Here is the current proposal, which is IMO, fantastic (January 23rd post)

http://phillyskyline.com/archive_0801b.htm


Anyone else find it ironic that the Society Hill Towers are what helped make the neighborhood what it is today. Oh, the irony

I have a feeling if this project was approved it would never get off the ground. The developer is trying get zoning approval and then sell the project.

They would get a zoning variance for this particular project. If the land gets sold, the buyer/new developer would have to start the approval process from scratch.

The one thing to keep in mind is that all of the renderings are of the plans that had 17 & 14 story towers. The latest proposal is 15 & 15. I would have preferred it be set back a little from Front Street....but again, I will settle for this plan.


Courtyard/Hotel Entrance on 2nd St.


Courtyard / Hotel entrance on 2nd st.


Aerial view from Front st.



Sketch of Front St facade

Thanks for the renderings Tim.

In this day and age those renderings (not the concept) are horrible.

A) I'm not saying they aren't trying to "flip" the project, but I also don't know how anyone here KNOWS they are. I've seen no evidence that they intend to do so.

B) This whole plan hinges on their agreement with Starwood and building a Luxury Line 4* hotel on the site. I can't imagine that Starwood would be OK with them just selling the plans to someone else. Also, if it gets approved construction would need to start quickly as I understand their contract with Starwood is only valid for a certain period of time.

C) A buyer/new developer could buy this site and the plans/permits and start building. I'm not sure why you think that a new buyer would have to start over. People buy and sell real estate all the time with plans and permits. I suppose it is possible that the zoning board could tie permits to a certain developer....much like the LCB can tie a liquor license to an owner, but I haven't seen it done.

The current plan calls for a 150 room "Luxury Line" hotel by Starwood (4 star), 77 residential condos (high end), and a 5 star restaurant, all with a 400+ car underground garage.

I meant if the site is re-sold and a entirely new project is proposed.
Sorry for not expressing it clearly. (Hard to post when you're on a conf. call at the same time )

On a different topic -- isn't this ironic that some of those most vehemently opposed to the proposal happen to live in the Society Hill Towers...

Well, the towers are arguably on a much larger plot of land....its the people in Hopkinson House and Independence Place that have no legs to stand on.

My favorite argument the other night was that this is all Ed Bacon's master plan (meaning Society Hill being a area of 2-3 story townhouses). The story is that he spurred the growth by putting up the towers as a place for young couples to rent who didn't have much money. The rooms were small so they couldn't start families....but they would look out their windows and want to buy one of the houses below and fix it up. Of course, the same people making this argument would be the FIRST people up in arms if someone proposed to put up a high-rise LOW-INCOME apartment building anywhere near Society Hill....which according to their own descriptions is what SH Towers was in the first place!!


Some other notable "issues" people brought up the other night:

"Traffic" and parking problems (by a resident of 3rd and spruce) being caused by this development. As if a few hundred cars really impacts the huge volume of cars around south street. Or that the 400 parking spaces in the garage wouldn't suffice for 77 condos and 150 hotel rooms.

"The walkway across the site (which is proposed to be a sculpture garden) would be a place that attracted South Street foot traffic and would cause disturbances and urinating". Of course, all of the foot traffic from South Street heads down South St to the South street bridge, or over Naudain or Lombard to get to their cars in the lot on Front. I daresay that none of them would walk an extra half block out of their way to pee on a sculpture, only to have to walk the half block back up front to get to their cars. Why bother when they can pee in front of my house???

A woman reflected on her walk from Pennsylvania Hospital along Pine street at 7th....commenting on how the trees and the houses looked beautiful and peaceful and how a highrise at front and Lombard would ruin that. Of course, the fact is that at 15 stories, you can't see the buildings from more than about a block away.

It just frustrated me sitting there. If you are opposed to the height, then just say so. Everyone is entitled to their opinions but don't make up all these false reasons to fight the project.

I think the Society Hill Towers are super ugly, but my real objection is that they completely foul up the grid - interrupt 2nd St, cancel the street wall, and make people either walk through a sterile "garden" or go a block out of the way. Obviously what's done is done, but I can't help wishing that they were built within the street grid rather than on top of it. Without the Towers, 2nd St could have been an unbroken dining/entertainment/retail corridor from Old City to South St/Headhouse Sq, but instead, there's a huge green mound in the way.

(Granted I have no idea what it looked like before ... the grid might already have been interrupted ...)

Tru dat.