PHILADELPHIA | THE LAUREL @ 1911 Walnut | 604 FT | 48 FLOORS

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Maybe condos have been eliminated? Same text on Southern Land's website:

http://southernland.com/portfolio/1911-walnut/#prettyPhoto

That would be a disappointment. This project and all its changes or potential changes is irritating me. Just last week, it seemed that condos were back in the picture.

[City Wide]

Condos vs apartments

Does anyone know anything about the risk reward equation regarding condos? I'm thinking that with apartments there's less risk involved; even if the ownership has to lower rents to get the units filled, the rents can always be raised in the future. But with condos once they're sold the owner has either made money or not. There's no chance to regain lost income in the future.

I imagine there's lots of other factors the effect the choice----- one might have to do with how the construction is paid for, if the building is apartments the owners would need long term financing, but with condos I'm guessing the model is sell the units, pay off the loans, and move on, so there would be relatively short term financing in play.

[Jayfar]

Originally Posted by Schuylkill Ranger

Building a second tower for low income tenants is a great marketing tool to attract high end prospects. Combined with the Hillman Apartments on 22nd Street and the PHA proposal at 2102 Chestnut; this area will be quite the incubator for crime, panhandling, and eccentric behavior. The NIMBY's in the CCRA are more interested in sticking it to the 1%'ers than making our downtown a better place to live.

First off, it's 2012 Chestnut. And only one fifth of the 200 apartments will be below market rate:

(Philadelphia, PA - October 20, 2016) - The Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA) has reached an agreement to work with Alterra Property Group, LLC to convert the site of the agency's former headquarters at 2012 Chestnut Street into an apartment building with approximately 200 units, 160 market rate apartments and 40 PHA-supported apartments for lower-middle-income tenants.

Under the 99-year ground lease agreement, approved today by the authority's Board of Commissioners, Alterra will act on the housing authority's behalf to secure the financing and final development of the plan.

http://www.pha.phila.gov/pha-news/pha-news/2016/chestnut-street-headquarters-site.aspx

As to the Hillman Apartments (260 rent-assisted units for senior citizens), I don't see a whole lot of hooliganism emanating from there unless the residents are running people over with their Hoverounds.

[Philly-Drew]

Originally Posted by Schuylkill Ranger

Building a second tower for low income tenants is a great marketing tool to attract high end prospects. Combined with the Hillman Apartments on 22nd Street and the PHA proposal at 2102 Chestnut; this area will be quite the incubator for crime, panhandling, and eccentric behavior. The NIMBY's in the CCRA are more interested in sticking it to the 1%'ers than making our downtown a better place to live.

One of the things I like best about having a % of low-moderate income people living in the neighborhood is that it brings economic diversity to the area. What does that provide you ask? It allows wealthy people to live in the same neighborhood as the bartenders, waiters, and others that you may socialize with while going to dinner. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. You can include artists, cops, firefighters, septa workers, etc. It makes life more interesting, at least for me. I may bump into my favorite bartender while walking through the square, for example.

Economic diversity is one thing I like about Northern Liberties. While much of the new housing is pricey, there is a decent stock of older, moderate income opportunities as well.

The lack of economic diversity is also one of the downfalls in many suburban neighborhoods, IMHO. So many neighborhoods in the suburbs are geared to a specific income level. And in suburban neighborhoods that were "retrofitted" with low income housing in the 60' and 70's, it was very poorly executed. I'm thinking of Woodbury here.

While I respect your opinion, I think it's misguided. You can't compare large swaths of low income housing located in impoverished neighborhoods to a small % of low/moderate income units in an affluent neighborhood.

[1487]

Originally Posted by Philly-Drew

One of the things I like best about having a % of low-moderate income people living in the neighborhood is that it brings economic diversity to the area. What does that provide you ask? It allows wealthy people to live in the same neighborhood as the bartenders, waiters, and others that you may socialize with while going to dinner. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. You can include artists, cops, firefighters, septa workers, etc. It makes life more interesting, at least for me. I may bump into my favorite bartender while walking through the square, for example.

