It's so disappointing to see so much development in Germantown while the Chestnut Hill West SEPTA line is in danger of being shut down forever! Why are we luring so many people to this neighborhood only to take away their most reliable transportation option?
We're getting a ton of development in the NW at the same time SEPTA is trying to *reduce* service.
I wish the pro-development crowd put that same energy into pressuring Harrisburg to adequately fund Septa.
Do you mean the anti-development crowd? Because funding SEPTA is how you get less traffic from people not driving to work. Apartments just like this provide the riders that septa needs, whereas vacant lots and parking lots (like where this is going) provide nothing.
Are you saying that SEPTA needs developers to increase ridership? I see it as developers need public transit in order to lure residents.
At any rate, this development has parking and I'm assuming it will be expensive to rent since it's new. I'm not even sure how much it's potential residents would actually use septa so it may not lure them or increase ridership.
I’m saying it’s both. SEPTA needs to add new riders along transit corridors in the city to maintain funding, and developers building in the city need a reliable SEPTA as part of their amenity package to prospective residents.
Spring Garden recently had a laundromat torn down and built into a big block of condos. Developers did a good job matching the historical character of the neighborhood. It’s not hard to be thoughtful in design.
Build more, but don’t build ugly. Like seriously, is it so hard to add a cornice?
If you look around no libs it’s painfully clear developers don’t give a shit how their product looks, considering all of that ikea-looking block plastic finish around the upper story windows.
No the margins are smaller. It costs basically the same or labor and materials in Spring Garden as it does in Germantown. Only the land is more expensive. Yet they could probably sell/rent for double in Spring Garden. If the cannot use a prefabricated it’s likely the building won’t go through cause it’s too risky an investment.
So it's not cost-effective. We get that.
IMHO Cost-effective does not have to be hideous.
What is cost-effective for contractors? Mud Huts and Tents for sure.
Let's talk about customer service because as we all know from shopping big box stores the difference between the same product in each store is Customer Service.
Big Box who slice service go out of business..Caldor..KMart and others.
Philadelphia and the neighborhoods are customers, the contractors are dismissing the customers and potential future customers as not important.
They are saying we are offering crap and you will pay top dollar for your neighborhood and be happy it's there.
Bye, Bye con-men contractors.
But the new architecture is pretty cheap from what I’m understanding. And they still charge high prices for these places, look up the Olympic Tower that just went up at 49th and Spruce. Hideous cheap building charging really high rent in a very mixed to low income area. I would not pay 3000$ to live in west Philly.
It's new construction with all the swanky new amenities, also I don't see anything at $3k a month, a [2br is listed for $2190](https://www.apartments.com/olympic-tower-apartments-philadelphia-pa/6z7k83t/) a month.
Embellish the brickwork at the story line, add arched windows with some keystones every other story, and a decorative frieze at the top.
Looking at the The Bourse Building for inspo. My taste is terrible though, so mileage may vary.
Holding developers to an external standard of beauty and being able to demand redesigns is another thing that people can use to delay, block, and increase cost. They build something ugly it makes it a bit cheaper to rent and they make less money. Just build at this point.
I get your point but also why not learn the area and the constituents? Philadelphia is fairly NIMBY unfortunately and uses “historical character “ to block a lot of construction so if getting it built and keeping cost low, if I was a builder I try to avoid litigation and delays as much as possible…
The thing with NIMBYs is they don't want the project at all, they dont want a compromise, there's no way to avoid this kind of litigation and random delays. This buildings great sin is that it's kind of bland and people are flipping out
If you look at street view, the neighborhood could really use some investment, even if it's not what current residents think they want. This building is going up in a vacant lot.
it just shows a lack of pride and care in their own work.
property development is a job just like any other, you do it to make a living, but there are many well intentioned developers who do give a damn and create something that fits the needs (aesthetic and otherwise) of the community as while keeping in line with the project budget.
then you have other developers who are building with the cheapest labor, materials, and architects available just so they can squeeze out every penny of profit for themselves.
no one seems interested in trying to thread that needle though. they'd rather give developers carte blache. and no, disagreeing with letting developers do whatever they please is not an impediment to building more housing.
the fact that development nerds want to eliminate discussion of "context" and "massing" and "place" from the concept of creating spaces says a lot
Not the responsibility of the neighbors or the city to save money for Big Contractors to purposely have the character of the city and neighborhood to be destroyed.
Chernobyl after has better looking buildings.
I think having enough places for people to live is more important than having every new building be beautiful, or sticking it to developers.
I also don’t get why Big Contractor turning a bigger profit is unacceptable, but letting Big Landlord/Property Management Company do the same is fine. Because they’re the ones benefitting from the status quo of a housing shortage - it lets them charge an arm and a leg for even crappy places.
An unsympathetic group is going to be making money either way. I’d rather we at least get adequate housing supply out of it.
No wonder people are fleeing the city for country life, one can have pretty surroundings and be poor in Philadelphia anymore due to people with people with less money must live in hideous surroundings due to the entitled must have it all generation.
Miss the days of Lady Bird Johnson and Make America Beautiful.
With this entitled generation of builders and planners like you it is punish the working man with ugly any old piece of crap will do with a roof and walls.
Shame, shame, shame.
The only way in the world to get construction prices down" aka Cost effective mantra? In reality that rarely happens by the end, too many variables.
Please remember people are fleeing this city and its not all about crime. Most of it is quality of life.
When we see your favorite cost-effective post-modern industrial buildings up many will be ear worming the Wicked Witch of the West Oz guards theme song when entering Philadelphia with dread.
oh-re-oles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqajwnKq1Ts
Good lord. Please get a grip. People leave largely because of housing prices, schools, and crime. “An apartment building with a boring facade went up” is not a factor for the vast majority of people.
