doesn’t just become one more bureaucratic stop,” he said. “In some places it’s very successful. In others, it’s an enormous beauty contest.”
Philadelphia has at least two options: Establish an independent board, or empower the existing Planning Commission to review the appearance of designs. Smart money is on the latter.
Altman added that the city has already strengthened its hand by including sunset provisions when granting a zoning change. At a hotel project called Stamper Square in Society Hill, for example, city planners have sought a binding agreement that will nullify any zoning change if developer Marc Stein does not build the project he’s presenting.
“Design review may already be happening,” Altman explained. “If you present a project for rezoning … we’ll hold you to the buildings and the standards of that plan. Either you build it, or the zoning goes away.”
It remains to be seen how Philadelphia architects will react to well-intentioned meddling by a jury of their peers. In the best cases, review boards are said to generate valuable new ideas, and may even bolster an architect’s position with a corner-cutting client. In the worst cases, their decisions have been attacked as arbitrary.
On Wednesday, architect Emmanuel Kelly sounded impatient to get some form of design review up and running.
“There has to be something,” Kelly said, “because right now, there’s nothing.”
Now, about those other reforms…
Beyond design review, Altman sent a very different message in a speech before the Zoning Code Commission on Wednesday, a message he hoped would be “kind of sobering”:
Some of the more popular ideas to reform development in Philadelphia, he said, may end up driving developers away.
That’s because reforms like mandatory green building requirements and inclusionary zoning (mandatory affordable housing) add to the cost of projects. While high-rent markets like New York City can bear the cost of these reforms, adding the same costs in Philly’s low-margin market could make it an impossible place to build.
“With green building, there’s a cost. With inclusionary zoning, there’s a cost,” Altman said. “Someone’s paying for these things. You can say it’s the developers, but we all know they’ll pass that on.
“New York can afford their appetite for these reforms,” he continued. “In Philadelphia, we have to look at how we can balance our social and environmental objectives with the economic situation … You don’t want to look back in two years and say ‘Gee, I wonder why we’re not seeing any development in the neighborhoods?’”
ZCC member John Westrum, one of the only developers to tackle large-scale residential projects in the city, voiced his agreement in almost anguished tones.
“Philadelphia is the most difficult, the most expensive, and the least profitable city in the top 5 or 10 cities in the country,” Westrum told the commission. “So many people are passionate about investing in the city of Philadelphia. Problem is, every time they do they get burned.”
“Let’s get ourselves to the position where we have a thriving market before we get green buildings and these other things.”
Apparently sobered, no one on the ZCC challenged this assessment.
But one of these controversial reforms has already passed City Council. In December of 2006, Councilman Darrell Clarke pushed through an inclusionary housing bill (#071005) requiring the developer of any project over 20 units to either set aside 10% of units of below-market renters or pay into a city fund.
ZCC gets liaison
Finally, it's worth noting that like all good visitors, Altman came to Wednesday's ZCC meeting with a housewarming gift. Having heard ZCC members desire both "attention" and "direction" from the Nutter administration, Altman introduced Brian Flannigan, a former New York City planner, who will now serve as liaison between the commission and Altman himself.
Flannigan's principle experience was with New York City Council speaker Gifford Miller. He worked on the rezonings of entire neighborhoods, some 3,300 city blocks in places like Greenpoint, Williamsburg and the Hudson Yards.

[sMichael]

I agree a low-level design review board is a good thing. The Symphony House is tacky, and most of the post-Penn-max towers are pretty much all glass sheathing. Which is impressive by itself but monotonous when they're all clustered together. Also if this board would be more for moneyed large developments--not build-between-two-rowhomes-a-three-story-mixed-use-buildings--it would make our skyline look better.

Some of these buildings would look better with masonry. A skyline of glass spires is tacky.

I also think that instead of making it mandatory to build mixed-income green buildings, we could encourage it with better zoning, tax breaks, and LEED cost subsidy--and make these things mandatory only after it's the de facto new standard for development in the city.

