East Market Street is one step closer to glitzy.
But there is sharp division over the potential impact of the legislation. Would the creation of a commercial advertising district, where larger, flashier billboards drive an investment in tired buildings, encourage development between 7th and 13th streets or detract from the city's historical assets?
City Council's Rules Committee passed the legislation on to full council unanimously Tuesday after hearing many opinions on both sides.
Deputy Mayor for Economic Development and planning commission chairman Alan Greenberger has always liked the concept behind First District Councilman Frank DiCicco's proposal. DiCicco's recent amendment won Greenberger's support.
Greenberger called the creation of the advertising district and the use of large-format signs “redevelopment tools.”
“Part or all of the revenue generated from these signs would be required to go into major improvements to the publicly visible portions of these properties,” he said.
While Market Street is historically the center of commercial activity in the city, it has lagged in recent decades. The Convention Center, a proposal to redevelop the Gallery and other projects have primed the pump for a rebirth, he said. And this could help.
Many of the buildings in the corridor are poorly maintained, while others are in fine shape, but “offer little quality life to the street.”
The bill is a creative solution to the problem, Greenberger said, because it would allow buildings that meet conditions including frontage and occupancy requirements to install large, non-accessory signs. “In exchange, the owners of the building must invest a minimum of $10 million in the property that materially improves the facade or exterior of the property in a manner that has a material public benefit,” he said. “Through the revenues generated by large format signs, property owners in the area will be able to make key investments in the exterior appearance of their properties.”
One such proposal was presented to the committee by Pete Soens of SSH Real Estate, developer of Girard Estates. Soens showed the existing conditions of the 1100 Market Street Building and the proposed Girard Square. The proposed building is taller and rectangular, with many windows and many digital images. DiCicco said the proposal is that the upper floors would be inhabited by a Target retail store.
“Without the signage district's help, this will not be a reality,” Soens told the committee.
“It's pretty phenomenal,” said Councilman-at-Large James Kenney, who chairs the committee. He said the rendering showed how bright the area could be, and he thought that would make people feel safer.
Not everyone was enamored.
City resident Ursula Reed, a leader in the successful effort to establish the Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route historic trail, said that the proposal could damage the historical character of the area, and that's what keeps people coming to Philadelphia. “History is Philadelphia's brand,” she said. “Let folks go elsewhere for glitz.”
Steven Weixler, president of Society Hill Civic Association, said that people come to see Philadelphia's history in the daytime, and so the lights and flash of the signs that would be allowed under the proposed ordinance – which he said would shine into people's homes – wouldn't be seen by most visitors.
At night when the lights are visible, there's no one on Market Street, he said.
That, DiCicco said, is exactly the point. The ability to have the glitzy signs would attract new businesses, he said, and those businesses would bring people.
City Council can vote on the ordinance as soon as its June 16 meeting.
Contact the reporter at kgates@planphilly.com.
- About
- News
- Neighborhoods
- Issues
- Praxis Projects
- Event
- Design Matters
- Participate
Comments
East Market Street could use some revitalization, but I don't know of any examples where junking up a commercial corridor with unsightly signs has lead to increased demand for space and major building revitalization. It works the other way around - once there is a market demand for space on East Market Street it will be revitalized and then the new tenants will want to advertise their services. The tail wouldn't wag the dog.
It's a good idea to glitz up Market East here in Philadelphia for the following reasons. When ever we look at the history of Market East it was a center of shopping becuase it was the Philadelphia version of time square; therefore it is appropriate to add glitz to Market East not only to attract life and vitality to the are but to be true to the history of the street as a shopping center.
There are some who criticize adding glitz to Market East however though they are true to the loyalty of Philadelphia's historical heritage they have lost the true sense of what made Market East special; it was always an exciting cutting edge place to come and shop. Philadelphia must not be so true to its history that the city becomes a museum an is afraid to be bright and the center of attraction.
The Philadelphia of 1776 was an attractive and acciting place that made people want to come from all over the world; it was not a quiet, sleep town that never moved beyond the time of Governor Printz or William Penn; but it was a vibrant city of that time; so shall Philadelphia be now and Market East must be glitzy and lead the way instead of dealing in the past and being sad and only remember the past when it was just as attractive as Time Square.
