Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting featured three information-only presentations of proposed developments that all face either community opposition or serious questions from commission members about each project's suitability.
205 Race St.
Jeff Brown, of Brown-Hill Development, presented a large mixed-use project at the corner of Second and Race streets.
The development is meant to “speak to the Race Street pier” and would represent the first major project along Race Street completed after the pier opening earlier this year.
According to architect Thomas Gluck, the project would include 150,000 square feet of ground-floor retail space at the foot of 122 mid-income rental apartments, ranging from studios to two bedrooms.
The proposal also calls for about 12,500 square feet of below-ground retail space and would satisfy city parking requirements by providing off-site parking at a location that still needs to be determined.
Gluck said the developer was looking for a major anchor tenant, like a supermarket, to take up the retail space.
In an effort to maintain the low-rise, rowhouse feel of Race Street, the portion of the building fronting it would be 52 feet tall. The large mass of the building would be along the Ben Franklin Bridge, where the structure would rise to 178 feet.
“It's hard to pull this off,” Gluck admitted, adding that he tried to respect the historic nature of Race by emulating the neighboring rowhouses. On Second Street, the structure would transition to a contemporary curtain wall.
Gluck's assurances that the project respects Old City's historic character haven't satisfied the local civic or preservation advocates.
Joe Schiavo of the Old City Civic Association said that, though his group hasn't taken a formal vote on the proposal, the building's height represented an “overbuildup” of the area.
“It would simply be the tallest building in Old City,” he said, noting that most of the surrounding buildings are only four to six stories tall.
Schiavo objected to the fact that the building would block views of the Ben Franklin and that the developer would end up being compliant with different aspects of the current and proposed zoning codes. Schiavo essentially wants the developer to pick one set of rules to follow.
And John Gallery of the Preservation Alliance of Greater Philadelphia continued the criticism, saying the project “is clearly not compatible with a historic district.” Gallery echoed Schiavo in asking the Planning Commission to enforce its policy to require developers to pick one set of zoning rules to follow, rather than selecting from both.
And though commissioner Nancy Rogo Trainer said that “there's a lot to like” about the project, she had concerns about the setback of the development's large central tower from Race Street, asking the developer to look at moving it back farther so “it doesn't loom so much.”
She and deputy mayor Alan Greenberger, who chairs the commission, also had questions about where parking would go.
521-31 S. Broad St.
This project arose out of a request for proposals issued by the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corp. last year to develop a vacant parcel of land at Broad and South streets.
The city's economic development arm wants a mixed-use development for the site ― a condition that Thomas Chapman, an attorney for RFP winner Dranoff Development Co., said the new project meets.
The development would feature 98,000 square feet of retail space with 30 underground parking spaces accessible from South Street and truck loading on Rodman Street.
The building would rise four stories on South and seven stories on Broad Street. A previous proposal, which would have included a park and a higher structure on South Street, was rejected due to neighborhood concerns about the building's height.
Dranoff is also looking at putting in an awning that would provide shelter to the adjacent Broad Street Line subway entrance, Chapman said.
Because the lot is zoned both residential and commercial in a way Chapman argued would prevent the requested mixed-use development, he is pushing a spot-zoning ordinance sponsored by Councilman Frank DiCicco that would eliminate the need for a variance. The ordinance would also make the Planning Commission's approved plan for the site binding.
The bill is slated for a hearing before City Council's rules committee Nov. 1, and Chapman said the developer plans on seeking approval for the plan at the commission's Nov. 15 meeting.
Neighbors on Rodman Street, which is largely residential with three-story rowhomes, turned out to oppose the project.
David Fante, an architect who lives on the block, said that “the building will loom over ours.”
He wants Dranoff to remove a story from the South Street side and put it on Broad Street ― though Chapman said doing that would be economically unfeasible because it would make the project a high rise, increasing costs.
Fante's wife, Angela, said that the building's height was “disrespectful” to the character of the neighborhood and argued that Dranoff was pursuing the ordinance because the Zoning Board of Adjustment would never grant the project the necessary variances.