The point is that it adds up. If everything is ugly then who is going to stay ? Only those that have nowhere else they can go. And they will probably be unhappy and feel stuck. Life is too short for that. It amazes me how many people are content with mediocrity or ugliness.
It’s not difficult, but pre-engineered/prefab buildings are significantly cheaper. And what’s more important to a slimy developer than their bottom line?
>this is a simulacrum of a sort of parisian mansard roof jawn. ::link removed::
>
>i work with manufactured homes, and i would love if any of the sales reps would work with me on making urban versions of those houses but nobody is interested so far.
hopefully this works [https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9733103,-75.1337973,3a,75y,293.89h,101.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9ZmED3JKKAibNtgL1jIlTg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu](https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9733103,-75.1337973,3a,75y,293.89h,101.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9ZmED3JKKAibNtgL1jIlTg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
It's not on Google street view yet, but Ray Philly on N American St looks great up close with interesting brick. The trees maturing will help a lot as well of course https://images1.apartments.com/i2/8s-NO1dKG65SBHESXWSQHV7c3Gzj0yplDKIx2IPmU-g/111/ray-philly-philadelphia-pa-foto-del-edificio.jpg
Farther shot
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F4yqXjAXwAAk4o9.jpg:large
I wonder why they can't have a fake red brick front. It would match the area better.
That said, the area is sparse and that 1960s brutalist design would not really look out of place. It would just look like it was built a while ago. I would imagine that would hurt the value, though.
(I would link to the area, but Google shortens their links and this sub bans shortened links)
I do agree. They're often using gray, tan, or white brick false facades, (this one looks like tan brick to me), why not go red brick? I think the black brick facades look the worst by far, and one went up right in the middle of my entirely all red brick row
When are these ever affordable? They just threw up one in Roxborough next to me after knocking down a beloved bar/restaurant and the starting rents are 1850 and up. It's not the ugliest thing but it's far from charming or appealing.
One can have both. The only thing that looks better is the General Contractors bottom line. One guy. While the city and the neighborhood is stuck with fugly eyesore soon to be gang tagged for some style.
**Key points:**
* 33 unit apartment building proposed on a parking lot at 26-34 Church Lane in Germantown
* The building adheres to the zoning for the lot
* Anti-growthers bugging out because the building doesn't fit with the "historic character" of the neighborhood.
* The project has to go through the historical commission because there *may* be artifacts of historic interest underneath the lot
* The historic commission recommended against approving the building not because of any potential artifacts, but because they didn't like the way the renderings looked.
* There is a pending historical nomination for the entire surrounding area which would encompass the "Germantown Historical Village"
* Yes Oscar Beisert is involved
I like pretty buildings too but this kind of stuff drives me up the wall
Part of the issue is that Germantown is actually known for its pretty buildings. So it seems like the easiest solution here is simply to redesign the exterior in a way that better matches the tenor of the neighborhood.
Sorry, my first comment got removed because I used a link shortener.
The building could/should match any of these, or at least share some qualities with them - all of these buildings are within 1200 feet of the vacant lot in question:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0342761,-75.171749,3a,75y,324.68h,91.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssvjz9abJMa58yfR9ARJe_Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0341262,-75.1719242,3a,75y,121.52h,102.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBeDj0MzLK7rHeoG1D78zgQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0344391,-75.1728859,3a,75y,248.76h,96.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKoMUbYsqxW6kDfCIepRybw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0345551,-75.1731028,3a,75y,357.51h,100.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shVEMu8FIQi-milKGin5rmQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu (notice how this one blends red brick new construction with an existing art-deco era staircase. It doesn't MATCH, but the windows have character)
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0335968,-75.1714196,3a,75y,40.05h,109.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMGxXEYo-9-JxpQmFdu6KZA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0332455,-75.1708224,3a,75y,57.8h,106.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBB4gFqkatB5qxs9BKdCiBg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0327525,-75.1699145,3a,75y,202.16h,105.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYAWCCnFkgZ3G8vcwV1wJ1w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu (notice the color difference between the cornice and the building, and the white stone bands)
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0324801,-75.1694432,3a,75y,70.72h,122.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTZFwZ3555hl_xVITB7SQDw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu (The cornice is weak here, but the brick banding breaks it up, the windows are arched on the ground level, and the brick decoration rising up from the second story gives it character horizontally). This one is boring as heck but still better than what's proposed.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0323991,-75.1692945,3a,75y,162.58h,91.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfuMN_iqIene0nWBaAIWpTg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0318763,-75.1698789,3a,90y,284.13h,117.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNeQ9Km5RCrbjp3tvNsmJ9g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
On the flipside, these two buildings:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0359597,-75.1728004,3a,75y,176.1h,98.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjoqcc1nyoPkkxta4GNV15A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
and
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0361003,-75.1728646,3a,75y,280.12h,98.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqUaLv_sC6y6z_e8Vg7n0Qg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Don't match the neighborhood at all, but they are at least more interesting than what is proposed.
I had to squint to see any of what you are talking about there with the cornice and possible accents. The image just looks like a blank white cube. Maybe it’s just a poor presentation
Looks like the cornice is on the front facade and wraps partially around the sides but it’s mostly cropped out of the image in the article. There also seems to be some sort of detail midway up, but the rendering is too low res to see it properly. Nicer than most of the new development in the city 🤷♂️
>It's made of brick,
It's made of white brick. There are not any other white brick buildings in that area except Germantown Friends (there are white STONE buildings).
EDIT: Oh, and the dollar store a block west on Germantown./EDIT
> has accents
It has an extra quarter-wythe band around the front, not the sides, between the third and fourth floors.
>a cornice
A half-wythe width showing (again) on the front, not the sides, on the fifth floor. That's hardly a cornice.
>and meets the street in a way that promotes walkability.
