PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread IX

[Redddog]

Originally Posted by McBane

I know but you can't market an ultra luxury building at a location that isn't equally high end. Scannapieco isn't a pioneer and besides, the multi-lane highway that is Columbus Blvd does not speak to what he described as his ideal location (quiet, residential). Also, banking anything on Penn's Landing resurgence is an iffy prospect at best.

Fair enough. Just a guess.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by jjv007

Can anybody access the Biz Journals article?

I posted the full article in post #13916 on the last page. Here it is:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=7746936&postcount=13916

[City Wide]

Originally Posted by allovertown

That's interesting. Did you spend 7 million dollars to determine whether or not that aspect of the project would be an issue? I think I'll trust the experts who spent millions of dollars putting this together.

Also, in your repeated attempts to compare this to SLS, you continually ignore the most important difference. There was never any type of indication SLS was fully funded except for the $20 million they requested from the state. State funding was just a piece of a big puzzle that they couldn't put together. That's not the case with this project which funded 90% of the project before even announcing it.

Also for those who doubt they actually spent the 9 million they claimed to have spent, I don't even know what to say. Developers often paint a rosy picture and are overly optimistic. But I have zero recollection of one flat out lying about costs associated with the project.

A number of years ago a certain orange haired NYC developer type guy came to Philly with plans and promises to build a golden tower on the Delaware river. I don't remember the specifics, but based on this individuals track record I would assume that everything he said was pumped up by about 100%.

My guess is that these NYC guys somehow think throwing all these top shelve numbers around are going to somehow impress people and make the State more willing to extent $20M of corporate welfare to them. Either that or they hope to make a big enough splash that somebody else will come along and buy them out.

Certainly bait and switch is a common practice in RE.

While many people seem to more or less accept at face value what these developers claim, I take just the opposite tack and say "show me the money". Lets see some of these studies that you've spent so much money on, or at least tell us who the authors were. I just don't buy the idea that these guys have $140M just waiting around to be spent in N. Philly. Their claim is that they have an agreement of sale on the actual land, and I am 99% sure that will never be finalized unless all the other pieces of this "plan" come together, so its doubtful that we'll be able to check them on that any time soon.

As I've said before, I would be glad to be wrong about all this. I think this would be nothing but good for that area, but---------

[mja]

Originally Posted by City Wide

A number of years ago a certain orange haired NYC developer type guy came to Philly with plans and promises to build a golden tower on the Delaware river. I don't remember the specifics, but based on this individuals track record I would assume that everything he said was pumped up by about 100%.

Fake president wasn't even the actual developer of that project. He merely sold his name / brand to the actual investment / development team. That should already tell you something about the track record of said 'developers'. Then the bottom fell out of the economy. Meanwhile, this is presumably not the same situation at all.

Look, I get the skepticism given that this is an unprecedented proposal, but you're going out of your way to find reasons to be negative about it.

[Larry King]

Originally Posted by McBane

I know but you can't market an ultra luxury building at a location that isn't equally high end. Scannapieco isn't a pioneer and besides, the multi-lane highway that is Columbus Blvd does not speak to what he described as his ideal location (quiet, residential). Also, banking anything on Penn's Landing resurgence is an iffy prospect at best.

I bet he picks up the dilworth site on Washington square

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by City Wide

A number of years ago a certain orange haired NYC developer type guy came to Philly with plans and promises to build a golden tower on the Delaware river. I don't remember the specifics, but based on this individuals track record I would assume that everything he said was pumped up by about 100%.

My guess is that these NYC guys somehow think throwing all these top shelve numbers around are going to somehow impress people and make the State more willing to extent $20M of corporate welfare to them. Either that or they hope to make a big enough splash that somebody else will come along and buy them out.

Certainly bait and switch is a common practice in RE.

While many people seem to more or less accept at face value what these developers claim, I take just the opposite tack and say "show me the money". Lets see some of these studies that you've spent so much money on, or at least tell us who the authors were. I just don't buy the idea that these guys have $140M just waiting around to be spent in N. Philly. Their claim is that they have an agreement of sale on the actual land, and I am 99% sure that will never be finalized unless all the other pieces of this "plan" come together, so its doubtful that we'll be able to check them on that any time soon.

As I've said before, I would be glad to be wrong about all this. I think this would be nothing but good for that area, but---------

Do you also believe in Bigfoot? What is it with these conspiracy theories? As I said before, developers being overly optimistic is one thing. Flat out lying to the press about how much money they spent on research is something entirely different. These are serious people with an impressive reputation, why the fuck would they risk it on this? As big as this project is, it's small potatoes for HFZ. You really think think they'd risk their reputation on this?