Rogo Trainer said that the residents “have some very good points,” and she and Greenberger asked for more information on how the building relates to its surroundings for the next presentation.
3400 Market St.
The University City Science Center presented a conceptual plan to place a high-rise research and office building on a parking lot that it has owned for over 30 years.
The current proposal calls for a 17-floor structure with a mechanical penthouse that rises 282 feet.
The structure would feature a 15 foot setback on the first floor, with space for retail. Floors two through four extending out to the property line and forming a base with aluminum windows. The upper floors would pull back from the street and form a tower.
At this point ― though no anchor tenant has been selected for the structure and the project has no development timeline ― architect Chris Stoddard said the Science Center envisions the lower floors as a mix of classroom and office space. The upper floors would be a combination of laboratories and office space. That mix could change depending on the tenant.
The project would require a floor area ratio variance.
Greenberger called the windows on the lower-level portion of the proposed structure “fairly stingy” and suggested the Science Center work with Planning Commission staff to refine its proposal into something more friendly to the area's urban fabric.
“Let's get the parameters straight,” Greenberger said.
Rogo Trainer and vice chairman Joseph Syrnick also expressed concerns with the project's current incarnation, with Syrnick saying the architect's presentation made the building seem better than it actually would be.
Contact the reporter at acampisi@planphilly.com











Comments
Good luck finding that. Once you get out, you'll find it isn't much better elsewhere, so don't bother looking in Kansas City, Chicago, DC proper, Cleveland, Baltimore, Hartford, St Louis, North Jersey, Buffalo, New Orleans, sometimes Boston, and on and on...all places where I've worked on development projects and had the same problem. Sorry, Portland is full.
The issue isn't that Philadelphia is a backwards city, it's that new development of an area where people already live (and are happy) can be traumatic. People want to be here, and that sometimes causes problems for those who are already here.
One study says that 80% of Americans oppose new development ( http://saintindex.info/ ) and from my professional experience, that sounds about right. Beaurocracy? It's the same everywhere, unless you think Houston or Las Vegas are World Cities of The Future that will attract the type of young people who want to contribute anything. Try talking to a developer (or cabbie, for that matter) in Boston about city regulations.
ps: I'm frustrated by these NIMBYs too, but it is NOT unique to this city.
Thats interesting to hear. I guess since i have not lived in other cities, I didn't realize its not unique to Philly. I wonder what the stats were for Americans disapproving of development during the city boom across American where everyone was racing to build.
I guess Im just young... but I see Philly as an amazing place to live, but failure to develope eye soars is going to hurt our city. Failure to build anything more than town homes across the city will make Philly stagnate. I guess the people that live in Philly and have lived here for a long time like the image Philly has and doesn't want to have it change.
Being in my late 20s, I simply want to live somewhere that has energy in the air. That's why I moved to Northern Liberties. There is so much change here. So much revival. So many high spirits. Its invigorating and inspiring. As a researcher, I need to feel that energy. I think people who make the most change in the world are drawn to such energy. If Philly opposes development at every turn, we will never generate the energy needed to attract those world changers, or to keep them here!
Good luck finding that. Once you get out, you'll find it isn't much better elsewhere, so don't bother looking in Kansas City, Chicago, DC proper, Cleveland, Baltimore, Hartford, St Louis, North Jersey, Buffalo, New Orleans, sometimes Boston, and on and on...all places where I've worked on development projects and had the same problem. Sorry, Portland is full.
The issue isn't that Philadelphia is a backwards city, it's that new development of an area where people already live (and are happy) can be traumatic. People want to be here, and that sometimes causes problems for those who are already here.
One study says that 80% of Americans oppose new development ( http://saintindex.info/ ) and from my professional experience, that sounds about right. Beaurocracy? It's the same everywhere, unless you think Houston or Las Vegas are World Cities of The Future that will attract the type of young people who want to contribute anything. Try talking to a developer (or cabbie, for that matter) in Boston about city regulations.
ps: I'm frustrated by these NIMBYs too, but it is NOT unique to this city.
