Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark
There must be something in the economics of developments that makes it more feasible to tear down structures and create the illusion of construction without actually building anything on the site for years (or decades?)? Not sure as I'm not in the industry, but this does seem to happen more often than it should.
Clearly these companies know what they are capable of taking on, so it shouldn't be a mystery that some of these buildings are going to be uncompleted for a long time, while the land remains vacant, ugly, and of no use to anybody, really. Maybe the city needs to implement a penalty situation for doing this that will make developers change their tactics?
|
I don't know about penalties, but it makes little sense to do nothing and let a situation like what happened at Bloomfield develop. It took just a few days to raze the site once it finally happened. There was some cost of course but that cost would have happened anyway, it was just a matter of the timing. The only thing it fails to prevent is the usual complaining about an empty lot sitting that way for an extended period, which I have more sympathy for. Most developers have only so much management capacity and credit, so not everything can start building immediately. But of course people complain regardless.
Threaded Mode