Your insane conspiracy theory doesn't even make sense. Why would they lie and say they spent more money than they actually had? To make this project appear less profitable to their investors?

Comparing it to SLS was ridiculous enough, comparing it to Trump's ridiculous project is a joke. None of these projects had anywhere near 90% of their funding at any point in their development. I swear, the lengths some people will go to be negative.

Look. This may or may not happen. Any number of things could happen to alter this. But the land is 2.1 mil, they've spent 7 million on research and they've financed 142 million of a 162 million project, why you think they'd risk their reputation to lie about any of this is beyond me. And once you take those numbers at face value there's a reason why so many people, including so many frequently skeptical people, are pretty optimistic about the chances of this project happening.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by Larry King

I bet he picks up the dilworth site on Washington square

Just what I was thinking. It's the only big slice of real estate in the area that won't face significant opposition to a high rise.

[City Wide]

Originally Posted by allovertown

Do you also believe in Bigfoot? What is it with these conspiracy theories? As I said before, developers being overly optimistic is one thing. Flat out lying to the press about how much moneythey spent on research is something entirely different. These are serious people with an impressive reputation, why the fuck would they risk it on this? As big as this project is, it's small potatoes for HFZ. You really think think they'd risk their reputation on this?

Your insane conspiracy theory doesn't even make sense. Why would they lie and say they spent more money than they actually had? To make this project appear less profitable to their investors?

Comparing it to SLS was ridiculous enough, comparing it to Trump's ridiculous project is a joke. None of these projects had anywhere near 90% of their funding at any point in their development. I swear, the lengths some people will go to be negative.

Look. This may or may not happen. Any number of things could happen to alter this. But the land is 2.1 mil, they've spent 7 million on research and they've financed 142 million of a 162 million project, why you think they'd risk their reputation to lie about any of this is beyond me. And once you take those numbers at face value there's a reason why so many people, including so many frequently skeptical people, are pretty optimistic about the chances of this project happening.

My insane conspiracy theory is so insane I didn't even know about it.

I look at everything that has been put forward and I say it smells like a pile of BS. For me the pieces don't line up, in a big way; I think they are lying. No big deal, not the first or last time, and after all we are in the post truth era. So to answer your question, yes, for HFZ I think whatever they are doing won't effect them one bit. RE in NYC is a blood sport, this is a little picnic in the country for them. I think it could come out that they haven't spent one cent and it wouldn't effect them at all. Their reputation is not going to be hurt if this project goes south. I don't attempt to understand their motives in this, other then for me this doesn't pass the smell test.

You look at the same information and apparently see no reason to question any of it. You are a true believer. So be it. If you believe that 90% of the financing for this is a done deal, then you most believe in the tooth fairy. The lengths some will go to pull the wool over their eyes is amazing.

I haven't changed your mind; you haven't changed mine. And life goes on. In other words, no big deal. We both seem to know that we don't have any effect on if this gets built, so I'll sit back and enjoy the discussion and be glad that we all aren't alike.

Tell you what, I'll give you 5 to 1 odds that this isn't in construction in a year, or 18 months. You win, I'll buy you 5 beers, I win and I get 1. Deal?

[Justin7]

Originally Posted by summersm343

I posted the full article in post #13916 on the last page. Here it is:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=7746936&postcount=13916

It looks like the article has been expanded since then. I'm not going to post the whole thing, but here is the takeaway:

The brisk sales at 500 Walnut give Scannapieco not only the ability to sleep soundly at night, but the encouragement to go forward with another similar project. While little is being disclosed about it, Scannapieco's next project would have 30 to 40 units and, he said, strive to be on scale of some of the grand residential buildings overlooking Central Park in New York.

Since he mentions Central Park I'd suggest the Independence Place parking lot on Washington Square, which is a terrible waste of space, but I can't imagine the association giving up their views.

[McBane]

^ I was thinking the same thing. He's probably going to build on a site off or near Washington Square that's already zoned for a high rise. The prime lots are all occupied by old homes, some historic so he'll need the zoning on his side.

Dillworth house is an interesting proposition, I recall a very controversial proposal from back in the day of a 16 story building but don't recall if it was ever approved or how that property is currently zoned. Given that his buildings are one unit per floor and he caters the richest of the rich, 16 stories may be enough. I don't foresee anything really tall because we just don't have that many uber wealthy people in the region. (1706 Rittenhouse is 33 floors and 500 Walnut is 26)

I'm very eager to see what's next, that's for sure.