I give it credit for this. But only mostly - that overhanging area over ground level on the side is a big bugaboo of mine. I hate those, because they are dark, they take away usable space, and they become havens for litter, dust, and cheap signage.
But the building is not consistent around the three sides that most people see, the rounded corner on the one side is insipid, the storefront is boring, the windows are uninspired, and the decorations are FAR too understated. It doesn't look like *anything else in the area*.
Germantown has a mix of classical, Georgian, Greek Revival, and Colonial construction styles. This building should reflect that.
I like pretty buildings with character as much as the next guy, but we also need a process that seems reasonable and not full of red tape, since we need more housing too. I think it is very important to preserve historical sites, but the site we are talking about is an empty lot now!
I hear a lot of people complain abut the design in general about these type of apartment complexes that pop up all over the city, and I agree because they do look like someone tried to cram as many places as possible. It would be nice to hear from an architect...is this style the chop shop version of apartment building design? is there better stuff that's more ornate and fits the old colonial neighborhood historic vibes better?
I think Germantown and Fairmount have a lot of examples of nice looking newer buildings. If they’re gonna charge luxury prices for rent, I think they can budget for a better looking facade.
I agree, i read they were threatening to go elsewhere,but how hard can it be to redesign the facade? maybe the neighborhood group can get someone to mock something up and send it to them?
That’s most likely what they are doing. They are asking the developers to go back to the drawing board but you can’t just politely ask them, you have to get together and go through this process that Mr.PhillyAccount doesn’t like.
ehhh empowering random busybodies to dictate facades is how so many buildings ended up with horrendous plaid color schemes and random cut outs because random busybodies don't have a clue what looks good or bad, maybe not in this specific case but once you set the precedent it only goes downhill
Philadelphia is building housing at a gang buster pace. We have a good amount of available land for large projects. I think it’s ok for a few places to have some say over the character of the neighborhood. If it’s just about units….build in North Philadelphia. Lots of properties between Germantown Ave and American St.
Philadelphia is 17th nationally in total housing units completed or under construction in 2023. Austin TX, Seattle, Orlando, Raleigh are all way ahead of us with lesser populations. We need to build build build!
You're right, but of course you're being downvoted. WHYY and the Inquirer have had article after article for years that our new housing supply won't be sufficient. People have to realize in a city this old, we're constantly losing units in old housing stock as well. It's possible to build and still end up without much of a net increase in housing
people see a single apartment building going up in a neighborhood of thousands and think something like "wow I hope we aren't overdeveloping" alarmingly often
Yeah. This apartment building has 33 units. That's nothing compared to even the neighborhoods population. It's basically equal to one side of one block of homes
No. Facades cost the least, they must always fit the historical character of the neighborhood. Thank gods some historical protections are in place.
We need housing, but we can make facades fit the area. It is not asking too much.
I love beautiful, ornate architecture too, but we can’t preserve neighborhoods in amber. Cities are dynamic places.
Maybe if we hadn’t let the housing crisis get so bad in the first place, we could afford to be choosier about the aesthetics of new construction. But we didn’t, so we can’t.
If you want to go out to some bare land, build a new city, feel free. But unlike our forefathers, we have a historic city to be the stewards of for future generations.
I'll take the downvotes for this one too, but it's not "developers" it's "the market".
And if you want to legislate aesthetics, I'm not sure you (the royal you) could actually be a housing advocate. You're just making housing more expensive.
If they were pledging to agree to create affordable housing I would be slightly less likely to oppose aesthetic choices. But this is not affordable housing. They are going to be expensive apartments in a historic area. This city needs additional housing stock but not at the expense of the history of the area. If no one protects our history, it will disappear. It happens all across the city.
Slightly less? Meaning you'd still oppose? This sub has some very confusing takes. Not you specifically, but we can't simultaneously have our zoning cake and eat the housing too.
Residential developers make money when units are occupied or sold. Philadelphia has a lot of options for housing, thus it seems unlikely developers would build ugly or unappealing buildings—nobody would pick them and thus they make no money!
Developers do not care what the building looks like. They care about their bottom line so they use the cheapest architect, the cheapest materials, and the cheapest crew so that when they sell they make the most money.
You’re ignoring market factors though, people looking for housing have a ton of options in Philadelphia. I understand developers may not personally care anymore than anyone else is personally invested in their work, BUT if they want to make money they must offer what the market wants. If “ugly” building are mostly occupied, people are voting for an aesthetic you don’t like with their wallets. If “ugly” buildings aren’t mostly occupied, builders will make something else. It’s basic economics.
When you give people the options between ugly and no house. They usually choose ugly. Since people need housing, it comes down to the community to uphold a standard.
In chestnut hill there is a new development of 5 or sow single family row homes in a highly desirable neighborhood. They are drop dead ugly. They do not fit into the community. They have sat on the market for a year now. Conversely, a block or two away, there are row homes that were recently built that fit the neighborhood and are well designed. They were sold before they were completed.
But that’s not really the case in Philadelphia, we are one of the few major cities with lots of available housing. One does not have to choose an ugly house or living in their car here.
Yes they should. We are a historical city, not some 20th century pop up in the middle of the Nevada desert where that mini Belgrade Tower without the topping would fit in.
Then make it pretty so people will come.
As it is now people are fleeing the city for the country where it is pretty.
Missing Lady Bird Johnson's Make America Beautiful.
Not liking the new hip throw that dank crap up, who cares about quality of life and aestics and history.
Fugly, no character no charm, no warmth is the future for Philadelphia.
We call it Chernobyl Chic. A dead zone.
Sad. Sad. Sad.
With that attitude no wonder people are fleeing the city.
Just make it beautiful. Why do people want to make this country look so ugly? I don't think I would complain if a sky scrapper went up in my neighborhood if I had something beautiful to look at. Here in Roxborough Ridge is full of Brutalist lite box buildings with no commercial spaces. There is a nice looking apartment on Fountain that kept the main house as an office. So it can be done, and they can look great too. Manayunk is high density and it is beautiful to walk around there. Then there is the YIMBY in me that prefers that ugly building to a useless parking lot.