Economic diversity is one thing I like about Northern Liberties. While much of the new housing is pricey, there is a decent stock of older, moderate income opportunities as well.

The lack of economic diversity is also one of the downfalls in many suburban neighborhoods, IMHO. So many neighborhoods in the suburbs are geared to a specific income level. And in suburban neighborhoods that were "retrofitted" with low income housing in the 60' and 70's, it was very poorly executed. I'm thinking of Woodbury here.

While I respect your opinion, I think it's misguided. You can't compare large swaths of low income housing located in impoverished neighborhoods to a small % of low/moderate income units in an affluent neighborhood.

His inference is offensive and ignorant. I.e. anyone who isn't able to afford rents near rittenhouse is either a beggar or a criminal. If that be the case I guess about 90% of the people in this city fall into those categories.

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by City Wide

Condos vs apartments

Does anyone know anything about the risk reward equation regarding condos? I'm thinking that with apartments there's less risk involved; even if the ownership has to lower rents to get the units filled, the rents can always be raised in the future. But with condos once they're sold the owner has either made money or not. There's no chance to regain lost income in the future.

I imagine there's lots of other factors the effect the choice----- one might have to do with how the construction is paid for, if the building is apartments the owners would need long term financing, but with condos I'm guessing the model is sell the units, pay off the loans, and move on, so there would be relatively short term financing in play.

I've always wondered this: if you own the building I'm assuming a % of the HOA fees (which can be insanely high in some of these high end buildings) goes straight into your pocket, right?

[summersm343]

More soil testing happening on site.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by Philly-Drew

One of the things I like best about having a % of low-moderate income people living in the neighborhood is that it brings economic diversity to the area. What does that provide you ask? It allows wealthy people to live in the same neighborhood as the bartenders, waiters, and others that you may socialize with while going to dinner. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. You can include artists, cops, firefighters, septa workers, etc. It makes life more interesting, at least for me. I may bump into my favorite bartender while walking through the square, for example.

Economic diversity is one thing I like about Northern Liberties. While much of the new housing is pricey, there is a decent stock of older, moderate income opportunities as well.

The lack of economic diversity is also one of the downfalls in many suburban neighborhoods, IMHO. So many neighborhoods in the suburbs are geared to a specific income level. And in suburban neighborhoods that were "retrofitted" with low income housing in the 60' and 70's, it was very poorly executed. I'm thinking of Woodbury here.

While I respect your opinion, I think it's misguided. You can't compare large swaths of low income housing located in impoverished neighborhoods to a small % of low/moderate income units in an affluent neighborhood.

Yes.

[City Wide]

Originally Posted by Londonee

I've always wondered this: if you own the building I'm assuming a % of the HOA fees (which can be insanely high in some of these high end buildings) goes straight into your pocket, right?

I don't think it works that way. The 'owner' is the condo association and the individual owners of each condo 'own' a part of the association. I know in NYC there are fairly strict rules that govern the developer as the condos are sold and at what point the association takes over full control of managing the building. There's a good firewall between the developer and the association even when the developer still owns some of the condos.

I remember back in the 90's a warehouse on N.12th st. was rehabbed into condos and I got a copy of the condo paperwork, it must have been 150 pages long and went into detail about how the 'HOA' was to run, what future expenses to expect, etc. Truly boring reading. But monthly fees did not go to the builder.

[Redddog]

Originally Posted by Londonee

I've always wondered this: if you own the building I'm assuming a % of the HOA fees (which can be insanely high in some of these high end buildings) goes straight into your pocket, right?

None of it can go to anything other than the benefit of the association (repairs, maintenance, management, master insurance policy - which is usually substantial, etc). Very strict laws about this and taking money and pocketing it would amount to embezzlement. One would face the same consequences they would if they stole from a corporation.

[jsbrook]

I hope they still put a high-end gym in this. The Bellevue Sporting Club really needs some competition. The weekend hours are not adequate and when things break, it takes forever to fix them. Renovations take forever. It's rumored that a gym is still slotted for one of the Sansom Street structures. That would be good.

