PHILADELPHIA | The Development Thread VIII

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by SkyscraperGuru

Ugh... Shamed in Philadelphia for wanting height restrictions. It's like they want to hurt the city.

Shows you how much power NIMBY's have in this city... it's a shame... this area will have height restrictions thanks to the NIMBY's of Old City.

[hammersklavier]

[QUOTE=sayitaintso;5700832]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Good news today!


How is this good news? The original plan from these developers was a high rise. Now we get a squat box?? How will any density be achieved if no new development can be taller than 100ft? Are they actively trying to thwart a lively dense mixed use atmosphere? That's what they're doing if this stupid height restriction is enacted. What's the justification? It's not as if a neighborhood actually exists along Columbus. Which is why w/out a mix of highrise and mid rise buildings it will take 75 years to completely build out a vibrant, dense environment. FAIL

Actually "squat" 10-story boxes are more dense than tall skinny towers, because they fit more salable units onto the site. Paris is nothing but squat boxes and its has a population density of 60,000 ppsm, one of the highest in the developed world.

Originally Posted by SkyscraperGuru

Ugh... Shamed in Philadelphia for wanting height restrictions. It's like they want to hurt the city.

An argument is being made (see e.g. here) that height restrictions are in fact beneficial because they spread the area of core commerce further than that of skyscrapers (which concentrate it vertically in a very small space). See, for example, Paris and D.C.

[summersm343]

[QUOTE=hammersklavier;5700929]

Originally Posted by sayitaintso

Actually "squat" 10-story boxes are more dense than tall skinny towers, because they fit more salable units onto the site. Paris is nothing but squat boxes and its has a population density of 60,000 ppsm, one of the highest in the developed world.

An argument is being made (see e.g. here) that height restrictions are in fact beneficial because they spread the area of core commerce further than that of skyscrapers (which concentrate it vertically in a very small space). See, for example, Paris and D.C.

Agree 100%... like I said earlier, you build to critical mass then you build up when real estate prices rise. Midrises will be built here until real estate prices rise high enough to warrant highrise construction. It's simple to understand, I don't know why some can't

[Cro Burnham]

[QUOTE=summersm343;5700848]

Originally Posted by sayitaintso

It's much better than the grass lot that is there now... why must every new development be 500 feet tall in Philadelphia? It's not going to happen. Your point exactly... there is NO NEIGHBORHOOD here on the waterfront...

I agree - midrise development is fine, especially in underdeveloped neighborhoods. Look at DC.

Most of the densest cities in the world are midrise.

My only concern about this proposal is that it is kind of . . . ugly. Hope the design tightens up a bit before it gets too much further.

[Jelly Roll]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

Actually "squat" 10-story boxes are more dense than tall skinny towers, because they fit more salable units onto the site. Paris is nothing but squat boxes and its has a population density of 60,000 ppsm, one of the highest in the developed world.

An argument is being made (see e.g. here) that height restrictions are in fact beneficial because they spread the area of core commerce further than that of skyscrapers (which concentrate it vertically in a very small space). See, for example, Paris and D.C.

I really like mid-rise buildings. They enable high density levels and from the street you do not really notice the difference between 12 floors or 50.

[bucks native]

source: http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelp...&ed=2012-05-14

Building in Phila.’s Loft District for sale for $7M

Philadelphia Business Journal by Natalie Kostelni, Reporter
Date: Monday, May 14, 2012, 2:32pm EDT


The Independence Press building, a nine-story, 156,000-square-foot structure at 533 N. 11th St. in the Loft District of Philadelphia, is up for sale. It’s listed at $6.9 million.

Kabro Associates, the current owner, bought it April 2010 for $4.05 million from Patriot Parking. Though it had been approved for 92 apartments when acquired, Kabro spent $1 million undertaking a full-interior demolition and asbestos removal.

“They brought it to a shovel-ready state,” said Steve Marzullo, an investment broker with CBRE Inc.

“We’re seeing so much going on around it,” Marzullo said about where the property is located. “We think this is the right time to get out and get this project started.”

Marzullo came up with the $6.9 million price tag after figuring out what it would cost to construct and complete the project as apartments. The price equates to about $75,000 a unit. It also takes into account expanding the building one or two stories up from the roof, he said.

