PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread IX

[cafeguy]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

Wow, what an astounding pile of shit. I am gobsmacked, as they say in England. That is just jaw-droppingly bad, almost seems like it just has to be a joke. Even the rendering is 5th rate, like a 9th grader in a computer class did it. It's hard to imagine a more offensive, inappropriate design for that location. An incredible slap in the face of Philly. This is the absolute worst outcome imaginable. Can this even be legal?? My god.

Well, I can still hold out hope: maybe they will at least create a pad for a freestanding drive-in Wendy's in the parking lot with ATV parking for the kids.

Gotta figure the Barnes Foundation board is thrilled at the prospect of this new neighbor.

In other news, Dave and Busters and Sam's Club have announced a series of jointly developed mega-box centers across the Rue de Rivoli from the Louvre, on 5th Avenue next to the Met, and in South Kensington next to the Victoria and Albert Museum.

i mean... the building was there before this proposal. Im not a big fan of 1 story buildings with parking, but I'm certainly not outraged. Missed opportunity maybe... but its a very effective use that isn't surprising given that it is a very very low cost turn around for the owners..instead of building something new.

[PhillySteaks]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

Wow, what an astounding pile of shit. I am gobsmacked, as they say in England. That is just jaw-droppingly bad, almost seems like it just has to be a joke. Even the rendering is 5th rate, like a 9th grader in a computer class did it. It's hard to imagine a more offensive, inappropriate design for that location. An incredible slap in the face of Philly. This is the absolute worst outcome imaginable. Can this even be legal?? My god.

Well, I can still hold out hope: maybe they will at least create a pad for a freestanding drive-in Wendy's in the parking lot with ATV parking for the kids.

I'm pumped target is moving here! I dont' really give a crap about the aesthetic because at the end of the day this site will never change. It's already developed for big box, and considering that it was able to draw such a high credit tenant such as whole foods in the first place should of shown the hand to everyone that the same type of big box tenant would be moving in afterwards - the demographics and incomes of the surrounding area easily support it, so when this 15yr lease dies out you should anticipate another lol. There really isn't monetary value to be unlocked by risking a major redevelopment unless the owner sold - but considering he was able to snag a super lucrative 15yr deal with target so easily with virtually zero risk is the way better play from an owner standpoint. I don't own the land, so I really have no comment and I wouldn't force government after them either. So goes the way of the free market - this one was pretty obvious though. (I was kind of hoping for a bowling lane/movie theatre)

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by summersm343

^^Ugh. I hate whoever owns this plot. Should've been redeveloped with Whole Foods moving. Now we have a suburban big box store here for at least 15-20 years.

Depressing, but it simply is not reasonable for us to expect a landlord to pass up a tenant that will continue his revenue stream with little to no additional cost in a building of relatively recent vintage. Redevelopment means losing revenue and incurring costs (and at least some risk). Probably not something that was a Christmastide goal of the owner.

Not to get into the city comparison wars, but Philly isn't Paris and the Parkway is not the Champs Elysee -- at least not yet. That's our hope and dream, but it has been and will continue to be a long time coming. Great progress has been made, but seeing the status quo continue on this lot for now is not surprising. It's a missed step forward, but it's no step back. In fact, it adds amenities (such as they are) for the residents. There are some nearby lots that might see increased interest if this is not going to be available in the near term.

[McBane]

I might be in the minority, but the Target doesn't seem like that big of a deal. Yes, it's a bad use of valuable real estate BUT it's not like this is a case of a developer ripping out an intact city block or tearing down historic buildings to make way for this suburban garbage. In my mind, we're not gaining anything but we're not losing anything either.

If anyone is losing out, it's the owner of this building. In the short run, they're gaining a stable tenant with virtually no vacant period. But selling to a developer or redeveloping on their own to turn this into something more dense would have a been a far more profitable (albeit risky) endeavor in the long run. But that's the owner's problem.

EDIT: My second point echos Knight. I agree.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

Yes, if only a Wendy's.... or a Wawa with lots of gas pumps.... Seriously, however, I'm not sure if you're taking issue with the use (which is depressing, but understandable from the landlord's perspective) or the design. If the latter, I'm not sure that I understand the outrage, as the building already exists and they're just adding some different signage and red-trim. It's fairly low-key for a big box retailer, and goes well enough with the existing building.

The financial motivation is completely clear. This is a "maximize short-term profit at the least risk" play all the way. I understand that as private property owners, they are entitled to make money out of their site in any legal way they can. But it is civically completely irresponsible and it should be illegal to do what they are doing by way of proper land use regulation.

