Permits have been issued for the construction of a five-story, 40-unit mixed-use building at 2000 Ridge Avenue in Sharswood, North Philadelphia. Designed by WRT, the structure is part of a 21-building development. 2000 Ridge Avenue will span 49,364 square feet and feature commercial space at the ground floor, as well as amenities and parking.
The new building will feature a somewhat plain exterior, very similar to other projects nearby. Multi-colored paneling will make up the majority of the upper floors’ facade.
2000 Ridge Avenue. Credit: Google.
2000 Ridge Avenue. Credit: Google.
The new building will occupy the entire Ridge Avenue-facing portion of the block, requiring demolition of multiple structures. The once-intact block lost some of its buildings during a period of the area’s decline, resulting in a few vacant lots currently dotting the stretch, although the majority of buildings still remain. With the exception of the building with a stucco exterior, all of the three-story structures feature brick facades and detailed cornices. The buildings generally include commercial space on the ground floor, with residential space presumably found upstairs. Overall, while the buildings are not in mint condition, many appear to be prime candidates for renovation work and preservation, so the complete demolition of the block’s remaining original bones seems a bit unfortunate.
It is important to acknowledge that the development will retain commercial space on the block, as well as add density and make housing more accessible in the neighborhood. Unfortunately, it comes at the cost of a block that retained much of its architectural heritage.
No completion date is known for the project at this time.
Subscribe to YIMBY’s daily e-mail
Follow YIMBYgram for real-time photo updates
Like YIMBY on Facebook
Follow YIMBY’s Twitter for the latest in YIMBYnews
Ugly/cheap looking neo-brutalist design.
Not a fan. Why demolish? Everything in our neighborhood is getting that ugly a.. facade plus brick combo. Ugh.
Absolutely horrible. Who are we kidding?
When the aliens come who do you think they’ll believe was the more advanced species?.. The society that produced those finely detailed dignified original buildings or some thoughtless expanse of cheap metal siding?
We shouldn’t be applauding this just because it increases density. This is what the destruction of heritage looks like.
These renderings are incorrect, along with much of the information published here. I really wish Philly YIMBY would have some journalistic integrity, especially when the architect has offered to provide the correct renderings and information for this very much needed affordable housing.
Also, for the record, the existing buildings have been allowed to degrade to a point where it would cost far more money to revitalize them than to tear them down and start anew (with more energy efficient, sprinklered, and accessible buildings). If these buildings were so loved, then they would have been cared for and not completely neglected. For those who are so bothered by the demolition of “historic” structures, speak up against tax law that encourages landlords to let their holdings fester.
Thank you Concerned Architect…tear down those walls!!!!! The existing buildings should have been gone years ago. Nothing but nothing is there now. It will be refreshing to see more new structures in my neighborhood.
Thank you for updating the post.
I still disagree that the existing building could have been saved. The author should feel free to go take a closer look at the state of decay that he would prefer to see saved.
The article did express wishful thinking about the existing structures being renovated instead of demolished, and how unfortunate it is to lose ornate prewar buildings, regardless of reasons for such actions; the latter sentiment seems hardly disagreeable in any way. However, I don’t see where the author commented on actual feasibility of such preservation, let alone said that they “could” be saved. It is not unreasonable to give fair credit to new development’s benefits (as the article did) while still expressing regret regarding the loss of classic Philadelphia building vernacular.
Horrifically ugly. Cheap does not have to mean criminally ugly