PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread IX

[Gonzo the Great]

The Great Gonzo: And now... classical music meets seafood!

A response not necessary but appreciated ..........

A= Is the SLS on south Broad dead ?
B= Any news on the hotel , casino proposal for the sports complex ?
C= What prevents any construction for the parking lots @ 8th.& Chestnut
and 8th.& Market ......

[OslPhlWasChi]

Long-time lurker (5+ years) and first-time poster. After a recent visit back to the hometown, I thought I would join in on the forum.

Not sure if this is the right place for this comment but man does there need to be an infill station between 30th Street and Suburban - somewhere around 21st and Market on the MFL. A clear reason behind the lack of development just east of the river on Market is the lack of transit connections. Generally speaking, commercial development in central business districts sticks to sites within a 1/4 mile of a rapid/mass transit connection, which would leave a hole around the 1900-2200 blocks of Market (I would not consider the trolley as rapid/mass transit).

The long-term visions of Schuylkill Yards and the 30th Station District are great, but it would be unfortunate if the current CBD of Center City and the proposed University City CBD are separated by an under-developed and inaccessible area between them. Additionally, I could see arguments for developing areas on the 2000-2400 blocks of Market prior to capping the rail yards as it may come at a much lower cost and result in less displacement of current residents and businesses - not arguing this, just acknowledging the viewpoints - as the only real detriment to development on these blocks I believe are lack of transit connectivity (unless any proposed developments in UCity will also benefit from old KOZs).

A pipe-dream would also include finding a way to add an infill station of the SEPTA lines between JFK and Cuthbert, west of 20th Street. This would obviously require a great expense and talented engineers but it certainly could be done in an easier, quicker, less expensive way than capping the yards. In the distant future, the ideal would be to utilize both of these areas for new development (as long as the demand were there) but some planners would argue it might be better to build upon your strengths and move through the remaining available lands east of the river before hopping to the west. I think the difference here is that the efforts in UCity are being lead by private partners (i.e. Drexel, Brandywine, etc.) so these are opportunistic rather than approaching things from a regional/strategic lens that planners employed by the city or regional development bodies may look through.


*By the way, while I have been professionally involved in many real estate/design/construction/development efforts, my background is in planning. So expect that bias! I am unbelievably pro-development but not all development is good development (some examples of this may come from Blatstein's recent efforts for example) and height is not everything (intentionally throwing this in there having read these forums for years). I look forward to joining the conversation!

[Redddog]

Originally Posted by OslPhlWasChi

Long-time lurker (5+ years) and first-time poster. After a recent visit back to the hometown, I thought I would join in on the forum.

Not sure if this is the right place for this comment but man does there need to be an infill station between 30th Street and Suburban - somewhere around 21st and Market on the MFL. A clear reason behind the lack of development just east of the river on Market is the lack of transit connections. Generally speaking, commercial development in central business districts sticks to sites within a 1/4 mile of a rapid/mass transit connection, which would leave a hole around the 1900-2200 blocks of Market (I would not consider the trolley as rapid/mass transit).

The long-term visions of Schuylkill Yards and the 30th Station District are great, but it would be unfortunate if the current CBD of Center City and the proposed University City CBD are separated by an under-developed and inaccessible area between them. Additionally, I could see arguments for developing areas on the 2000-2400 blocks of Market prior to capping the rail yards as it may come at a much lower cost and result in less displacement of current residents and businesses - not arguing this, just acknowledging the viewpoints - as the only real detriment to development on these blocks I believe are lack of transit connectivity (unless any proposed developments in UCity will also benefit from old KOZs).

A pipe-dream would also include finding a way to add an infill station of the SEPTA lines between JFK and Cuthbert, west of 20th Street. This would obviously require a great expense and talented engineers but it certainly could be done in an easier, quicker, less expensive way than capping the yards. In the distant future, the ideal would be to utilize both of these areas for new development (as long as the demand were there) but some planners would argue it might be better to build upon your strengths and move through the remaining available lands east of the river before hopping to the west. I think the difference here is that the efforts in UCity are being lead by private partners (i.e. Drexel, Brandywine, etc.) so these are opportunistic rather than approaching things from a regional/strategic lens that planners employed by the city or regional development bodies may look through.