[1487]

News on long stalled conversion project

https://www.multihousingnews.com/post/post-brothers-wins-100m-to-transform-historic-office/

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by 1487

News on long stalled conversion project

https://www.multihousingnews.com/post/post-brothers-wins-100m-to-transform-historic-office/

Good. When I talked to Matt in the fall on this, I told him they should plan to convert some of the units to condos down the line as I think that would be good for the area. But I think they will all be rental and all stay rental unless there is really money to be made from the conversion and probably also only happen with the next owner of the building.

These will be very nice. With this, the Versailles, and the Alison we are seeing a lot of larger, upscale rentals hit the market. There's a place for that, including boomers who sold their house in the burbs to live in the city and would prefer to reinvest the money other ways rather than repurchase.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Good. When I talked to Matt in the fall on this, I told him they should plan to convert some of the units to condos down the line as I think that would be good for the area. But I think they will all be rental and all stay rental unless there is really money to be made from the conversion and probably also only happen with the next owner of the building.

These will be very nice. With this, the Versailles, and the Alison we are seeing a lot of larger, upscale rentals hit the market. There's a place for that, including boomers who sold their house in the burbs to live in the city and would prefer to reinvest the money other ways rather than repurchase.

And possibly the Beacon too at 16th and Walnut, though I don't think any of its units will be nearly as large as the units in this renovation, the Versailles or the Alison Building.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by 1487

News on long stalled conversion project

https://www.multihousingnews.com/post/post-brothers-wins-100m-to-transform-historic-office/

Very nice. Glad to see this finally moving forward.

[br323206]

Originally Posted by McBane

^ I was thinking the same thing. He's probably going to build on a site off or near Washington Square that's already zoned for a high rise. The prime lots are all occupied by old homes, some historic so he'll need the zoning on his side.

Dillworth house is an interesting proposition, I recall a very controversial proposal from back in the day of a 16 story building but don't recall if it was ever approved or how that property is currently zoned. Given that his buildings are one unit per floor and he caters the richest of the rich, 16 stories may be enough. I don't foresee anything really tall because we just don't have that many uber wealthy people in the region. (1706 Rittenhouse is 33 floors and 500 Walnut is 26)

I'm very eager to see what's next, that's for sure.

All of the north side and most of the east and west sides of the park are zone CMX-4. The south side is mostly RM-4.


upload to album

[skyscraper]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Good. When I talked to Matt in the fall on this, I told him they should plan to convert some of the units to condos down the line as I think that would be good for the area. But I think they will all be rental and all stay rental unless there is really money to be made from the conversion and probably also only happen with the next owner of the building.

The original plan was to have duplex condos on the top floors, but the last I heard (when I worked for Vinoly and in fact was going to do construction administration for this project) that this has gone to all-rentals. However, that was before their last round of financing fell through, don't know what this lender is calling for.
So really, I have added nothing to this conversation....

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by Larry King

I bet he picks up the dilworth site on Washington square

Which site is this? Zoning? Address?

EDIT: I see this article: http://planphilly.com/articles/2015/05/19/dilworth-house-can-be-partly-demolished-court-says I suppose nothing's happened. Yes, then, seems a viable site for Scannapieco.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

The original plan was to have duplex condos on the top floors, but the last I heard (when I worked for Vinoly and in fact was going to do construction administration for this project) that this has gone to all-rentals. However, that was before their last round of financing fell through, don't know what this lender is calling for.
So really, I have added nothing to this conversation....

Yes, condos were originally in the mix, but it morphed after lenders. I believe it is proceeding as all rentals. I had mentioned condo conversion at a later date, but I don't think they are too interested. From a developer standpoint, I suppose conversion may not too much sense (generally), is a big hassle, and requires new financing commitments. May make more sense for a subsequent owner who buys the property with that in mind.

[Larry King]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Which site is this? Zoning? Address?

http://planphilly.com/articles/2012/04/12/update-commonwealth-court-upholds-dilworth-house-appeal

^ 223 s 6... previous project was in litigation hell, heard it was back in play so it wouldn't surprise me if it was scannapeico. I live in the neighborhood and would love to see it happen, building looks horrible as is.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by Larry King

http://planphilly.com/articles/2012/04/12/update-commonwealth-court-upholds-dilworth-house-appeal

^ 223 s 6... previous project was in litigation hell, heard it was back in play so it wouldn't surprise me if it was scannapeico. I live in the neighborhood and would love to see it happen, building looks horrible as is.

Got it. Also found this article: http://planphilly.com/articles/2015/05/19/dilworth-house-can-be-partly-demolished-court-says