True. Very true.
Or failing to grasp the idea that a 4* hotel with doormen, valets, CCTV cameras would *drastically* improve security in the area... I do value differences in opinions but at certain point I began to question the logical abilities of certain attendees.

And they are also on front street.

__________________
Peter Cetera:
Sometimes I just forget
Say things I might regret
It breaks my heart to see you crying

Chawla brothers they say?

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/loca...tributors.html

__________________

In a 1942 land use map the grid went all the way through, though with Dock St superimposed from 3rd above Walnut sweeping in a curve across 2nd and ending at Spruce.

http://www.philageohistory.org/rdic-...M1942.4B-1.htm

__________________
Cheers,
Jayfar
--
“I am indeed well aware of the history of Conventional (sic) Hall, both globally and locally, and can assure you that we are carefully exploring avenues for its future.” -- Penn President Amy Gutmann 5 days before demolition began.

I think what most NIMBYs fail to grasp is that the cost of real estate in and near Center City (and yes, Society Hill is part of Center City) has skyrocketed in the past few years. In order for any developer to make money, they need to build large buildings to recoup the cost of the land.

Town home developments in CC are history. There's no way the developer could get a return on investment. Sure the neighbors think the developer should take a bath just to preserve their idea of what the neighborhood should be, but as long as we live in a free market society, that aint gonna happen.

This is a thoughtful design which will provide another intimate, tree-lined pathway through Society Hill. Its towers won't be visible from street level on any street but Front.

I think Neighborhood associations should be an integral part of planning, but they have attained far too much power due to the City's lack of focus on planning in the past several years and as a result, their knee-jerk reactions to "here and now" factors is costing the city some visionary plans that will benefit it long after the NIMBYs who opposed it are dead and buried.

Nutter can't move quickly enough to return balance to the zoning and planning process in this city.

The concepts look pretty good, but the entrance on 2nd street looks horrendous. They could easily integrate retail/restaurant/area instead of making playschool renditions of abstract colonial facades.

__________________
Peter Cetera:
Sometimes I just forget
Say things I might regret
It breaks my heart to see you crying

The cost of land is very much dependent on the value of the property you can build upon it. If property is zoned with a height limit of 30 feet, in theory, the valuation of the land would factor this in, and would be worth less than land with higher-density zoning. It would be feasible to build town homes in CC on land with such lower density restrictions and value, and still get a decent RoI.

However, in Philadelphia, the lack of a modern, consistent zoning code encourages developers to try and "beat" the zoning of their property, and try and build more densely. They have a pretty reasonable chance of swinging an adjustment, and being able to build more densely than the original zoning would allow, thus increasing RoI. Perfectly reasonable for developers to try this, and good business, especially considering that almost every development needs variances anyway.

As a result, the price of land in desirable areas increases to a level above which it is possible to make a positive return on a project within the current zoning. We then end up with the current situation, where we have brinksmanship between neighborhood groups and developers. The developer proposes something more dense (and higher return) than they ever think will be permitted, in the knowledge it will be scaled-back, and the neighborhood opposes everything, as they know they won't get all the concessions they ask for. It's high-drama, discourages sensible urban planning at a city-wide level, expensive, and time-consuming.

Hopefully the in-process revisions to zoning policy will lead to sensibly zoned land based on a coherent, city-wide strategy, get the right buildings for the right areas, minimize need for variances, and be enforced consistently. Developers should be able to work within clear ground rules, and local residents should know what to expect of new developments. Whatever the new zoning code, it's not going to be 100% perfect, but hopefully will stop this type of situation happening over and over again.

Anyway, back to Headhouse Square -- this seems a pretty reasonable development from the renderings, and don't see why it wouldn't fit well with the neighborhood. But I agree with Alesis that the 2nd St entrance is rubbish -- it's far too fussy and doesn't fit with the rest of the development.

After the Chawla's tried to buy zoning for their own "plans" which they intended to flip anyway...and failed....they opted to sell the development rights to Bridgeman group. In reality, the Chawla's shoudn't have anything to do with this site.

Close enough. Although I'll likely never set foot in a five star restaurant, that coupled with an upscale hotel is better than just sterile condo towers. The addition of the garage would seem to make it a big plus for the area.

But then again, no surprise that the NIMBYs are on high alert.

__________________

– Brigadier General Julius C. Holmes
Allied Forces Headquarters
4 March 1943

Inga weighs in:
Changing Skyline: Developers in the city - Hard to hold 'em down


http://www.philly.com/philly/columni...d_em_down.html