*By the way, while I have been professionally involved in many real estate/design/construction/development efforts, my background is in planning. So expect that bias! I am unbelievably pro-development but not all development is good development (some examples of this may come from Blatstein's recent efforts for example) and height is not everything (intentionally throwing this in there having read these forums for years). I look forward to joining the conversation!

Nice 1st post!!

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by Gonzo the Great

The Great Gonzo: And now... classical music meets seafood!

A response not necessary but appreciated ..........

A= Is the SLS on south Broad dead ?
B= Any news on the hotel , casino proposal for the sports complex ?
C= What prevents any construction for the parking lots @ 8th.& Chestnut
and 8th.& Market ......

Your posts really remind me of a guy who used to post here named "Outta Here." Any relation?

[Boku]

Originally Posted by allovertown

Your posts really remind me of a guy who used to post here named "Outta Here." Any relation?

I thought he was Tech Talk Guy's cousin or something.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by Gonzo the Great

The Great Gonzo: And now... classical music meets seafood!

A response not necessary but appreciated ..........

A= Is the SLS on south Broad dead ?
B= Any news on the hotel , casino proposal for the sports complex ?
C= What prevents any construction for the parking lots @ 8th.& Chestnut
and 8th.& Market ......

A - no new news on SLS yet. Last we heard they were looking to start spring of this year (2017)

B - the hotel/casino proposal at the Sports Complex is in litigation hell right now after being sued multiple times.

C - developments will come here eventually as the rest of East Market and East Chestnut builds up.

[jjv007]

Do u think Philly softening or eliminating its sanctuary city status is the best way to get to more reasonable terms with Harrisburg at present?

[Gonzo the Great]

Originally Posted by allovertown

Your posts really remind me of a guy who used to post here named "Outta Here." Any relation?

No but I have been reading posts on here for a few years so I might of picked
up some bad habits , if you see my posts that way ....... sorry .

[Gonzo the Great]

Originally Posted by summersm343

A - no new news on SLS yet. Last we heard they were looking to start spring of this year (2017)

B - the hotel/casino proposal at the Sports Complex is in litigation hell right now after being sued multiple times.

C - developments will come here eventually as the rest of East Market and East Chestnut builds up.

Thank you sir . a little education goes a long way .

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by jjv007

Do u think Philly softening or eliminating its sanctuary city status is the best way to get to more reasonable terms with Harrisburg at present?

There is a reason why basically every large city in America is a sanctuary city and it isn't because cities are full of bleeding hearts. Studies have shown that these policies allow people to be more cooperative with the police and makes the job for police that have to work in these communities that much easier. Simply put, most Philadelphia police not only think that immigration enforcement is not one of their duties, but that pushing such a job onto them makes many aspects of their job even more complicated.

Sanctuary Cities exist for a very practical reason. Violent criminals are already held by police for immigration enforcement, so the downside is enormously overstated. These protections exist so that regular people who haven't even committed a crime feel comfortable going to police for help and assisting them in criminal investigations without fear of deportation. Or if an immigrant commits a petty crime like accidentally running a stop sign, they're not afraid to be pulled over and receive a simple ticket. Whereas if sanctuary cities didn't exist, a minor violation such as that suddenly becomes an enormously impactful event where getting pulled over could mean being deported and being torn away from their family which could then cause such individuals to act desperately and do things such as get involved in dangerous chases etc.

So no. Absolutely not. There is no way we should eliminate our sanctuary city status to appease Harrisburg. It frankly has nothing to do with them. And if Philadelphians want their city to be a sanctuary city and that consensus is shared by the Police that protect us, why should we change anything? Why should we make the job even harder for Philadelphia Police, why should we make our communities more dangerous?