Yes, the horrendous design - and the associated time frame - is the issue, not the use. I think a Target is perfectly fine in a mixed use development with internal parking and a good street presence at this site.

But to permit a big box with surface parking that will tie the site up for decades, right between the Rodin and the Barnes, right off the Parkway, in the heart of the city's cultural district, with high density development going up all around, is simply unfathomable. This may win the All-Time Oscar for Project that Most Highlights Philadelphia's Dysfunctional Land Use Regime.

Can't wait till Inga get's on this one. Even 1487 will agree with her.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by McBane

But that's the owner's problem.

It's our problem too. The externalities are that we will be stuck with a hideous street-life killing big box and parking lot for the next 20 years in a location that will leave the most sophisticated international visitors to Philadelphia scratching their heads: "they put shitty pastiche Target boxes right in the middle of their prestige museum districts? Is this a real city or just . . . . Dallas?".

[br323206]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

Wow, what an astounding pile of shit. I am gobsmacked, as they say in England. That is just jaw-droppingly bad, almost seems like it just has to be a joke. Even the rendering is 5th rate, like a 9th grader in a computer class did it. It's hard to imagine a more offensive, inappropriate design for that location. An incredible slap in the face of Philly. This is the absolute worst outcome imaginable. Can this even be legal?? My god.

Well, I can still hold out hope: maybe they will at least create a pad for a freestanding drive-in Wendy's in the parking lot with ATV parking for the kids.

Gotta figure the Barnes Foundation board is thrilled at the prospect of this new neighbor.

In other news, Dave and Busters and Sam's Club have announced a series of jointly developed mega-box centers across the Rue de Rivoli from the Louvre, on 5th Avenue next to the Met, and in South Kensington next to the Victoria and Albert Museum. They wanted to build off the natural synergies with top notch cultural attractions, paintball, and bulk peanut butter purchases.

I mean there is actually a McDonald's inside the Louvre, and South Kensington has a bunch of chain stores/restaurants.

[McBane]

The neighborhood seems to be thriving despite it. What - were people overlooking this suburban-like lot before because it was a crunchy Whole Foods?

I'm annoyed, too - don't get me wrong. But within the context that this site is already built out, it feel doesn't as bad as others are making it out to be.

As I said in my previous post - if they were tearing down buildings to build this from scratch, it would be a completely different matter.

[BenKatzPhillytoParis]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

It's our problem too. The externalities are that we will be stuck with a hideous street-life killing big box and parking lot for the next 20 years in a location that will leave the most sophisticated international visitors to Philadelphia scratching their heads: "they put shitty pastiche Target boxes right in the middle of their prestige museum districts? Is this a real city or just . . . . Dallas?".

But as McBane said, this is a great amenity and I agree will contribute to more development along Callowhill in general. We got the Dalian, the Pizzeria Vetri building, and now the two 6-story mixed use buildings and Broad and Callowhill within a few years. Replicate that within the next few years, and Callowhill will be completely transformed, connecting Logan Square with Loft District/Erasorhood with (relatively) uninterrupted mid-rise mixed use. At that point, the Target either won't be that big a deal or will be imminently developed itself (or hopefully both).

[BenKatzPhillytoParis]

Sorry to bring this up when I know it's been done so many times, but Summers or someone could you post the instructions again for posting pictures? Now that I'm back, I have a lot of opportunities.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

The financial motivation is completely clear. This is a "maximize short-term profit at the least risk" play all the way. I understand that as private property owners, they are entitled to make money out of their site in any legal way they can. But it is civically completely irresponsible and it should be illegal to do what they are doing by way of proper land use regulation.

Yes, the horrendous design - and the associated time frame - is the issue, not the use. I think a Target is perfectly fine in a mixed use development with internal parking and a good street presence at this site.

But to permit a big box with surface parking that will tie the site up for decades, right between the Rodin and the Barnes, right off the Parkway, in the heart of the city's cultural district, with high density development going up all around, is simply unfathomable. This may win the All-Time Oscar for Project that Most Highlights Philadelphia's Dysfunctional Land Use Regime.

Can't wait till Inga get's on this one. Even 1487 will agree with her.

I'm with you in not liking it, although I can accept it readily enough. However, I still don't get your hostility to the "design." This is an existing building and lot. If there was a battle to be had over it, it was in the Nineties. Target is just going to move into the space vacated by Whole Foods and slap a new sign on it.