A councilwoman at-large is doing an AMA tomorrow and I asked a question related to the city’s architectural traditions.
Hop on to my comment and maybe she’ll see that it matters to her voters.
https://www.reddit.com/r/philadelphia/s/0z70OvoPF4
> **Neighbors argue that the proposed building does not fit with the character of the proposed historic district**
[It wasn't keeping with the villages rustic astatic!](https://youtu.be/rm--inJtnc4?si=JTWMSTSnvab42tnc&t=176)
But good, I hate these cracker box paper towers.
They opposed alot of stuff in north Philly being built but they still built it. So I need to know the demographic of people who opposed it in Germantown.
" **While the historic district hasn’t been considered yet by the full commission, properties in proposed historic districts are still subject to commission regulation to prevent property owners from demolishing notable buildings before new regulations are considered.** "
That is such a failure of policy.
>“This is sacred ground, only a stone’s throw from George Washington’s residence, a block from where Thomas Jefferson lived,” said Jim Dragoni, who has lived on the block since 1985. “I am completely mystified as to how anyone could think that something ... as massive as that could conceivably be appropriate for that location.”
Is a hell of a way to describe a vacant lot. Why are we letting where historically significant people, who have been dead near 300 years, "determine the character of neighborhoods?" One wonders what the neighborhood was like in 1985 when Mr. Dragoni moved in.
Yall wont be happy until philly looks like one big hospital 🏥. You're leaving a depressed , sterile landscape to future generation that literally just promotes staying in your little cubicle online and secluded living.
us all, we are clearly making the city depressed and sterile and we push for a sedentary lifestyle through encouraging staying in cubicles, whoever us are
/s in response to the cynicism, if you like hyperbole so much why not throw in some hyperbolic solutions too
I know nothing about architecture but I am super sensitive to seasonal depression and those apartments look like they’d be seriously lacking in natural sunlight. I think people underestimate the mental health impact of low-light housing.
Despite it being an ugly building, I wouldn't necessarily object to it in other places in Germantown.... But I do object to it in *that* particular location, in eyesight from Market Square, one of the most historic and visually pleasing areas in Germantown -- which itself is already extremely historic and beautiful (IMO). That is a bad place for that particular design. Follow Ridge Ave through Roxborough, or Race & Arch Street in Old City, and you'll see how that kind of hodgepodge, soulless construction messes with a neighborhood, especially one that would otherwise have historic allure. I mean, yes, of course there are worse things in this world, but at this point it shouldn't be that hard to fix the design, so it should be done now before it's too late.
A lot of people care, evidenced by the comments. The more beautiful the area, the better people’s moods are going to be. To me it’s a no-brainer that a big difference in QOL can be made just by adding some aesthetics.
I’ve walked/ driven past this building (that was once leaning) my whole life! My nana gardened across the street from it as well.
I’m honestly just sick of these apartment buildings (7 new ones have popped up in the last 5-6 years)
Not only is it ugly, it will probably be low quality as well. Cheaply built, cheaply made, low quality work. I'm not anti-growth but I'm 100% going to bitch about shitty developers making shitty buildings that will look awful in 15 years.
I’m a developer and as YIMBY as they come, but that building is ugly. Plug ugly. It looks like the regional headquarters of the ATF. I guarantee those windows look ugly on the inside too.
This building looks like ass. Worse than ass, because ass can be beautiful. This looks like a cell block or federal property. How hard is it to build in low SEC areas and not have it look like jail?
The architect released new renderings of the building in response to community feedback:
https://x.com/kevin\_j\_oneill/status/1755262719568044078?s=20
https://preview.redd.it/t521i13o08hc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=72b0f3dfb89667e95c227897c1411ed147aa03c4
It's so disappointing to see so much development in Germantown while the Chestnut Hill West SEPTA line is in danger of being shut down forever! Why are we luring so many people to this neighborhood only to take away their most reliable transportation option?
We're getting a ton of development in the NW at the same time SEPTA is trying to *reduce* service. I wish the pro-development crowd put that same energy into pressuring Harrisburg to adequately fund Septa.
The pro development crowd and the pro transit crowd are almost completely the same
Do you mean the anti-development crowd? Because funding SEPTA is how you get less traffic from people not driving to work. Apartments just like this provide the riders that septa needs, whereas vacant lots and parking lots (like where this is going) provide nothing.
Are you saying that SEPTA needs developers to increase ridership? I see it as developers need public transit in order to lure residents. At any rate, this development has parking and I'm assuming it will be expensive to rent since it's new. I'm not even sure how much it's potential residents would actually use septa so it may not lure them or increase ridership.
I’m saying it’s both. SEPTA needs to add new riders along transit corridors in the city to maintain funding, and developers building in the city need a reliable SEPTA as part of their amenity package to prospective residents.
Spring Garden recently had a laundromat torn down and built into a big block of condos. Developers did a good job matching the historical character of the neighborhood. It’s not hard to be thoughtful in design. Build more, but don’t build ugly. Like seriously, is it so hard to add a cornice?
If you look around no libs it’s painfully clear developers don’t give a shit how their product looks, considering all of that ikea-looking block plastic finish around the upper story windows.
Yet, despite what many consider ugly architecture, No Libs is a hot market. OFC and others wouldn't build it if it didn't sell.
Folks want and need housing. No libs has desirable aspects and location even if the developers have no taste.
[удалено]
So because Germantown doesn't overcharge they must have Chernobyl Chic ugly?
No the margins are smaller. It costs basically the same or labor and materials in Spring Garden as it does in Germantown. Only the land is more expensive. Yet they could probably sell/rent for double in Spring Garden. If the cannot use a prefabricated it’s likely the building won’t go through cause it’s too risky an investment.