Harrisburg should provide more reasonable terms to Philadelphia because it's in everyone's best interests. That alone should be enough.

[iheartphilly]

Originally Posted by allovertown

There is a reason why basically every large city in America is a sanctuary city and it isn't because cities are full of bleeding hearts. Studies have shown that these policies allow people to be more cooperative with the police and makes the job for police that have to work in these communities that much easier. Simply put, most Philadelphia police not only think that immigration enforcement is not one of their duties, but that pushing such a job onto them makes many aspects of their job even more complicated.

Sanctuary Cities exist for a very practical reason. Violent criminals are already held by police for immigration enforcement, so the downside is enormously overstated. These protections exist so that regular people who haven't even committed a crime feel comfortable going to police for help and assisting them in criminal investigations without fear of deportation. Or if an immigrant commits a petty crime like accidentally running a stop sign, they're not afraid to be pulled over and receive a simple ticket. Whereas if sanctuary cities didn't exist, a minor violation such as that suddenly becomes an enormously impactful event where getting pulled over could mean being deported and being torn away from their family which could then cause such individuals to act desperately and do things such as get involved in dangerous chases etc.

So no. Absolutely not. There is no way we should eliminate our sanctuary city status to appease Harrisburg. It frankly has nothing to do with them. And if Philadelphians want their city to be a sanctuary city and that consensus is shared by the Police that protect us, why should we change anything? Why should we make the job even harder for Philadelphia Police, why should we make our communities more dangerous?

Harrisburg should provide more reasonable terms to Philadelphia because it's in everyone's best interests. That alone should be enough.

Great analysis and example. Thanks for your thoughts.

[Schuylkill Ranger]

Originally Posted by allovertown

There is a reason why basically every large city in America is a sanctuary city and it isn't because cities are full of bleeding hearts. Studies have shown that these policies allow people to be more cooperative with the police and makes the job for police that have to work in these communities that much easier. Simply put, most Philadelphia police not only think that immigration enforcement is not one of their duties, but that pushing such a job onto them makes many aspects of their job even more complicated.

Sanctuary Cities exist for a very practical reason. Violent criminals are already held by police for immigration enforcement, so the downside is enormously overstated. These protections exist so that regular people who haven't even committed a crime feel comfortable going to police for help and assisting them in criminal investigations without fear of deportation. Or if an immigrant commits a petty crime like accidentally running a stop sign, they're not afraid to be pulled over and receive a simple ticket. Whereas if sanctuary cities didn't exist, a minor violation such as that suddenly becomes an enormously impactful event where getting pulled over could mean being deported and being torn away from their family which could then cause such individuals to act desperately and do things such as get involved in dangerous chases etc.

So no. Absolutely not. There is no way we should eliminate our sanctuary city status to appease Harrisburg. It frankly has nothing to do with them. And if Philadelphians want their city to be a sanctuary city and that consensus is shared by the Police that protect us, why should we change anything? Why should we make the job even harder for Philadelphia Police, why should we make our communities more dangerous?

Harrisburg should provide more reasonable terms to Philadelphia because it's in everyone's best interests. That alone should be enough.

What is your source for PPD support of sanctuary city status?

[Urbanthusiat]

Originally Posted by Schuylkill Ranger

What is your source for PPD support of sanctuary city status?

I'm not the original guy, but I have friends in the PPD, and they've told me almost the exact same thing.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by OslPhlWasChi

Long-time lurker (5+ years) and first-time poster. After a recent visit back to the hometown, I thought I would join in on the forum.

Not sure if this is the right place for this comment but man does there need to be an infill station between 30th Street and Suburban - somewhere around 21st and Market on the MFL. A clear reason behind the lack of development just east of the river on Market is the lack of transit connections. Generally speaking, commercial development in central business districts sticks to sites within a 1/4 mile of a rapid/mass transit connection, which would leave a hole around the 1900-2200 blocks of Market (I would not consider the trolley as rapid/mass transit).