[Mixiboi]

Anything that give NIMBYS less to complain about the better...

[Bump]

Originally Posted by theLovebelow

Anything that give NIMBYS less to complain about the better...

Quite the opposite will occur.

[bvan]

Pretty sure the idea with this board (if you read the linked and attached posts) is to reduce the power of the (generally nonprofessional) neighborhood groups to be in line with a healthy balance between the design professionals, and the developers.

It is not designed to give residents more say. No one is saying that residents are not getting thier fair say.

Although you COULD make that argument based on the fact that they have so much power and so little (Design, planning and development) training, there is a tendency to try to get things done behind closed doors without them, so as to avaoid thier wrath until it is too late for them. (South St Bridge?)

If you hate NIMBYS you should be FOR this.

[zur]

" Some of the more popular ideas to reform development in Philadelphia, he said, may end up driving developers away.
That’s because reforms like mandatory green building requirements and inclusionary zoning (mandatory affordable housing) add to the cost of projects. While high-rent markets like New York City can bear the cost of these reforms, adding the same costs in Philly’s low-margin market could make it an impossible place to build.
“With green building, there’s a cost. With inclusionary zoning, there’s a cost,” Altman said. “Someone’s paying for these things. You can say it’s the developers, but we all know they’ll pass that on.
“New York can afford their appetite for these reforms,” he continued. “In Philadelphia, we have to look at how we can balance our social and environmental objectives with the economic situation … You don’t want to look back in two years and say ‘Gee, I wonder why we’re not seeing any development in the neighborhoods?’”
ZCC member John Westrum, one of the only developers to tackle large-scale residential projects in the city, voiced his agreement in almost anguished tones.
“Philadelphia is the most difficult, the most expensive, and the least profitable city in the top 5 or 10 cities in the country,” Westrum told the commission. “So many people are passionate about investing in the city of Philadelphia. Problem is, every time they do they get burned.”"



Altman - Knows Reality

[zur]

Originally Posted by bvan

Although you COULD make that argument based on the fact that they have so much power and so little (Design, planning and development) training, there is a tendency to try to get things done behind closed doors without them, so as to avaoid thier wrath until it is too late for them. (South St Bridge?)

If you hate NIMBYS you should be FOR this.

Or...

Why ...why should 70 pissed off bike riders get say..

Over 70,000 drivers?

[sMichael]

Originally Posted by zur

" Some of the more popular ideas to reform development in Philadelphia, he said, may end up driving developers away.
That’s because reforms like mandatory green building requirements and inclusionary zoning (mandatory affordable housing) add to the cost of projects. While high-rent markets like New York City can bear the cost of these reforms, adding the same costs in Philly’s low-margin market could make it an impossible place to build.
“With green building, there’s a cost. With inclusionary zoning, there’s a cost,” Altman said. “Someone’s paying for these things. You can say it’s the developers, but we all know they’ll pass that on.
“New York can afford their appetite for these reforms,” he continued. “In Philadelphia, we have to look at how we can balance our social and environmental objectives with the economic situation … You don’t want to look back in two years and say ‘Gee, I wonder why we’re not seeing any development in the neighborhoods?’”
ZCC member John Westrum, one of the only developers to tackle large-scale residential projects in the city, voiced his agreement in almost anguished tones.
“Philadelphia is the most difficult, the most expensive, and the least profitable city in the top 5 or 10 cities in the country,” Westrum told the commission. “So many people are passionate about investing in the city of Philadelphia. Problem is, every time they do they get burned.”"



Altman - Knows Reality

Which is why we should encourage green and mixed-income development with incentives (tax. abatements. LEED cost refunds.) rather than anything mandatory.

[zur]

Originally Posted by sMichael

Which is why we should encourage green and mixed-income development with incentives (tax. abatements. LEED cost refunds.) rather than anything mandatory.

and these incentives come from what magic source of money?

(hint...rhymes with axes)