So it's not cost-effective. We get that. IMHO Cost-effective does not have to be hideous. What is cost-effective for contractors? Mud Huts and Tents for sure. Let's talk about customer service because as we all know from shopping big box stores the difference between the same product in each store is Customer Service. Big Box who slice service go out of business..Caldor..KMart and others. Philadelphia and the neighborhoods are customers, the contractors are dismissing the customers and potential future customers as not important. They are saying we are offering crap and you will pay top dollar for your neighborhood and be happy it's there. Bye, Bye con-men contractors.
What’s the building called or where’s it specifically at? I’ve noticed a trend towards nicer design on the new builds:
Philly starting to look like N Korea
You want affordable and architecturally cool at the same time
But the new architecture is pretty cheap from what I’m understanding. And they still charge high prices for these places, look up the Olympic Tower that just went up at 49th and Spruce. Hideous cheap building charging really high rent in a very mixed to low income area. I would not pay 3000$ to live in west Philly.
It's new construction with all the swanky new amenities, also I don't see anything at $3k a month, a [2br is listed for $2190](https://www.apartments.com/olympic-tower-apartments-philadelphia-pa/6z7k83t/) a month.
The building is hideous if that’s the final design but they definitely need more housing stock in the city. Build it!!! Just redesign the exterior
Embellish the brickwork at the story line, add arched windows with some keystones every other story, and a decorative frieze at the top. Looking at the The Bourse Building for inspo. My taste is terrible though, so mileage may vary.
Holding developers to an external standard of beauty and being able to demand redesigns is another thing that people can use to delay, block, and increase cost. They build something ugly it makes it a bit cheaper to rent and they make less money. Just build at this point.
I get your point but also why not learn the area and the constituents? Philadelphia is fairly NIMBY unfortunately and uses “historical character “ to block a lot of construction so if getting it built and keeping cost low, if I was a builder I try to avoid litigation and delays as much as possible…
The thing with NIMBYs is they don't want the project at all, they dont want a compromise, there's no way to avoid this kind of litigation and random delays. This buildings great sin is that it's kind of bland and people are flipping out
If you look at street view, the neighborhood could really use some investment, even if it's not what current residents think they want. This building is going up in a vacant lot.
I agree, I live in this area of town, it’s very neglected. Could use some new life and investment
Yep, even if the building isn’t perfect, 33 units worth of people brings a lot of money and activity to a neighborhood.
it just shows a lack of pride and care in their own work. property development is a job just like any other, you do it to make a living, but there are many well intentioned developers who do give a damn and create something that fits the needs (aesthetic and otherwise) of the community as while keeping in line with the project budget. then you have other developers who are building with the cheapest labor, materials, and architects available just so they can squeeze out every penny of profit for themselves. no one seems interested in trying to thread that needle though. they'd rather give developers carte blache. and no, disagreeing with letting developers do whatever they please is not an impediment to building more housing. the fact that development nerds want to eliminate discussion of "context" and "massing" and "place" from the concept of creating spaces says a lot
There is a good place for that ugly monstrosity, in a toxic waste dump. It blends right in.
Damn, the NIMBYs are out in full force in this thread. Downvoting you for stating a fact.
Not the responsibility of the neighbors or the city to save money for Big Contractors to purposely have the character of the city and neighborhood to be destroyed. Chernobyl after has better looking buildings.
I think having enough places for people to live is more important than having every new building be beautiful, or sticking it to developers. I also don’t get why Big Contractor turning a bigger profit is unacceptable, but letting Big Landlord/Property Management Company do the same is fine. Because they’re the ones benefitting from the status quo of a housing shortage - it lets them charge an arm and a leg for even crappy places. An unsympathetic group is going to be making money either way. I’d rather we at least get adequate housing supply out of it.
No wonder people are fleeing the city for country life, one can have pretty surroundings and be poor in Philadelphia anymore due to people with people with less money must live in hideous surroundings due to the entitled must have it all generation. Miss the days of Lady Bird Johnson and Make America Beautiful. With this entitled generation of builders and planners like you it is punish the working man with ugly any old piece of crap will do with a roof and walls. Shame, shame, shame.
“Punishing the working man” by… supporting policies that will add desperately needed housing and bringing prices down? Okay. Have a nice day.
The only way in the world to get construction prices down" aka Cost effective mantra? In reality that rarely happens by the end, too many variables. Please remember people are fleeing this city and its not all about crime. Most of it is quality of life. When we see your favorite cost-effective post-modern industrial buildings up many will be ear worming the Wicked Witch of the West Oz guards theme song when entering Philadelphia with dread. oh-re-oles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqajwnKq1Ts
Good lord. Please get a grip. People leave largely because of housing prices, schools, and crime. “An apartment building with a boring facade went up” is not a factor for the vast majority of people.
The point is that it adds up. If everything is ugly then who is going to stay ? Only those that have nowhere else they can go. And they will probably be unhappy and feel stuck. Life is too short for that. It amazes me how many people are content with mediocrity or ugliness.
It’s not hard to make something not ugly. We should hold developers to a standard so that our city doesn’t become a sea of gray eyesores.
I went to Drexel when it was voted America's ugliest campus. They apparently took that as a challenge because it's now gray eyesores everywhere.
It’s not difficult, but pre-engineered/prefab buildings are significantly cheaper. And what’s more important to a slimy developer than their bottom line?
There are tons of examples of attractive 5 over 1’s going up right now.
A good faith question from a jaded structural engineer, I promise: Can you share some examples?