The long-term visions of Schuylkill Yards and the 30th Station District are great, but it would be unfortunate if the current CBD of Center City and the proposed University City CBD are separated by an under-developed and inaccessible area between them. Additionally, I could see arguments for developing areas on the 2000-2400 blocks of Market prior to capping the rail yards as it may come at a much lower cost and result in less displacement of current residents and businesses - not arguing this, just acknowledging the viewpoints - as the only real detriment to development on these blocks I believe are lack of transit connectivity (unless any proposed developments in UCity will also benefit from old KOZs).

A pipe-dream would also include finding a way to add an infill station of the SEPTA lines between JFK and Cuthbert, west of 20th Street. This would obviously require a great expense and talented engineers but it certainly could be done in an easier, quicker, less expensive way than capping the yards. In the distant future, the ideal would be to utilize both of these areas for new development (as long as the demand were there) but some planners would argue it might be better to build upon your strengths and move through the remaining available lands east of the river before hopping to the west. I think the difference here is that the efforts in UCity are being lead by private partners (i.e. Drexel, Brandywine, etc.) so these are opportunistic rather than approaching things from a regional/strategic lens that planners employed by the city or regional development bodies may look through.


*By the way, while I have been professionally involved in many real estate/design/construction/development efforts, my background is in planning. So expect that bias! I am unbelievably pro-development but not all development is good development (some examples of this may come from Blatstein's recent efforts for example) and height is not everything (intentionally throwing this in there having read these forums for years). I look forward to joining the conversation!

Nice post. I think we can expect Brandywine's mixed use 500 footer at 21st and Market to break ground within the next 5 years. And don't forget Aramark moving its headquarters to 24th and Market (and adding 5 floors to that building). We also shouldn't forget residential. Market is already becoming a mixed use corridor with 1919 Market and that needs to continue. Some residential infill in the blocks between 21st and 24th on Market could work nicely. There already is some other business, like PECO.

Residential is filling in on on the surrounding streets as well. Asotoban has projects at 21st and Market and 22nd and Chestnut:

http://astoban.com/2108-10/

http://astoban.com/property/

I think little by little we are going development continue to creep towards the river. Things will not stagnate until after Schuykill Yards and the 30th Street plan are largely realized. I do agree that more transit such as you mention could further inspire development in the blocks leading up to the river.

[Schuylkill Ranger]

Originally Posted by Urbanthusiat

I'm not the original guy, but I have friends in the PPD, and they've told me almost the exact same thing.

It all depends on your circle of friends in the PPD.

[Jayfar]

Originally Posted by allovertown

There is a reason why basically every large city in America is a sanctuary city and it isn't because cities are full of bleeding hearts. Studies have shown that these policies allow people to be more cooperative with the police and makes the job for police that have to work in these communities that much easier. Simply put, most Philadelphia police not only think that immigration enforcement is not one of their duties, but that pushing such a job onto them makes many aspects of their job even more complicated.

Sanctuary Cities exist for a very practical reason. Violent criminals are already held by police for immigration enforcement, so the downside is enormously overstated. These protections exist so that regular people who haven't even committed a crime feel comfortable going to police for help and assisting them in criminal investigations without fear of deportation. Or if an immigrant commits a petty crime like accidentally running a stop sign, they're not afraid to be pulled over and receive a simple ticket. Whereas if sanctuary cities didn't exist, a minor violation such as that suddenly becomes an enormously impactful event where getting pulled over could mean being deported and being torn away from their family which could then cause such individuals to act desperately and do things such as get involved in dangerous chases etc.

So no. Absolutely not. There is no way we should eliminate our sanctuary city status to appease Harrisburg. It frankly has nothing to do with them. And if Philadelphians want their city to be a sanctuary city and that consensus is shared by the Police that protect us, why should we change anything? Why should we make the job even harder for Philadelphia Police, why should we make our communities more dangerous?

Harrisburg should provide more reasonable terms to Philadelphia because it's in everyone's best interests. That alone should be enough.