Yes, we'd all like something more dense, but it's too easy for us, without financial "skin in the game," to condemn the landlord for shortsightedness. He chose the safe option.

Again, I think the bright side is that there are plenty of opportunities for development within a block or two that now became more likely without this parcel being in the mix. Fill in the gaps and the pressure will be on to do more with this. Honestly, I'd rather see nearby vacant and rundown parcels developed before redeveloping this. Who knows, maybe they can do something on or over the parking lot if it wouldn't run afoul of the Target lease (which it probably would).

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

Is this a real city or just . . . . Dallas?".

Now there's a comparison that I can endorse!

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by BenKatzPhillytoParis

But as McBane said, this is a great amenity and I agree will contribute to more development along Callowhill in general. We got the Dalian, the Pizzeria Vetri building, and now the two 6-story mixed use buildings and Broad and Callowhill within a few years. Replicate that within the next few years, and Callowhill will be completely transformed, connecting Logan Square with Loft District/Erasorhood with (relatively) uninterrupted mid-rise mixed use. At that point, the Target either won't be that big a deal or will be imminently developed itself (or hopefully both).

I'd support any effort to derail this deal, and I could give a shit about the owner's property rights, on the one hand, and I am perfectly realistic in assuming it will happen, we'll be stuck with it for 20 years, and it will be civic embarrassment but by no means the end of the world on the other. But it does underscore the reality that in many ways Philly is a second rate city with barrel-scraping leadership and very low expectations of itself. I try to imagine that this need not be the case, but sadly projects like this make the truth clear.

As with the Eagles under Chip Kelly, I am disappointed but I am also over it, I can move on now. I won't belabor this.

[PhillySteaks]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

But it is civically completely irresponsible and it should be illegal to do what they are doing by way of proper land use regulation.

But to permit a big box with surface parking that will tie the site up for decades, right between the Rodin and the Barnes, right off the Parkway, in the heart of the city's cultural district, with high density development going up all around, is simply unfathomable.

I a lot of people do things that may be thought unethical, but we live in a society that has laws. Forcing someone to change the structure of the building so it looks "nice" at street presence should never be a law.

The property was developed when much of the area was low density, and competing for residents that were considering living in the suburbs. It makes perfect sense that it was built like this. The high density now completely solidifies the fact that it will never change because it is ideal to retail tenants because not only does the area have high density walkability close by, but the site has the capability to accommodate those that can't get there by foot.

The owner will most likely NEVER have problems leasing this. To call the decision short term is funny too, because the lease is probably 15-20yrs lol. The building needs zero capital, so why rouse up a bunch of investors to dump money into a property that already has zero issues producing cash flow? Just to get a get a slightly higher bottom line - but incur a ton more risk in doing so? (I agree with Knight). When you redevelop something the amount of assumptions that go into the plan and budget are unprecedented. Why would the owner take that type of risk? Just to make the building have a better aesthetic? This won't get redeveloped until it gets sold, but considering it's ability to lease up quickly to top credit tenants I don't see a redevelopment coming even if it were sold.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

I'm with you in not liking it, although I can accept it readily enough. However, I still don't get your hostility to the "design." This is an existing building and lot. If there was a battle to be had over it, it was in the Nineties. Target is just going to move into the space vacated by Whole Foods and slap a new sign on it.

Yes, we'd all like something more dense, but it's too easy for us, without financial "skin in the game," to condemn the landlord for shortsightedness. He chose the safe option.

Again, I think the bright side is that there are plenty of opportunities for development within a block or two that now became more likely without this parcel being in the mix. Fill in the gaps and the pressure will be on to do more with this. Honestly, I'd rather see nearby vacant and rundown parcels developed before redeveloping this. Who knows, maybe they can do something on or over the parking lot if it wouldn't run afoul of the Target lease (which it probably would).

I agree with every point you make. But you have to see things in their historical context. In the 90s, nothing was happening in this area and anything was an improvement, particularly a Whole Foods that filled in a amenity void for Center City. Thanks, in no small part to the Whole Foods (as well as demo of the awful Youth Study Center and adjacent homeless encampment on the Parkway), and the Barnes development, the neighborhood has blossomed tremendously. In that time frame, this site should have been rezoned for a new type of development.

Originally Posted by PhillySteaks

I a lot of people do things that may be thought unethical, but we live in a society that has laws. Forcing someone to change the structure of the building so it looks "nice" at street presence should never be a law.