Good luck finding that. Once you get out, you'll find it isn't much better elsewhere, so don't bother looking in Kansas City, Chicago, DC proper, Cleveland, Baltimore, Hartford, St Louis, North Jersey, Buffalo, New Orleans, sometimes Boston, and on and on...all places where I've worked on development projects and had the same problem.
The issue isn't that Philadelphia is a backwards city, it's that new development of an area where people already live (and are happy) can be traumatic. People want to be here, and that sometimes causes problems for those who are already here.
One study says that 80% of Americans oppose new development: http://saintindex.info/ and from my professional experience, that sounds about right. Beaurocracy? It's the same everywhere, unless you think Houston or Las Vegas are World Cities of The Future.
another NIMBY is suffocating revival of the city. I live in the neighborhood and an empty lot at 2nd and Race is everlasting eysore. Developer who has guts to develop in these tough time should be thanked many times over. This city will never get off the ground because of proliferate bureaucracy apparent at this meeting
I would heartily encourage all of you with frustrations about NIMBYs in your neighborhoods to show up to Planning Commission and ZBA meetings to voice your own equally valid feelings about why these projects provide huge benefits to your neighborhoods. I don't live near any of these 3 projects specifically, and for better or worse, people are quick to dismiss anyone who does not appear to be directly affected by a given proposal. The pros you might list for 205 race, for example, far outweigh esoteric concerns about views and height: it includes room for a supermarket, an amenity that, if provided, would all but eliminate the need for car ownership in this neighborhood, making it more livable, walkable, and providing a healthy food source (granted the area is not a food desert per se, but it is striking that one of hte city's most affluent neighborhoods lacks a real grocery). the project also reduces vacancy, promotes infill, reinforces recent public investments in the waterfront, creates a gateway to the area visible from the bridge, the highway, and the waterfront. All of these notions are supported in the city's new Comprehensive Plan, something that should resonate with the commissioners if it is to be taken seriously. Same goes for broad and south: advances TOD, reinforces public investment in Ave of the Arts, mixes uses, etc, etc. Arguing about parking or height is distracting from the real wins and the real point. I would strongly encourage all of you sick to death of this kind of opposition to attend future meetings and share this type of input. decision-makers need to be reminded that people like Mr. Schiavo are not the singular voice of a neighborhood.
OK Philadelphia. I think I am ready to leave this city. I am getting my PhD in Neuroscience. As soon as I am done, I want to move to a city that does not fight tooth and nail about development. Olde city and South street are both in the "center city" area and yet, they still complain about the height of buildings. I have continued to see construction projects be crushed because of height restrictions. Are we still living in the era of Billy Penn's height-restricting hat? Our city needs growth and I am just so incredibly frustrated when I see so many people objecting to development in our city. If we are to build small town homes across the city, we will fail to be a city. We need imagination. We need excitement. We need passion. Of course we also need continuity amongst neighborhoods and the projects that are built in those neighborhoods, but if we continue to fight large projects, then youth will not be attracted to Philadelphia. Youth like me. I love Philly, but seeing its people always fight against tall buildings just makes me want to leave. I will have my PhD in 3-4 years. When I get it, I will say good bye to my home town and seek out a city where passion and inspiration drives the development of a world-class city.
Dear Mr. Fried, so leave already. I chose to live in Philly 22 years ago (paying taxes all these years into City coffers) because this city is scaled for pedestrians and home owners. At Broad and South, from day one, neighbors who own homes attached to this soon to be developed parcel have asked why the height -- as tall as they want to go -- can't all go on Broad Street (currently zoned C-4, just for that) and keep whatever goes along South Street consistent with current zoning (R-10, 35 feet, 3 stories) to rebuild what was once there: 3 story row homes.
The crazy dream these folks once had was all the height on Broad (8 to 10 stories or more) with an underground garage with its roof on South Street, and this roof be made as a green roof/park at grade with public access during building business hours. This is too visionary, and others might say 'expensive,' for the short pants in the crowd Philadelphia.
So your argument is ill informed and thus specious.
Resident at Broad and South
It seems like you want what is best for yourself over what is best for the city as a whole. How American!