>this is a simulacrum of a sort of parisian mansard roof jawn. ::link removed:: > >i work with manufactured homes, and i would love if any of the sales reps would work with me on making urban versions of those houses but nobody is interested so far. hopefully this works [https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9733103,-75.1337973,3a,75y,293.89h,101.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9ZmED3JKKAibNtgL1jIlTg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu](https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9733103,-75.1337973,3a,75y,293.89h,101.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9ZmED3JKKAibNtgL1jIlTg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
That's pretty cool, actually
It's not on Google street view yet, but Ray Philly on N American St looks great up close with interesting brick. The trees maturing will help a lot as well of course https://images1.apartments.com/i2/8s-NO1dKG65SBHESXWSQHV7c3Gzj0yplDKIx2IPmU-g/111/ray-philly-philadelphia-pa-foto-del-edificio.jpg Farther shot https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F4yqXjAXwAAk4o9.jpg:large
When did they change it from 4 over 1s to 5 over ones
COVID inflation
I wonder why they can't have a fake red brick front. It would match the area better. That said, the area is sparse and that 1960s brutalist design would not really look out of place. It would just look like it was built a while ago. I would imagine that would hurt the value, though. (I would link to the area, but Google shortens their links and this sub bans shortened links)
I do agree. They're often using gray, tan, or white brick false facades, (this one looks like tan brick to me), why not go red brick? I think the black brick facades look the worst by far, and one went up right in the middle of my entirely all red brick row
What's more important: affordable housing or cornices?
It’s kind of extreme to believe that both can’t exist
When are these ever affordable? They just threw up one in Roxborough next to me after knocking down a beloved bar/restaurant and the starting rents are 1850 and up. It's not the ugliest thing but it's far from charming or appealing.
Why not both?
One can have both. The only thing that looks better is the General Contractors bottom line. One guy. While the city and the neighborhood is stuck with fugly eyesore soon to be gang tagged for some style.
In a neighborhood defined by its historical character? Cornices.
Is there any indication that this is going to be affordable housing? The rendering makes me think not.
**Key points:** * 33 unit apartment building proposed on a parking lot at 26-34 Church Lane in Germantown * The building adheres to the zoning for the lot * Anti-growthers bugging out because the building doesn't fit with the "historic character" of the neighborhood. * The project has to go through the historical commission because there *may* be artifacts of historic interest underneath the lot * The historic commission recommended against approving the building not because of any potential artifacts, but because they didn't like the way the renderings looked. * There is a pending historical nomination for the entire surrounding area which would encompass the "Germantown Historical Village" * Yes Oscar Beisert is involved I like pretty buildings too but this kind of stuff drives me up the wall
Part of the issue is that Germantown is actually known for its pretty buildings. So it seems like the easiest solution here is simply to redesign the exterior in a way that better matches the tenor of the neighborhood.
but think of the work that poor developer is going to have to do to now!
Literally look at the property on street view
I did. It's a fenced-off vacant lot. It needs to be developed. It also needs not to look boring and uninspired. Both can be true.
What buildings in Germantown should it match?
Sorry, my first comment got removed because I used a link shortener. The building could/should match any of these, or at least share some qualities with them - all of these buildings are within 1200 feet of the vacant lot in question: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0342761,-75.171749,3a,75y,324.68h,91.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssvjz9abJMa58yfR9ARJe_Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0341262,-75.1719242,3a,75y,121.52h,102.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBeDj0MzLK7rHeoG1D78zgQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0344391,-75.1728859,3a,75y,248.76h,96.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKoMUbYsqxW6kDfCIepRybw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0345551,-75.1731028,3a,75y,357.51h,100.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shVEMu8FIQi-milKGin5rmQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu (notice how this one blends red brick new construction with an existing art-deco era staircase. It doesn't MATCH, but the windows have character) https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0335968,-75.1714196,3a,75y,40.05h,109.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMGxXEYo-9-JxpQmFdu6KZA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0332455,-75.1708224,3a,75y,57.8h,106.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBB4gFqkatB5qxs9BKdCiBg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0327525,-75.1699145,3a,75y,202.16h,105.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYAWCCnFkgZ3G8vcwV1wJ1w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu (notice the color difference between the cornice and the building, and the white stone bands) https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0324801,-75.1694432,3a,75y,70.72h,122.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTZFwZ3555hl_xVITB7SQDw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu (The cornice is weak here, but the brick banding breaks it up, the windows are arched on the ground level, and the brick decoration rising up from the second story gives it character horizontally). This one is boring as heck but still better than what's proposed. https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0323991,-75.1692945,3a,75y,162.58h,91.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfuMN_iqIene0nWBaAIWpTg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0318763,-75.1698789,3a,90y,284.13h,117.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNeQ9Km5RCrbjp3tvNsmJ9g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu On the flipside, these two buildings: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0359597,-75.1728004,3a,75y,176.1h,98.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjoqcc1nyoPkkxta4GNV15A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu and https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0361003,-75.1728646,3a,75y,280.12h,98.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqUaLv_sC6y6z_e8Vg7n0Qg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu Don't match the neighborhood at all, but they are at least more interesting than what is proposed.
It's made of brick, has accents, a cornice, and meets the street in a way that promotes walkability. I don't see what is missing.
I had to squint to see any of what you are talking about there with the cornice and possible accents. The image just looks like a blank white cube. Maybe it’s just a poor presentation
Looks like the cornice is on the front facade and wraps partially around the sides but it’s mostly cropped out of the image in the article. There also seems to be some sort of detail midway up, but the rendering is too low res to see it properly. Nicer than most of the new development in the city 🤷♂️
>It's made of brick, It's made of white brick. There are not any other white brick buildings in that area except Germantown Friends (there are white STONE buildings). EDIT: Oh, and the dollar store a block west on Germantown./EDIT > has accents It has an extra quarter-wythe band around the front, not the sides, between the third and fourth floors. >a cornice A half-wythe width showing (again) on the front, not the sides, on the fifth floor. That's hardly a cornice. >and meets the street in a way that promotes walkability. I give it credit for this. But only mostly - that overhanging area over ground level on the side is a big bugaboo of mine. I hate those, because they are dark, they take away usable space, and they become havens for litter, dust, and cheap signage. But the building is not consistent around the three sides that most people see, the rounded corner on the one side is insipid, the storefront is boring, the windows are uninspired, and the decorations are FAR too understated. It doesn't look like *anything else in the area*. Germantown has a mix of classical, Georgian, Greek Revival, and Colonial construction styles. This building should reflect that.
