I'm not sure this project would have seen the light of day anyway.

1) A brief reply to those bloggers who disbelieve in the Locust Street Expressway (proposed) and Philadelphia's celebrated 18th-century skyscraper, the Schindler-Otis House: You probably don't believe in leprechauns either, so I have nothing more to say to you.

2) I read Harry K. Schwartz's letter in today's Inquirer, which Inga Saffron wonderfully refutes in her blog. Schwartz and others are off base when they frame their opposition to Stamper Square by citing the alleged existence of an historical "principle" for Society Hill being an exclusive community of low-rise townhouses.

The first (1957) plan by Vincent Kling, Roy F. Larson (the original designer of Independence Mall), and Oscar Stonorov envisioned Society Hill as a community of mixed housing, which included at least half a dozen mid-rise towers. The following year, the city sponsored a competition among four architectural firms. All of them included various configurations of skyscrapers and mid-rise buildings.

The winner of the competition, I.M. Pei for the Webb & Knapp firm, refined the proposed apartment towers into the three Society Hill Towers that were eventually built along the axis of Second St. But even his design and subsequent ones provided for two skyscraper apartment buildings on the waterfront at South St., two Pei-designed 30-story buildings near Washington Square (in addition to Hopkinson House), and a much taller office building at the foot of Market St.

Furthermore, in planning documents of the 1960s, most of the block where "Stamper Square" has now been proposed was to be obliterated for interchanges for the Crosstown (South St.) Expressway. This can clearly been seen in city planning department maps of the 1960s (see also Ed Bacon's article, “Downtown Philadelphia: A Lesson in Design for Growth," Architectural Record, May 1961). So it is not always useful to go back 50 years to find a precedent for the area, unless one believes that an expressway is the best use for "Stamper Square."

The truth is that Philadelphia has changed greatly since Society Hill first began to be redeveloped. Much of the west side of Front St., for example, was torn down and replaced by parking lots and, in recent years, by mid-rise condos. The Stamper Square towers would be on the same scale as the condos further north on Front St., but in many ways its design is more compatible with the surrounding community. As I stated in an earlier post, the towers would be better if they were less bulky and contained some setbacks to lessen the clash with an 18th-century house next door. But those are relatively minor problems with the design, which -- if the project ever comes to fruition -- the developers will hopefully remedy.

Nanyika

Association Vote a Tie for Hotel in Society Hill
Last Edited: Thursday, 28 Feb 2008, 6:00 AM EST
Created: Wednesday, 27 Feb 2008, 10:38 PM EST

The Society Hill Civic Association voted to a tie for a development that would have changed the landscape of the Society Hill section of Philadelphia.

A 17-story hotel was proposed for Head House Square.

The project would have included a high-end hotel and condominiums.

The zoning code restricts buildings to a maximum height of 60-feet; the new construction would have far topped that.

The 12-12 tie vote leave the future of the project up in the air for now.

They should have gone to a shoot out.

__________________
"Ah, good taste! What a dreadful thing! Taste is the enemy of creativeness."

Pablo Picasso (1881–1973)

I thought I invented the concept of a Benevolent Dictatorship... and recommend myself for the position.

Another brilliant move by the Society Hill Hysterical Society.

The Shadows! Dear god, the Shadows!

__________________
The idealistic are no longer concerned with influencing public opinion and creating a free world of responsible and ethical social choices, but rather imposing opinion through legislation, mandating these ethics, and outlawing choice in what the loudest sample finds offensive.

Ban the Bans. It's a slippery slope between Idealism and Fascism.

The only hope now is that DiCicco overrules what seems to be a vocal minority and pushes for a zoning change. In fact, I think that people in his district that support the project should write to him and encourage it... maybe I will start a thread to that end.

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/old...rs-square.html

Besides the casino when has DiCicco cared about anything north of South Street ?

What's really ridiculous is that the highrise component was at the back end of the plan, in line with 101 Walnut and the Beaumont, both of which are far less integrated with the community than Stamper Square would be.

I think the real issue here is the old fuddy duddies on Society Hill are worried that a shopping/hotel complex at that spot is going to further bridge the gap between the South Street heathens and their bougey wasp-nest.

__________________
The idealistic are no longer concerned with influencing public opinion and creating a free world of responsible and ethical social choices, but rather imposing opinion through legislation, mandating these ethics, and outlawing choice in what the loudest sample finds offensive.

Ban the Bans. It's a slippery slope between Idealism and Fascism.

I believe this is the real issue.

In this market it's not economically possible to build something 60ft tall on that site and see a profit. As the city grows, property will continue to become more valuable and the city will ultimately need to revisit all neighborhoods' height restrictions.

__________________
The idealistic are no longer concerned with influencing public opinion and creating a free world of responsible and ethical social choices, but rather imposing opinion through legislation, mandating these ethics, and outlawing choice in what the loudest sample finds offensive.

Ban the Bans. It's a slippery slope between Idealism and Fascism.