Quote:
Originally Posted by Cro Burnham
100% agree.
In almost every instance I can think of where municipal agencies (particularly in Philly) issues RFPs like this, nothing happens for years . . . . or decades.
Prime example: how many times has the City's "waterfront development" agency issued RFPs for Penn's Landing over the decades?
Kelly Drive in East Falls: how many PRA RFPs there over the years? Sure, there seems finally to be a somewhat promising proposal . . . the second or third one at this point, but nothing ever seems to get out of the ground. This boring fruitless process has been going on for decades.
PRA should attach basic development guidelines, add a couple clawback provisions if development doesn't start within a set time period or satisfy the basic guidelines, sell to the highest bidder based on those terms, and then GTFO.
The kind of RFP described for 8th and Race seems just like a way for PRA's bored patronage staff to have fun playing pseudo-developer. We've seen it a million times before and it almost never leads anywhere.
I predict that five years from now this is still a parking lot. Call me a dope in five years (or now, if you prefer) if that prediction is inaccurate.
|
Spot on. Let's face it, this is a crappy location and the city should be eliminating, not adding hoops to jump through if they really want to get something done. The jobs and taxes generated from any development here - a huge improvement over the current parking lot - should be sufficient "social impact."
My only disagreement is that the winning developer should be the one with the highest bid. Equally (if not more) important:
1) The plan, specifically the number of temporary (construction) and permanent jobs created and anticipated tax revenue from the complete project;
2) Feasibility, specifically the timeline, financing, developer history, and number of variances required.
Together, these two evaluation factors would discourage both small and unambitious projects but also pie-in-the-sky proposals.
Prev
.
Linear Mode