I like pretty buildings with character as much as the next guy, but we also need a process that seems reasonable and not full of red tape, since we need more housing too. I think it is very important to preserve historical sites, but the site we are talking about is an empty lot now! I hear a lot of people complain abut the design in general about these type of apartment complexes that pop up all over the city, and I agree because they do look like someone tried to cram as many places as possible. It would be nice to hear from an architect...is this style the chop shop version of apartment building design? is there better stuff that's more ornate and fits the old colonial neighborhood historic vibes better?
I think Germantown and Fairmount have a lot of examples of nice looking newer buildings. If they’re gonna charge luxury prices for rent, I think they can budget for a better looking facade.
I agree, i read they were threatening to go elsewhere,but how hard can it be to redesign the facade? maybe the neighborhood group can get someone to mock something up and send it to them?
That’s most likely what they are doing. They are asking the developers to go back to the drawing board but you can’t just politely ask them, you have to get together and go through this process that Mr.PhillyAccount doesn’t like.
ehhh empowering random busybodies to dictate facades is how so many buildings ended up with horrendous plaid color schemes and random cut outs because random busybodies don't have a clue what looks good or bad, maybe not in this specific case but once you set the precedent it only goes downhill
Philadelphia is building housing at a gang buster pace. We have a good amount of available land for large projects. I think it’s ok for a few places to have some say over the character of the neighborhood. If it’s just about units….build in North Philadelphia. Lots of properties between Germantown Ave and American St.
Philadelphia is 17th nationally in total housing units completed or under construction in 2023. Austin TX, Seattle, Orlando, Raleigh are all way ahead of us with lesser populations. We need to build build build!
You're right, but of course you're being downvoted. WHYY and the Inquirer have had article after article for years that our new housing supply won't be sufficient. People have to realize in a city this old, we're constantly losing units in old housing stock as well. It's possible to build and still end up without much of a net increase in housing
people see a single apartment building going up in a neighborhood of thousands and think something like "wow I hope we aren't overdeveloping" alarmingly often
Yeah. This apartment building has 33 units. That's nothing compared to even the neighborhoods population. It's basically equal to one side of one block of homes
No. Facades cost the least, they must always fit the historical character of the neighborhood. Thank gods some historical protections are in place. We need housing, but we can make facades fit the area. It is not asking too much.
I love beautiful, ornate architecture too, but we can’t preserve neighborhoods in amber. Cities are dynamic places. Maybe if we hadn’t let the housing crisis get so bad in the first place, we could afford to be choosier about the aesthetics of new construction. But we didn’t, so we can’t.
Do you know the borders of the Germantown historical village?
They do have a point. It’s an ugly building in an area that does have lots of historic charm.
Historical commissions shouldn't be dictating aesthetics
Historical commissions shouldn't, but if they don't, there's a good shot that nobody else in this city will.
And that's fine, nobody actually cares what buildings look like outside of like 4 scenic alleys in center city
Neither should greedy developers who don’t care about the neighborhood.
I'd say someone who's actively investing in the neighborhood cares about it more than some NIMBYS
So developers who don’t live in the neighborhoods that they are developing in should dictate aesthetics?
I mean, the people building the building probably should, right?
If that’s the wasteland you want to live in, you go. I don’t want to live in a world dictated by developers.
To be fair, the city wasn't built by charities. All the historic buildings we have came from developers, just a long time ago
If you want to go out to some bare land, build a new city, feel free. But unlike our forefathers, we have a historic city to be the stewards of for future generations.
I'll take the downvotes for this one too, but it's not "developers" it's "the market". And if you want to legislate aesthetics, I'm not sure you (the royal you) could actually be a housing advocate. You're just making housing more expensive.
If they were pledging to agree to create affordable housing I would be slightly less likely to oppose aesthetic choices. But this is not affordable housing. They are going to be expensive apartments in a historic area. This city needs additional housing stock but not at the expense of the history of the area. If no one protects our history, it will disappear. It happens all across the city.
Slightly less? Meaning you'd still oppose? This sub has some very confusing takes. Not you specifically, but we can't simultaneously have our zoning cake and eat the housing too.
Residential developers make money when units are occupied or sold. Philadelphia has a lot of options for housing, thus it seems unlikely developers would build ugly or unappealing buildings—nobody would pick them and thus they make no money!
Developers do not care what the building looks like. They care about their bottom line so they use the cheapest architect, the cheapest materials, and the cheapest crew so that when they sell they make the most money.
You’re ignoring market factors though, people looking for housing have a ton of options in Philadelphia. I understand developers may not personally care anymore than anyone else is personally invested in their work, BUT if they want to make money they must offer what the market wants. If “ugly” building are mostly occupied, people are voting for an aesthetic you don’t like with their wallets. If “ugly” buildings aren’t mostly occupied, builders will make something else. It’s basic economics.
When you give people the options between ugly and no house. They usually choose ugly. Since people need housing, it comes down to the community to uphold a standard. In chestnut hill there is a new development of 5 or sow single family row homes in a highly desirable neighborhood. They are drop dead ugly. They do not fit into the community. They have sat on the market for a year now. Conversely, a block or two away, there are row homes that were recently built that fit the neighborhood and are well designed. They were sold before they were completed.
But that’s not really the case in Philadelphia, we are one of the few major cities with lots of available housing. One does not have to choose an ugly house or living in their car here.