[Human Scale]

And the original design was too modern, too forward, not Philly enough !
What a joke! Original design was better. NY thinks so.

http://www.yimbynews.com/2017/01/reveale...t-23-15-44th-drive-long-island-city.html

[jjv007]

Originally Posted by Human Scale

And the original design was too modern, too forward, not Philly enough !
What a joke! Original design was better. NY thinks so.

http://www.yimbynews.com/2017/01/reveale...t-23-15-44th-drive-long-island-city.html

Duh lol. Philly's still stuck in the old. It's dropped from a top 3 or 4 US city the middle of last century or so to currently 7th at best. Sure there were a lot of factors but if it wants to hold off cities like Houston, Dallas, Seattle, Atlanta, and others it's gotta get rid of thinking conservatively for one. No more "we're not a boom or bust city." Great cities are boom cities. It's time for Philly to become one.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by jjv007

Duh lol. Philly's still stuck in the old. It's dropped from a top 3 or 4 US city the middle of last century or so to currently 7th at best. Sure there were a lot of factors but if it wants to hold off cities like Houston, Dallas, Seattle, Atlanta, and others it's gotta get rid of thinking conservatively for one. No more "we're not a boom or bust city." Great cities are boom cities. It's time for Philly to become one.

I agree as to the general point and attitude. But the prior design was mediocre in my opinion. I like the current version better. Context also matters. We don't necessarily need the most modern design on Rittenhouse Square. We are getting the Bridge, which has a more avant garde design. And I hope and expect we'll get tall, glassy buildings in University City. Hopefully with some stellar, modern design. It's certainly a good place for it.

[PHL10]

Maybe we arrived there for other motivations but I prefer the new design and don’t think it’s stodgy. I am growing tired of the cheer glass walls to be honest. The updated design has much more texture.

[1487]

Originally Posted by jjv007

Duh lol. Philly's still stuck in the old. It's dropped from a top 3 or 4 US city the middle of last century or so to currently 7th at best. Sure there were a lot of factors but if it wants to hold off cities like Houston, Dallas, Seattle, Atlanta, and others it's gotta get rid of thinking conservatively for one. No more "we're not a boom or bust city." Great cities are boom cities. It's time for Philly to become one.

the design change of one building doesn't make or not make Philly a "great city". You infer that these "superior" cities are full of dazzling new towers. Most modern residential hi rises are following a similar formula around the country. Most of them aren't anything special.

[iheartphilly]

Originally Posted by jjv007

Duh lol. Philly's still stuck in the old. It's dropped from a top 3 or 4 US city the middle of last century or so to currently 7th at best. Sure there were a lot of factors but if it wants to hold off cities like Houston, Dallas, Seattle, Atlanta, and others it's gotta get rid of thinking conservatively for one. No more "we're not a boom or bust city." Great cities are boom cities. It's time for Philly to become one.

Yeah, at some point in the future, we will be on the precipice of this happening. I'm confidant that STEM jobs and innovations that bring more jobs and research will bring other types of jobs. Penn, Drexel, and the Science Center folks want to make this happen and I think they have people in place to sell it strong. That's why people are thinking about Schuylkill Yards and 30th Street Station District. Someone will take the risk and tap into the full potential of the area. It will have a snowball effect.

[jjv007]

Originally Posted by 1487

the design change of one building doesn't make or not make Philly a "great city". You infer that these "superior" cities are full of dazzling new towers. Most modern residential hi rises are following a similar formula around the country. Most of them aren't anything special.

Yeah my statement was kind of a knee-jerk statement regarding Philadelphia's overall conservatism on progress. The tower height drop and redesign really has little to do with that tbh. It just got me thinking about things the city can do better. As for the redesign, I don't think there's an enormous difference overall. Arguably a slight downgrade, but still a very solid project if built in this form.

[Londonee]

Inga's review of the design changes talks directly to the conservatism issue. unfortunately, the small cabal of people who run this city seem to eschew daring architectural design.

[Castle]

According to Inga's article, the building will rise to 565 feet. So there's that ...