[SkyscraperGuru]

Actually, I'm sure you know this - but Paris removed it's height limit recently. I do think that having a height restriction is a shame, it's an easy way to push a skyscraper on to New York, I think Philly could easily compare with NYC in terms of building thanks to it's location and downtown growth (and southern suburbs). ACC tower would be easily already erected without a business tax. I'm not just concerned with skyscrapers in Philadelphia, any devolpment is a blessing, I just want this city to achieve it's full potential and not be limited by poor actions like height limitations or groups with no interest in prospering like the NIMBYs. However, I'm glad NIMBYs lose ground every day.

[McBane]

The height limit is a good thing. The Central Delaware Master Plan wants to limit tall buildings because, as Summerism said, they saturate the market.

The central tenant of the Master Plan was to create a dense fabric of rowhomes and mid-rises, knowing that there is only so much demand in this area. Instead of 3 or 4 high rises separated by large swaths of empty space, the planners envisioned an extension of CC's low rise density. I have to agree.

That being said, there are still shortsighted NIMBYs.

“So it's legal, but incompatible with the (Central Delaware) Master Plan?” CDAG Member Rob Kettell, also of Old City, asked at the group's last meeting.

I mean 20 feet might be higher than what the plan calls for, but the proposal is still a mid-rise building. If the developer needs the extra 2 floors to make this project profitable and the waterfront gets added residents and development, I think the planners have to realize that their top priority is to develop the waterfront and not knit pick every little technicality.

And while I think the limit is a good thing for reasons stated above, the planners should have established a limit based on floors (i.e. 12 floors), thereby allowing developers to get a little more creative. Look at Penn Center - it was developed during boom times, but also when the city still had a height limit. What we got was a bunch of squat ugly boxes that were designed to accommodate as much office space as possible within the established height limit. There is no room for tapering roofs, spires, etc. when the height limit is tied to feet instead of floors.

[bucks native]

- will have a spacious rooftop bar and lounge overlooking Independence Mall.

[Mappy]

Frankly, Id rather have the building be even shorter than 100 ft if it is right next to the BF Bridge cable anchor. That is one of the most distinctive architectural features as you travel along Delaware Ave, and if you throw a generic apartment building up along side it, it will be completely blocked in from the north. Almost Anywhere else along the road 100-120ft would be fine though.



(sorry for the size, not sure how to shrink the image quickly)


Clearly, restricting heights along the river is a necessity. One of the primary goals of the city in the 2035 plan and the Delaware Waterfront Master Plan were to re-connect the waterfront to the rest of the city. I-(% practically creates a wall cutting it off from the rest of the city, and if there were a line of skyscrapers to go up there, it would just be an even bigger wall.

Also, The idea is to create a line of development along the waterfront that can get connected by street car, and create neighborhoods. A couple pockets of disjointed highrise building would not do this, and would only encourage a few connections from the city to the waterfront at those nodes.

[Jelly Roll]

Records: Developer's companies deal in luxury, eyesores

When it comes to large vacant buildings, developer Tony Rufo knows how to spot potential.

More than a year ago, Rufo transformed the shuttered Nathaniel Hawthorne School into the Hawthorne Lofts: 53 units of luxury loft-style condominiums. The development offers floor-to-ceiling windows, a roof deck with a stunning view of Center City and ultra-low taxes thanks to a 10-year tax break from the city. According to Rufo’s website, every unit has sold.

But 2 miles south, just around the corner from South Philadelphia High School, sits a very different kind of Rufo property. The hulking, vacant warehouse at 12th and Jackson streets, purchased by a company linked to Rufo in 2007 for $2.5 million, has been a trouble spot.

The former paintbrush factory that spans over an acre is covered with hundreds of broken windows. The facility is poorly lit. Illegal dumping and graffiti are rampant, says Kim Massare, president of the Lower Moyamensing Civic Association.

Property maintenance isn’t the only problem. Rufo’s company hasn’t paid property taxes on the warehouse since 2009 and owes the city $168,363.

http://www.philly.com/philly/busines..._eyesores.html

[Aaamazarite]

Originally Posted by Jelly Roll

3800 Market St is owned by Parkway Corp. That is all that I could find out about it.

Here's a crappy drive by phone pic of the rendering posted there:

[Jelly Roll]

Originally Posted by Aaamazarite

Here's a crappy drive by phone pic of the rendering posted there:

http://www.sciencecenter.org/office-lab-space/locations

According to that link it is a 1.75 Acre site that will be a 500,000 SF mixed-use site.