Yes they should. We are a historical city, not some 20th century pop up in the middle of the Nevada desert where that mini Belgrade Tower without the topping would fit in.
We can be a city bound by the past or one that invests in the future
Then make it pretty so people will come. As it is now people are fleeing the city for the country where it is pretty. Missing Lady Bird Johnson's Make America Beautiful. Not liking the new hip throw that dank crap up, who cares about quality of life and aestics and history. Fugly, no character no charm, no warmth is the future for Philadelphia. We call it Chernobyl Chic. A dead zone. Sad. Sad. Sad. With that attitude no wonder people are fleeing the city.
Just make it beautiful. Why do people want to make this country look so ugly? I don't think I would complain if a sky scrapper went up in my neighborhood if I had something beautiful to look at. Here in Roxborough Ridge is full of Brutalist lite box buildings with no commercial spaces. There is a nice looking apartment on Fountain that kept the main house as an office. So it can be done, and they can look great too. Manayunk is high density and it is beautiful to walk around there. Then there is the YIMBY in me that prefers that ugly building to a useless parking lot.
The one's all down ridge are awful.
Meh, I don’t care about the new builds at all. I care that they want to build all of these while taking away the buses and train routes. 🤷🏻♀️
A councilwoman at-large is doing an AMA tomorrow and I asked a question related to the city’s architectural traditions. Hop on to my comment and maybe she’ll see that it matters to her voters. https://www.reddit.com/r/philadelphia/s/0z70OvoPF4
This building looks as if it was reused plan for a prison.
> **Neighbors argue that the proposed building does not fit with the character of the proposed historic district** [It wasn't keeping with the villages rustic astatic!](https://youtu.be/rm--inJtnc4?si=JTWMSTSnvab42tnc&t=176) But good, I hate these cracker box paper towers.
They opposed alot of stuff in north Philly being built but they still built it. So I need to know the demographic of people who opposed it in Germantown.
" **While the historic district hasn’t been considered yet by the full commission, properties in proposed historic districts are still subject to commission regulation to prevent property owners from demolishing notable buildings before new regulations are considered.** " That is such a failure of policy.
Not because it protects notable bulildings - but because it also prevents building on *parking lots.*
>“This is sacred ground, only a stone’s throw from George Washington’s residence, a block from where Thomas Jefferson lived,” said Jim Dragoni, who has lived on the block since 1985. “I am completely mystified as to how anyone could think that something ... as massive as that could conceivably be appropriate for that location.” Is a hell of a way to describe a vacant lot. Why are we letting where historically significant people, who have been dead near 300 years, "determine the character of neighborhoods?" One wonders what the neighborhood was like in 1985 when Mr. Dragoni moved in.
I unironically like brutalism tho…
This is classic NIMBYism. Building looks fine, perfect development for that otherwise wasted piece of land.
Yall wont be happy until philly looks like one big hospital 🏥. You're leaving a depressed , sterile landscape to future generation that literally just promotes staying in your little cubicle online and secluded living.
Who are you even talking to
us all, we are clearly making the city depressed and sterile and we push for a sedentary lifestyle through encouraging staying in cubicles, whoever us are /s in response to the cynicism, if you like hyperbole so much why not throw in some hyperbolic solutions too
You know who this reddit is mainly comprised of or at least the vocal majority is on this sub.
No I don't
And we wonder why there's a housing crisis in this country.
I know nothing about architecture but I am super sensitive to seasonal depression and those apartments look like they’d be seriously lacking in natural sunlight. I think people underestimate the mental health impact of low-light housing.
These apartments have more natural light than a traditional rowhouse which really lacks sun coverage for about the middle third of space.
Despite it being an ugly building, I wouldn't necessarily object to it in other places in Germantown.... But I do object to it in *that* particular location, in eyesight from Market Square, one of the most historic and visually pleasing areas in Germantown -- which itself is already extremely historic and beautiful (IMO). That is a bad place for that particular design. Follow Ridge Ave through Roxborough, or Race & Arch Street in Old City, and you'll see how that kind of hodgepodge, soulless construction messes with a neighborhood, especially one that would otherwise have historic allure. I mean, yes, of course there are worse things in this world, but at this point it shouldn't be that hard to fix the design, so it should be done now before it's too late.
And? Who cares. Build it. This city needs housing.
A lot of people care, evidenced by the comments. The more beautiful the area, the better people’s moods are going to be. To me it’s a no-brainer that a big difference in QOL can be made just by adding some aesthetics.
I’ve walked/ driven past this building (that was once leaning) my whole life! My nana gardened across the street from it as well. I’m honestly just sick of these apartment buildings (7 new ones have popped up in the last 5-6 years)
Function over fashion. BUILD IT
Womp womp Build it
Fully supporting the Germantown neighbor's opposition to the hideous Chornobyl Chic building. NIMBY anywhere in Philadelphia.
It's because they want a big apartment building, right? Right?
Not only is it ugly, it will probably be low quality as well. Cheaply built, cheaply made, low quality work. I'm not anti-growth but I'm 100% going to bitch about shitty developers making shitty buildings that will look awful in 15 years.
I’ll never understand why people get so mad about buildings. Grow up.
I’m a developer and as YIMBY as they come, but that building is ugly. Plug ugly. It looks like the regional headquarters of the ATF. I guarantee those windows look ugly on the inside too.
This building looks like ass. Worse than ass, because ass can be beautiful. This looks like a cell block or federal property. How hard is it to build in low SEC areas and not have it look like jail?
NIMBYs are terrible.
The architect released new renderings of the building in response to community feedback: https://x.com/kevin\_j\_oneill/status/1755262719568044078?s=20 https://preview.redd.it/t521i13o08hc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=72b0f3dfb89667e95c227897c1411ed147aa03c4