Sometimes construction projects end up looking somewhat different from what the initial architectural renderings suggest. A residential development in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has several unusual facades which vary somewhat from the early renderings. The development generated some online discussion from 2009 to 2013 on PhiladelphiaSpeaks.com and received some more attention on PhillyLiving.com in 2013 when the development was in mid-construction. Originally conceived as owner-occupied townhouses, the project at some point ended up as an apartment complex. I’d love to know your opinion as to the final look (as always, please be civil)!
Thanks to Chad for sharing this!
The completed appearance as seen in 2017 – somewhat different from the concept image seen here. Photo courtesy Google Street View.
Many units face a central courtyard. The building at right awaits more colorful panels. Photo courtesy Google Street View.
Does anyone know what these panels are made of? Photo courtesy Google Street View.
The most visible facade as it appeared while under construction in 2016. Photo courtesy Google Street View.
Things are wrapping up about a year later. Personally, I think the look of the underlayment (whatever it is) is visually less abrasive. Photo courtesy Google Street View.
That’s all, folks! Photo courtesy Google Street View.
As a recent transplant to Philadelphia, I am not familiar with this particular project. However after decades of virtually zero rowhouse construction in the city, there has been quite the resurgence of new construction of infill homes as well as full on developments such as this. It seems that when this new building boom began, they started by using curb-cuts and putting the garage door and front door right on the street which reeks havoc on very limited street parking and puts a faceless wall of nothing but doors at the sidewalk level.
Then a shift began to happen where they eliminated the back yard in favor of a driveway to move the garage doors to the rear, and added a large roof deck to offer outdoor space, which actually resulted in more outdoor space because the roof is so much larger than a backyard would have been.
Now they have a “front” door at street level, even though the living space really doesn’t begin until the second floor, which is better aesthetically, but it still removes the eyes from the street when almost nobody is doing any real living on the first floor (there is usually a bonus room or storage on the ground floor alongside the garage). In larger projects such as this one, they build them in rows mid-block resulting in front doors facing across a large green area (which would have historically been another street) which cuts them off completely from the street (and in my opinion giving a false sense of security as they are now “gated”.
Architecturally, new construction has improved over the past ten years. There is still quite a bit of sticking metal covered bump-outs on the fronts of buildings extending a foot or two out over the sidewalk, but at least for the most part, brick is still the dominant facade in keeping with the Philly rowhouse tradition. A pretty good example of how far along they have come is the almost complete Southwark on Reed development a few blocks from my home. They did the same program of the rear garage, and the green-space between rows of houses, but they did a very nice job of honoring the traditional brick rowhouses surrounding the new community.
Which brings me to answer your question…. After reading a bit about this project, it seems as though it has been built in an area which is up and coming, but isn’t there yet, so there is definitely some risk that it won’t ever fully “up and come”. I am guessing that as owner-occupied rowhouses, they would have stuck to the original plan of solid color volumes within the larger gray context and not done this cartoonishly patriotic facade treatment. It is just finished and it already looks dated. If they ever intend to convert from rental to condo, I think they would need to seriously revisit this awkward facade treatment and “dumb it down”. I also don’t think the materials will hold up with time.
I have come to learn that Philadelphians take a different kind of pride in the US flag more because of the connection to the city’s history, and less because of outright patriotism. That said, it is my opinion that this is more lipstick on a pig, than serious architecture.
This development feels monolithic and isolating. I’m not sure what’s wrong with it, but it’s missing the charm of actual old rowhouses.
Probably has to do with how the public space is fenced off from the rest of the city, and how uninviting the green space is between the two blocks. It’s too dark and empty. The facade facing the actual street is the only one that feels right.
I suspect most of why I hate it now is how obviously devoid of people it is. I wonder if this place will ever develop the sort of street life that used to be present in so many inner-city rowhouses. Sadly, with the way society is changing lately, I doubt it will, but who knows.
Also, something about these window arrangements is disjointed and ugly. Can’t put my finger on it.
In response to Devyn, these things are almost never “serious architecture”. They’re financial investments first and foremost. Rowhouses weren’t “serious architecture” either back in the 1800s, they just had more visual finesse and quality construction. Plus maybe some added italianate references. But really, the proportion of even traditional architecture that aspires to truly make the most of the medium has always been remarkably low.
You toned down your take a smidge.
I hadn’t seen that the first renderings from the project showed windows that lined up coherently.
I’m still learning and evolving as a blogger. While my natural inclination is to be snarky, I’ve found that being so is not often very beneficial. Buildings like this really speak for themselves so, fortunately, I don’t have to always say what I might be thinking. And if I say too much, then I won’t get the interesting and insightful views of commenters which are important to me. The comments above all include observations that I would have likely missed. This time, I wanted to see what others thought before launching into my own take… I learn a lot when I listen to what others have to say!
My own take, btw, is much like that of Devyn and A. above. Like Devyn, I feel that the project has a cartoonish look about it – and overtly so. The materials do not suggest permanence and the whole project already looks dated. Like A., I feel that the place looks monolithic and uninviting. He points out that this is first and foremost a financial investment rather than a piece of architecture – and it looks like it. Both note the sense of isolation from the surrounding neighborhood due to being “gated”. I find the colors both jarring and juvenile and I wouldn’t want to see this out my window.
Thanks again for letting me know about this place!
I think I would have to take a knee on this I one.