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by SkyscraperGuru

Actually, I'm sure you know this - but Paris removed it's height limit recently. I do think that having a height restriction is a shame, it's an easy way to push a skyscraper on to New York La Défense, I think Philly could easily compare with NYC in terms of building thanks to it's location and downtown growth (and southern suburbs). ACC tower would be easily already erected without a business tax. I'm not just concerned with skyscrapers in Philadelphia, any devolpment is a blessing, I just want this city to achieve it's full potential and not be limited by poor actions like height limitations or groups with no interest in prospering like the NIMBYs. However, I'm glad NIMBYs lose ground every day.

There. Fixed for you.

[PhiLaw]

Originally Posted by McBane

The height limit is a good thing. The Central Delaware Master Plan wants to limit tall buildings because, as Summerism said, they saturate the market.

The central tenant of the Master Plan was to create a dense fabric of rowhomes and mid-rises, knowing that there is only so much demand in this area. Instead of 3 or 4 high rises separated by large swaths of empty space, the planners envisioned an extension of CC's low rise density. I have to agree.

That being said, there are still shortsighted NIMBYs.



I mean 20 feet might be higher than what the plan calls for, but the proposal is still a mid-rise building. If the developer needs the extra 2 floors to make this project profitable and the waterfront gets added residents and development, I think the planners have to realize that their top priority is to develop the waterfront and not knit pick every little technicality.

And while I think the limit is a good thing for reasons stated above, the planners should have established a limit based on floors (i.e. 12 floors), thereby allowing developers to get a little more creative. Look at Penn Center - it was developed during boom times, but also when the city still had a height limit. What we got was a bunch of squat ugly boxes that were designed to accommodate as much office space as possible within the established height limit. There is no room for tapering roofs, spires, etc. when the height limit is tied to feet instead of floors.

I agree that the height is not an issue at all. That first poster is very close to being shoved into the troll classification. To say that a new development is a "fail" is to assume it's less valuable than an empty lot.

But I do disagree with you when you say height restrictions are a good thing. "Saturating" the marker in an already-restricted market is a good thing. It tends to elevate supply, thereby lowering prices. I can't help but think about all the conversations on this thread lamenting the lack of a middle class in the city. This is one of the contributing factors.

Height restrictions and other cost-raising measures tend only to benefit existing property owners by raising/sustaining their property values. It's very easy to lobby in this city: "this is a historical neighborhood (ie. society hill/old city). We don't want too much development that it would overshadow Independence Hall, etc." Height and other building restrictions get passed, supply stays stagnant, prices go up, young professionals move out to South Jersey.

I have no problem with this mid-rise development, as long as it's a result of private individuals making their own decisions.

Aesthetics are certainly a legitimate goal to be valued in our city. However, you must always ask: "at what cost." While it is always hard to see on the surface, you are always paying for aesthetics. This is not to say that it isn't a bargain, but to think it's free is reckless.

[Jelly Roll]

Originally Posted by PhiLaw

Height and other building restrictions get passed, supply stays stagnant, prices go up, young professionals move out to South Jersey.

I have no problem with this mid-rise development, as long as it's a result of private individuals making their own decisions.

Aesthetics are certainly a legitimate goal to be valued in our city. However, you must always ask: "at what cost." While it is always hard to see on the surface, you are always paying for aesthetics. This is not to say that it isn't a bargain, but to think it's free is reckless.

I really doubt many young professionals that work in Philly would move to SJ in order to save money. By working in the city they already pay the wage tax and rents are not much cheaper in SJ when compared to PA plus when you add in cost to commute Philly is a cheaper place to live. If you are talking about owning the house then Philly is much cheaper then living in SJ because property taxes are crazy here.

Now if you are not working in the city this all changes and becomes much more income dependant but from the young professionals I know living in SJ none of them work in Philly unless they still live with their parents. Those that work in the city and moved out moved into Philly.

[Kidphilly]

Originally Posted by Mappy

Frankly, Id rather have the building be even shorter than 100 ft if it is right next to the BF Bridge cable anchor. That is one of the most distinctive architectural features as you travel along Delaware Ave, and if you throw a generic apartment building up along side it, it will be completely blocked in from the north. Almost Anywhere else along the road 100-120ft would be fine though.



(sorry for the size, not sure how to shrink the image quickly)


Clearly, restricting heights along the river is a necessity. One of the primary goals of the city in the 2035 plan and the Delaware Waterfront Master Plan were to re-connect the waterfront to the rest of the city. I-(% practically creates a wall cutting it off from the rest of the city, and if there were a line of skyscrapers to go up there, it would just be an even bigger wall.

Also, The idea is to create a line of development along the waterfront that can get connected by street car, and create neighborhoods. A couple pockets of disjointed highrise building would not do this, and would only encourage a few connections from the city to the waterfront at those nodes.

