PHILADELPHIA | 10 Rittenhouse Square | 390 FT / 119 M | 33 FLOORS - Page 8

McBane11 · #**141** Posted **Apr 12, 2006, 4:34 PM**

i think the judge dropped the ball on this one. don't you think that BEFORE he had made a ruling he would have asked to see Wheeler's financial records and sales records (and damn it, remember how long it took for the decision to come out). it should have been stipulated, ok, you can demolish the row, IF and ONLY WHEN the tower is ready to be built and the pre sold unit threshold has been met.

i believe that part of wheeler's argument was that this tower would be more beneficial to the neighborhood. ok, but id much rather have the row than another surface lot. what a headache, how embarrassing.

Lincolndrive · #**142** Posted **Apr 12, 2006, 5:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by McBane11

i think the judge dropped the ball on this one. don't you think that BEFORE he had made a ruling he would have asked to see Wheeler's financial records and sales records (and damn it, remember how long it took for the decision to come out). it should have been stipulated, ok, you can demolish the row, IF and ONLY WHEN the tower is ready to be built and the pre sold unit threshold has been met.

i believe that part of wheeler's argument was that this tower would be more beneficial to the neighborhood. ok, but id much rather have the row than another surface lot. what a headache, how embarrassing.

I think we should all settle down a bit. I spoke with a contractor on-site a few weeks ago and they said they still had to make the facade secure before finishing the demolition at the former rittenhouse club. He said the real construction would not begin until well into the summer or September at the latest. I am very confident that things are still moving forward despite the current depressing waiting period.

If you walk by the site you will notice at least a few cars and trucks of contractors that are working inside the to-be-demolished Rittenhouse Club. Unless someone has officially heard otherwise. They are still working this daily.

McBane11 · #**143** Posted **Apr 12, 2006, 7:27 PM**

i like your confidence and i hope you're right. still that doesn't explain why they don't have a sales center or are even taking deposits down on units. i know that when i first heard of the tower wheeler told the inquirer that because rittenhouse square has such prestige has always been historically expensive, his lenders did not require presales. in today's market, if that is still the case, im not sure.

Hal · #**144** Posted **Apr 12, 2006, 9:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by McBane11

i think the judge dropped the ball on this one. don't you think that BEFORE he had made a ruling he would have asked to see Wheeler's financial records and sales records (and damn it, remember how long it took for the decision to come out). it should have been stipulated, ok, you can demolish the row, IF and ONLY WHEN the tower is ready to be built and the pre sold unit threshold has been met.

The judge didn't drop the ball.

There is no rule that says you have to ACTUALLY build the project you proposed. Look 1600 block of Sansom. (Then) Historical Commission, Chairman Wayne Spilove demolished a row of old buildings (that were just outside the historical district) so that he could build a proposed 12 story parking garage. Since then, the garage plan is dead, we lost the street-level retail and "gain" another parking lot. I don't know of any way to FORCE the owner to build the project that he proposed.

Looking at buildings inside historic districts, the rule is that you can't tear down historic buildings, unless there is a "financial hardship" - basically, you have to show that you can't make money / break even with the existing buildings.

Oddly, because of the structure of the law you can
A) plead financial hardship because it will cost $5 million to fix up the buildings
B) get a demolition permit because you can't afford $5 million in repairs
C) annouce that you're investing $50 million to build an uber-expensive high end condo project...

So, oddly, you can get a demolition permit to knock down a historic building, but I don't think there's any way to ensure that anything is actually built on the vacant lot.

My concerns is that the Historical Commission and the Board of L&I Review seem to be headed down a slippery slope--

Is the fact that you could make MORE money tearing down historic lowrises to build new highrises, enough to make those historic buildings a "financial hardship"?

This leads to a "Rappaport Problem" if you can't get a demolition permit for a historic building, just abandon it, in a short time it will cost more to fix than the building is worth, and THEN you can demolish it...

It also leads to a "killing the golden goose" problem as well- each landlord along Rittenhouse Row stands to get really, really rich if they can evict their tenants from their 3-4-5 story building, demolish that building, and jam in a highrise.
So, you raise the rents, push out tenants, let the roof leeak, then claim that it's a "financial hardship" to have a historic building without tenants.
Then, you get a demolition permit, clear the site.... and wait to sell to the highest bidder...
Look at the "soccer field" at 19th & Market, or all the vacant 2nd & 3rd & 4th floor windows of buildings along Chestnut and Walnut...

Heck, I'd always thought that the A.M. Stern building could have gone on either of the OTHER 2 vacant lots along Sansom- either at 1600 block of Sansom (Spilove) or the 1900 block of Sansom (Parking Authority), and spared the historic buildings...

Hey, if 10 Ritenhouse isn't going to be building anyting over the summer, instead of looking at a vacant lot all summer long,
perhaps the $300 million dollar tower could invest $30,000 and throw down some dirt, unroll some sod and create a "lawn dining area" available to the restaurants nearby?

Get in touch with Steven Starr, establish a "Continental on the Lawn" for this summer...

Hal

SouthPhilly · #**145** Posted **Apr 12, 2006, 10:15 PM**

I am all for keeping up Historic and Nice town Houses, these weren't as nice as the average brickhouse in philly.

blorkishdork · #**146** Posted **Apr 13, 2006, 12:36 AM**

I agree with you southphilly that those buildings weren't much. However, i have to agree with hal that there are surface parking lots around that area for the building to be built on. And hypothetically speaking, if Wheeler abandons this project and puts a surface lot there, I will forever nimby any building proposed where historic (or any) buildings are located. Developers should have to sign a contract with the city saying if they demolish building(s) xyz they then must build Q building.