What are you guys talking about?
There is absolutely ZERO real historic farbic in this area, as long as they limit the signs from 12th to 7th street
This area is horrible
Im completely for it
Google Street Market east and tell me WHY we should keep the area the way it is from 12th to 7th
For once I actually feel proud that something is at least progessing in Philadelphia. SCRUB should feel like a bunch of scrubs for trying to block this bill to try to re-create life into Market East. As for SCRUB's claim that allowing large signs will take away from the historic fabric of Market East, just check out this link for old photos of what Market East was http://ilovebricks.blogspot.com/2009_10_01_archive.html
In my opinion, the creation of the Gallery killed what was Market Street east of city hall in the link above. Then groups like SCRUB came along in 1991 and killed any hope for returning Market Street into what it once was since the founders of SCRUB got the rules changed to favor what they want.
If the Gallery was never built, Market East would currently have buildings that sport updated large signs some which would have been historic. Just look at what's left with the historic world famous P.S.F.S. logo. This bill just fix the short sighted bill from 1991 that was intended to fix a blight problem in poor areas of the city. The 1991 bill put a restrictive blanket ban all over Philly with little consideration for what once was on Market East.
The full city council should vote to pass this bill and feel proud that they are contributing to creating new history. Hopefully our grand kids and their grand kids don't make the same mistakes that groups like SCRUB by helping to destroy the historic fabric of Market East by taking away the very "historic fabric that people who visited Philadelphia in the 50's and 60's came to associate Market East with", the regions main shopping hub that sported glitzy lights at night and large signs.
The new Market East can sport places that visitors can spend money at and local residents can have a job with. These places can be themed to represent Philly.
Hershey is from PA. just to our west, how come we don't have a "Hershey" flagship on Market East near the convention center with a large Hershey kiss or Hershey bar as an iconic sign from the top of the store?
What about a "Turkey Hill Store"?
What about a "Tasty Kake" flagship store sporting a large tasty kake icon?
What about a pretzel outlet with a large classic Philly soft pretzel iconic sign above the store?
How about a Universal Studios themed store since Philly's own Comcast owns Universal Studios?
How about a themed music and entertaiment store/restaurant/museum reflecting Dick Clark and American Bandstand?
How about a "Mummers Store"?
How about a "With Love Philadelphia XOXO" visitor store?
How about a "Madame Tussauds" dedicated to famous Philadelphians?
How about the owners of Toys R. Us use or purchase the naming rights to the old Kiddie City toy store and open a flagship style toy store named after the famous Kiddie City from 11th and Market?
There's more than enough things that can develop from allowing Market East to market itself as an iconic place that reflect Philadelphia's past and its bright future. These are all family friendly things that would be unique to Philadelphia and a tourist trap for out of towners.
Philly need a little glitz and bright lights to remind us what we should be proud of.
I think this is a fantastic idea. As long as no historic properties are physically compromised by the addition of signage, then I don't see they problem. New signs that generate much needed revenue are much better than dusty dollar stores and dark alcoves. Additionally, folks who like history often also appreciate night life. Lets not get up in arms and act like they are installing signs some place like Elfreth's Alley.
The place for this is here, our historic corridor of consumerism. This is where people shop, have shopped, and will shop, and unlike West Market or JFK, it is a space in need of a commercial makeover. Every street is a "gateway" to Philadelphia's historic core, but that doesn't mean that Market East should be dressed up in Colonial drag or turned into something it never was, or worse, stay as it is. I'm so tired of the argument that history is Philadelphia's brand and that we need to preserve what tourists have come to expect from Philadelphia. Do you know what they've come to expect? They've come to expect Market East, because Market East is the street that ferries them to our history. When they think Philadelphia, they think: Dollar Stores, The Gallery, the Girard Trust Block, the Disney Hole. None of that will change without addressing Market East. This plan doesn't affect historic buildings and it puts $10M into development for every project. If someone has a more logical, rational, or lucritive solution, I haven't heard it. I'll I've heard is idealists dragging their feet to stymie progress offering absolutely no alternative. There is nothing quiant, historic, or cultural about these blocks of Market East. Let them be what they were designed to be hundreds of years ago.
Hear, hear!