Is it just me or does this image have an L shaped rendering in this location already

http://phillyshark.blogspot.com/2012...-underway.html


the 6th one down

[PhiLaw]

Originally Posted by Jelly Roll

I really doubt many young professionals that work in Philly would move to SJ in order to save money. By working in the city they already pay the wage tax and rents are not much cheaper in SJ when compared to PA plus when you add in cost to commute Philly is a cheaper place to live. If you are talking about owning the house then Philly is much cheaper then living in SJ because property taxes are crazy here.

Now if you are not working in the city this all changes and becomes much more income dependant but from the young professionals I know living in SJ none of them work in Philly unless they still live with their parents. Those that work in the city and moved out moved into Philly.

A few points:

1. I was using South Jersey as a symbol for the suburbs in general. This would include Delco, Monto, Bucks, Chester, etc.

2. Your statements assume the current state of things are the status quo - or the standard of reference. You are skeptical that people who work in Philly would move to the suburbs because of housing prices. First, I know MANY recent law school grads who have higher income than most young professions, and refuse to live in the city for tax/housing reasons. Second, while it's hard to prove a negative, there are tons of people who have lived in the suburbs for years that are deterred from moving into the city because of these higher costs. Remember, when thinking about things in the aggregate, a lower housing prices will result in more demand for the houses.

3. Either way, you have to have a sense of proportion when you're dealing with numbers. The fact is that the cost to height restrictions and other costs to building in the city result in higher housing prices, which keeps people away from the city.

My point is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. If we want aesthetics, fine. But we will be taxed for it: less population means less tax revenue to the city, which requires the city to sustain higher taxes, which only perpetuates the cycle.

[Jelly Roll]

Originally Posted by PhiLaw

A few points:

1. I was using South Jersey as a symbol for the suburbs in general. This would include Delco, Monto, Bucks, Chester, etc.

I agree with you to a point here but again from a cost of occupancy standpoint if the employee is already working in the city the wage tax is largely eliminated from the occupancy cost and the suburbs have much higher real estate taxes. Limiting certain areas of the city to 100' height limits or roughly 10 floors of residential is not going to drive up housing prices considering in most residential zoned places the height limit is already 45'.

Originally Posted by PhiLaw

2. Your statements assume the current state of things are the status quo - or the standard of reference. You are skeptical that people who work in Philly would move to the suburbs because of housing prices. First, I know MANY recent law school grads who have higher income than most young professions, and refuse to live in the city for tax/housing reasons. Second, while it's hard to prove a negative, there are tons of people who have lived in the suburbs for years that are deterred from moving into the city because of these higher costs. Remember, when thinking about things in the aggregate, a lower housing prices will result in more demand for the houses.

In the aggregate the average cost of a housing unit in Philadelphia is often times much lower then the surrounding suburbs. Housing prices are a very misleading way to compare the cost of living in one town as opposed to another when the tax structures are vastly different. That is why looking at a cost of occupancy is the correct way to compare. When looking at this from a residential aspect the cost of occupancy is cheaper in Philadelphia then the surrounding suburbs if the person works in the city.

Originally Posted by PhiLaw

3. Either way, you have to have a sense of proportion when you're dealing with numbers. The fact is that the cost to height restrictions and other costs to building in the city result in higher housing prices, which keeps people away from the city.

Zoning does greatly impact the cost of housing prices as do the real estate taxes. The thing you are missing here is that the density that is allowed by zoning plays a much bigger factor in housing unit prices then height restrictions. Things are priced on a per unit basis when looking at residential units. So 100 unit should be relatively similiar regardless of the building being 10 floors or 15 floors. If anything the building with the heigher height will have units that are priced at a greater per unit rate because of the added cost of building vertically. In the present there is enough underutilized land that this part of the city has no reason to build up.

Originally Posted by PhiLaw

My point is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. If we want aesthetics, fine. But we will be taxed for it: less population means less tax revenue to the city, which requires the city to sustain higher taxes, which only perpetuates the cycle.

This is actually not true. The average resident does not provide enough in taxes to compensate to the city the cost that is created from living there. Commercial development is what is needed to sustain lower tax rates not residential development. If lower taxes are truly what you are concerned about then residential development is not what needs to be added. If commercial development lags behind residential development then the ratio of taxes that each resident needs to pay will increase.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by Aaamazarite

Here's a crappy drive by phone pic of the rendering posted there:

Hmm... interesting. What are you up to Science Center?