tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2907973584782999976.post7912170865319520973..comments2024-03-21T03:28:28.675-04:00Comments on Philly Bricks: More Misleading RenderingsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2907973584782999976.post-13358288825983641242011-06-20T18:09:10.677-04:002011-06-20T18:09:10.677-04:00Robinsons is a fantastic building. This bill is ab...Robinsons is a fantastic building. This bill is about 95% good and 5% bad. Please don't hold it up, you know it truly determines the life and even deader death of Market street east.fischer0525https://www.blogger.com/profile/03990806025193212588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2907973584782999976.post-75406041158303737242011-06-17T18:55:51.400-04:002011-06-17T18:55:51.400-04:00I'm surprised you got pushback from that. I fi...I'm surprised you got pushback from that. I find most people - myself included - write the building off as an eyesore until they really look at it, or see it in an old picture. The more I learned about it, the more I began to relate it to the PSFS Building as an architecturally significant site way ahead of its time. <br /><br />I tried to write more but Google said it was too long. Guess I'll have to add another post :)<br /><br />Great blog by the way, LOVE the drawings!Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06900938587407614521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2907973584782999976.post-61315992577930188152011-06-17T16:56:22.787-04:002011-06-17T16:56:22.787-04:00Agreed. And doubly agreed on Robinsons, though st...Agreed. And doubly agreed on Robinsons, though strangely the bill excludes anything with less than 100 feet of frontage. I would LOVE to see Robinsons listed on the Philadelphia Register regardless, but you wouldn't believe the pushback I got after posting this: http://fieldnotesphilly.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/robinsons/Ben Leechhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16615515229888209198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2907973584782999976.post-74591255566389595642011-06-17T08:17:48.410-04:002011-06-17T08:17:48.410-04:00Thanks for the comment! I always appreciated the A...Thanks for the comment! I always appreciated the Alliance as a level headed advocacy group in a city where many tend to get off track. That's why it surprised me that it would join in on a discussion that involved so little physical history.<br /><br />I wouldn't want to see Strawbridges shrouded i billboards any more than Lit Brothers. I can't imagine why it would be removed from the exemption. I'm certainly not against preservation. In fact, in addition to those four buildings, I would also like to see the USPS and Robinson's Department Store protected from this bill. As for the rest, light 'em up. <br /><br />What irks me is the argument that this is some quaint, Colonial corridor somehow synonymous with the Liberty Bell. Is wasn't, isn't, and never will be. Hopefully if City Council has the common sense to exempt those four buildings, there won't be anything left to argue over.Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06900938587407614521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2907973584782999976.post-69452399052219723362011-06-16T23:19:59.278-04:002011-06-16T23:19:59.278-04:00I'll go ahead and out myself right off the bat...I'll go ahead and out myself right off the bat-- I'm with the Alliance and I put the rendering together simply to illustrate what was legally allowable under the proposed ordinance. The Alliance does not oppose this bill-- we simply oppose the lack of any language exempting the four buildings already listed on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places-- Lits, PSFS, Strawbridge, and Reading Terminal. The original version included this exemption, but the amended bill introduced earlier this week removed this language. You are absolutely right that it is a worst case scenario that would probably never happen on this building-- at least not the facade wraps. But what about other historic buildings? The vacant floors of Strawbridges? Why rewrite a bill to even suggest the possibility?<br />And re: rooftop signs, I get the argument that there is historical precedent. I don't disagree. But lets be honest-- there is a big difference between those historic rooftop signs, which were always accessory and site-specific, and the large-format advertisements being proposed by this bill. The Hard Rock guitar? I think its great and would love to see more like it on Market. But this bill is written for 1600 square foot electronic billboards, not quirky neon guitars. <br />Happily, this argument might be moot, because I understand that Councilman Dicicco agreed today to amend the bill again to exclude the historic buildings from the new district. So we gladly go back to employing our resources elsewhere, and new signs can do their thing on the two buildings the ordinance was was really written for-- the Gallery and the Girard block.Ben Leechhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16615515229888209198noreply@blogger.com