The property was developed when much of the area was low density, and competing for residents that were considering living in the suburbs. It makes perfect sense that it was built like this. The high density now completely solidifies the fact that it will never change because it is ideal to retail tenants because not only does the area have high density walkability close by, but the site has the capability to accommodate those that can't get there by foot.

The owner will most likely NEVER have problems leasing this. To call the decision short term is funny too, because the lease is probably 15-20yrs lol. The building needs zero capital, so why rouse up a bunch of investors to dump money into a property that already has zero issues producing cash flow? Just to get a get a slightly higher bottom line - but incur a ton more risk in doing so? (I agree with Knight). When you redevelop something the amount of assumptions that go into the plan and budget are unprecedented. Why would the owner take that type of risk? Just to make the building have a better aesthetic? This won't get redeveloped until it gets sold, but considering it's ability to lease up quickly to top credit tenants I don't see a redevelopment coming even if it were sold.

Again, I completely understand the owner's economic motivations. It's a financial slam dunk. My objection is that the City enables this kind of bottom feeding to take place in key locations. It shouldn't.

But it is what it is. I too can accept it.

[Knight Hospitaller]

^^^ We're just coming from a different perspective, but I think yours is less grounded in legal and constitutional reality. Property rights are real and, while public interest can impact them (as we see with historic preservation ordinances), we need to be really cautious about "not giving a damn" and playing "command and control" lite. Short of expropriation, the owner has (and our system requires) the freedom to do what the property what he will within the existing regulatory framework. Jim Kenney and Council can't just walk in and tell him directly what he can and cannot do. Rezoning would've been a taking of some of landlord's rights as well, but that would take place within the context of a public debate and vote. Maybe the city isn't forward thinking enough to have done it already in your view, so that's where I suppose your anger is most properly directed.

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by McBane

Yes, there's tons of cheap land in North Philly but the whole attraction of the rail yards is its proximity to 30th Street Station, Center City, and the universities. There's already a critical mass here that's attractive to developers, tenants, visitors, and renters/homebuyers. Moreover, the rail yards, when properly capped over, is a blank slate. As much as you want to, you can't just level a huge swath of North Philly, especially to make way for a high rent neighborhood (which is quite different than what the PHA is doing in Sharswood).

That being said, there is still plenty of available land around 30th Street Station (much of it covered by Drexel's Innovation District). Even moreso, the cost of building over rail yards is soooo expensive, that you could even begin to demolish lower-rise buildings that are in seemingly fine shape and replace with a high rise at a far lower cost.

If/when they cap the rail yards and create all of this acreage of build able property...who will own it? The City? Drexel? Some combination of several entities?

And what's the process for building on these newly created properties? Will they hold an auction for dozens of these properties and sell the land to the highest bidder? Or will they try to do a massive, all-inclusive master site plan that one architect and developer will execute (similar to the failed Penns landing proposals of a decade ago)?

If it's an auction, it will be fascinating to see how that plays out and what values are created.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

Again, I completely understand the owner's economic motivations. It's a financial slam dunk. My objection is that the City enables this kind of bottom feeding to take place in key locations. It shouldn't.

You can lead a developer horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. The sort of rezoning you'd need to achieve your goal would be to outlaw the existing use outright. Good luck with that. Otherwise, landlord just chooses the safe option, rather than redeveloping up to what zoning would allow.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

Property rights are real and, while public interest can impact them (as we see with historic preservation ordinances), we need to be really cautious about "not giving a damn" and playing "command and control" lite. Short of expropriation, the owner has (and our system requires) the freedom to do what the property what he will within the existing regulatory framework. Jim Kenney and Council can't just walk in and tell him directly what he can and cannot do.

Of course. I recognize this, and of course I understand that importance of property rights in the bigger picture of the proper functioning of the economy.

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

Rezoning would've been a taking of some of landlord's rights as well, but that would take place within the context of a public debate and vote. Maybe the city isn't forward thinking enough to have done it already in your view, so that's where I suppose your anger is most properly directed.

Here you have crystallized the source of my frustration precisely.

[1487]

I see the Boy who Cries Wolf is on a rampage on this one. This is a travesty, an embarrassment, a disgrace, this will set CC back 30 years. It's the end of life as we know it in CC! The hyperbole gets old.

Whole Foods being there for X number of years has done nothing to harm this area, but the fact that Target is taking over the same space is a crisis of epic proportions that merits politicians getting involved to stop a private land owner from finding a tenant in the existing structure. .