Personally, I weep at the irony that nowhere but the Market corridor is Philly's neglect of its history more evident--here we find far too many examples of disregard (Lit Bros, Strawbridges) and outright destruction (Gimbels, the Arcade Building, all of 10th-12th, and on and on) of the historic fabric of what was once the most significant street in the city. There are but a few remaining nods to history to be found on Market (City Hall, Reading Terminal, PSFS; any others?), and they are easily drowned out by the volume of junk buildings and parkings lots that greet visitors to the city. Let's not pretend for a second that the proposed changes would endanger the Philly History Brand, such as it is; the historic significance of these blocks was long ago lost.
I agree with Ms. Reed. East Market is the doorway to the historic old city area, and putting high-tech glitz on that doorway would be incongruent. There is a place for this and that would be JFK Blvd or West Market near the Comcast building. This would complement that buildings lobby (attraction) nicely, but disturb the flow of the east sides historic feel.
Give me a break. Market East's historic character was snuffed out by the unforesighted demolition of such assets as the former Gimbel Brothers, Snellenburg's, and Frank & Seder buildings long ago, and then snuffed out again when its other major defining characteristic--its signs--was outlawed ca. 1991. Market East today is hardly historic; rather it's a constellation of lucky surviving assets in a mass of bleakly modernist urban fabric.
Signs are Market East's historic fabric, as they are London's Piccadilly Circus', New York's Herald Square's (too far south for the theater district), Chicago's Loop Retail's, Toronto's Yonge-Dundas, Boston's Downtown Crossing's, and just about every other city's commercial district's all around the world. Heck, even the Galeries Lafayette announces itself with large signage along Haussmann Boulevard in Paris, and that city is certainly not known for its signs!
Market East is a commercial center and a tourist gateway. Why, then, doesn't it look like one? Why doesn't it feel like a place to go shop? Why do we have to pander to the aesthetic of Independence Mall and Old City in what should, above all else, the densest part of Philadelphia's urban core? We're a living city, and we want to reflect that and not just make everything look like it's fresh out of 1776. In any event, most of Market East was actually undeveloped in 1776, so the colonial aesthetic is a false aesthetic anyway.
And don't even get me started on that Hopkinson House B.S. ...the thing was built and spent most its life with large signs on Market East. The present condition is a historic aberration, and opposition to this bill seeks to keep it that way.
Give me a break, the damage has already long been done to that section of the city. Have fun with the historic Disney hole and prison-esque blank wall of the Gallery.
The Marekets Street corridor between 7th and 11th Streets is just scary to walk at night. There is nothoing open and the only thing on the streets are bums lurking in doorways ready to pounce on the unsuspecting sap walking down the street.
The storess in this area are nothing but low end junk shops pusihing cheep items that attract the crowds from North and West Philly, which discourages many upscale people from visiting the area. O n a typical Saturday or Sunday one can experience the displeasure of an amplified speech from some bizare religous or political sect or witness the ravings of some crack induced jackass. This area in no way is the corridor to the historic district. It is nothing more than crappy retail stores that are in a series of building that are falling apart due to absentee landloards. tear the damn thing down and light up the area.
Replacing these buildings will provide lighting and and safety to many of the pedestrians. It will also likely attract some new restaurants and business that can operate at night without the fear of a robbery. It may also connect the historic social district witht he center city social district. It also wouldn't hurt SEPTA to be able to drop passengers just a half block away from some decent social establishments.
While I agree that this bill would do great things for Market East, I have serious issues with your assesment..
It is still Center City. There is nothing unsafe about Market East. The religious cults yelling through their megaphones have nothing to do with the street or its current condition. They are there simply because this is a large city, and they will be there no matter what happens to the street. Every major city has that in its core. Also, this bill is not going to tear anything down, or replace any buildings. It will simply allow current, and future, buildings to erect new types of signage.
As for your comment about robbery. This is one of the safest areas of the city. I highly doubt ANY of the business along the corridor are so concerned with being robbed they would move from the street.
There are AMPLE stops along the corridor from SEPTA buses, trolleys, and subways. NJ Transit also makes several stops along the corridor, and the bus terminal is but blocks away.
While a bill like this is neccesary to bring Market East back into the prominence it once held, your fear mongering helps no one.