We're off topic here, but to add to and reinforce your points:

Sanctuary Cities Are Safer and More Productive | CityLab.com

[summersm343]

Feasibility study for 13th and Callowhill. I wonder if the owner is looking to move forward with or sell the site/plans to a developer because of the Rail Park moving forward.

[summersm343]

Equus Capital to move HQ out of Philadelphia, citing anti-business climate

Equus Capital Partners Ltd. is relocating its Center City headquarters and 110 employees to the suburbs, serving as a reminder that companies still flee Philadelphia for the suburbs despite the city's resurgence.

Dan DiLella, CEO of Equus, a private equity real estate fund, cited a series of issues that convinced him it was time to move the company to Newtown Square, Pa. The decision comes after spending decades having a presence in the city.

DiLella has personally worked for the last 43 years in Philadelphia and has maintained Equus’ headquarters in the city for the last 30 years. Among DiLella’s complaints were the city’s unfriendly business taxes, quality of life issues including a rise in panhandlers and homeless populating the sidewalks as well as some recent city council legislation. Taken alone, many of these rules, taxes and issues don’t seem bad, DiLella said, but its gotten to a point where they appear to be piling on and creating an overly burdensome regulatory environment for a business to operate.

Philadelphia has made inroads in stemming companies from leaving the city and has seen an uptick in businesses locating their main or secondary offices to city as one way to attract and retain young talent. For example, Vanguard Group, while maintaining its headquarters in Malvern, Pa., plans to open an office in Philadelphia and Freedom Pay Inc. is moving its headquarters from Radnor, Pa., to the city. In spite of those inroads, not all firms stay put.

“It’s always unfortunate when a company retreats to the suburbs,” said Harold Epps, Philadelphia’s commerce director. “I’m happy to say we have, as a city, won more than we have lost.”

Epps cited Aramark Corp., Yards Brewing Co. and Five Below Inc. as examples of companies that decided in the last year to commit to Philadelphia. Even with those wins, it can still come as a blow lose a company and its headquarters.

Companies and business groups have increasingly begun to complain about what seems to be an onslaught of “anti-business” legislation, such as prohibiting asking prospective employees about their salary history as well as the city’s business taxes.

Epps said the commerce department is looking into ways to address the tax issues, streamline regulations and tackle other challenges such as panhandlers that affect the business climate in Philadelphia. Epps conceded that the city could have done a better job rolling out the legislation regarding disclosing past salary history.

“There is a litany of legislation confronting the business community and there is enough of an argument that we might be doing too much too fast,” he said.

“We didn’t get here over night and we won’t get out of it over night,” Epps said. “Philadelphia is going in the right direction but not fast enough.”

http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/...ital-to-move-hq-out-of-philadelphia.html

[summersm343]

...and the exodus continues, as our stupid — city council can't wake up to reality. They're too worried about lining their pockets and pleasing their constituents and trying to address social problems now. They can't seem to comprehend that the only way to address problems now (poverty, blight, crime, schools) is to make the city a friendlier place to do business for the future. Philadelphia has made progress but it's not good enough. The city can't afford to lose these companies, and continue to pass anti-business legislation. Without a better business climate, this renaissance is dead in the water.

[iheartphilly]

DiLella has personally worked for the last 43 years in Philadelphia and has maintained Equus’ headquarters in the city for the last 30 years. Among DiLella’s complaints were the city’s unfriendly business taxes, quality of life issues including a rise in panhandlers and homeless populating the sidewalks as well as some recent city council legislation. Taken alone, many of these rules, taxes and issues don’t seem bad, DiLella said, but its gotten to a point where they appear to be piling on and creating an overly burdensome regulatory environment for a business to operate.


Do they even own or operate any Philly property? Their activity is out in the suburbs so I think it was natural progression to move to the burbs, especially to Newtown Square where they have planted a flag already. And the whining/dramatic criticism is a bit silly beside the reg environment, which is a real complaint.