TheOldMan · #**147** Posted **Apr 13, 2006, 2:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by blorkishdork

I agree with you southphilly that those buildings weren't much. However, i have to agree with hal that there are surface parking lots around that area for the building to be built on. And hypothetically speaking, if Wheeler abandons this project and puts a surface lot there, I will forever nimby any building proposed where historic (or any) buildings are located. Developers should have to sign a contract with the city saying if they demolish building(s) xyz they then must build Q building.

i agree completely. there are way to many parking lots in center city. personally, if i had the money, i would propose the city's first 1000 footer (1050 feet to the roof to be exact) and it would take up some parking lot that some other chickenshit developer bought but never built on.

The Cheat · #**148** Posted **Apr 13, 2006, 5:38 AM**

A land value tax would light a fire under those real estate speculators sitting on surface parking lots and vacant land.

volguus zildrohar · #**149** Posted **Apr 13, 2006, 9:13 PM**

Hal may be wondering how our crow tastes.

It just looks bad for this project, considering all the attention it received to get its land, to simply be an empty lot for months. I can get with the idea of a value tax for speculators but that's a very Chicago idea.

Londonee · #**150** Posted **Apr 13, 2006, 10:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Cheat

A land value tax would light a fire under those real estate speculators sitting on surface parking lots and vacant land.

see, that's actually a tax that makes logical sense. we dont believe in such things in Philadelphia.

It might not be fair to do it in some poorer neighborhoods in the city, but it should be certainly levied in the Center City District (River to River, Spring Garden to Washington). They should tax the hell out of these lots, even if it is a surface parking lot and zoned for it. Can Council pass a bill that only applies to a particular section of the city, and not the city as a whole? i dont see why not.

what a stimulus for development. no longer would squatting be profitable--especially in a real estate market that's relatively hot right now. on top of that, city hall gets some additional revenue.

SouthPhilly · #**151** Posted **Apr 13, 2006, 10:51 PM**

I dont think thats fair for already exsisting resindetial properties, what about all empty lots, parking lots/garages, ect.

Phillydude · #**152** Posted **Apr 14, 2006, 3:26 AM**

I think everyone is getting their panties in a twist over nothing. We should accept the reports that construction will begin later in the year until proven otherwise. It seems some folks believe this thing should be on the 20th floor by now. Look how long it took for Comcast to start springing up in a meaningful way -- a year.

Work is still going on (shoring up the Rittenhouse Club); equipment is on site. And as far as I can recall, neither Spilove or Rappaport engaged in an expensive, protracted legal battle such as the one waged over Rindelaub's Row, so IMO any comparison is misguided.

We here on the forum second guess alot of the development decisions going on around this city and that's what makes this forum fun. The could have beens, should have beens, etc. But what we have to say has no effect on reality. What irks me is that some folks seem to think this thing is/is going to be dead. And I doubt that. I think Marina View, 101 Sky and a few others have a better chance of being dead than 10 Rittenhouse.

bmorescottamanda · #**153** Posted **Apr 14, 2006, 4:51 AM**

it looks great and I cant wait til there build 10 inner habor in Baltimore 59 floors 717ft

Hal · #**154** Posted **Apr 14, 2006, 3:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phillydude

...
We should accept the reports that construction will begin later in the year until proven otherwise.
...

Work is still going on (shoring up the Rittenhouse Club); equipment is on site.

Not so sure there...

I think they have to shore up the Rittenhouse Club before beginning minor demolition work to prepare to convert the upper floors of the Barnes & Noble Building to condos.

The "Lofts at Rittenhouse" are the current project which start in spring 2006, and are to be completed in spring 2007.

I thought I'd seen a date of 2008 for "10 Rittenhouse" which places it after the "Lofts at Rittenhouse" project.

I can't imagine they'd start construction work on 10 Rittenhouse at the same time they're trying to sell high-end condos at the highrise construction site...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phillydude

...
And as far as I can recall, neither Spilove or Rappaport engaged in an expensive, protracted legal battle such as the one waged over Rindelaub's Row, so IMO any comparison is misguided.

Not misguided at all.
Spilove was involved in all sorts of litigation, from his tenants, from people who wanted to keep the buildings....

Of course, Spilove's Garage had financing, had special laws written to allow it to extend out over the street etc....

Sure thing eh?

Quote:

Stores, garage sought for 16th and Sansom
Philadelphia Business Journal - April 23, 1999by John Mccalla Staff Writer
A stretch of Sansom Street in Center City may soon be demolished to make way for a retail strip and parking garage.

...

Spilove, president of Rittenhouse Management Corp., and Sablosky, president of Stonehenge Advisors Inc., assembled 12 properties -- from 1605 to 1627 Sansom -- from the Sam Rappaport Estate over the past two years and say they would like to start demolition by September.

The partners declined to disclose the project's cost, but said financing is in place and they were seeking a special-use zoning variance and deciding on a professional operator to manage the 303-car garage.

About 5,600 square feet of first-floor retail space, Spilove said, "will lease itself -- no problem."

[snip]

A final plan that details the garage's specifics is being prepared. Spilove and Sablosky hope to be open by summer 2000.

Hmm, lemme see -

"We've got financing"

"Street level retail"

"We'll be up and running in a year"

Sounds familiar for parking garages...

Now for condos...

Hal

"I've mortgaged my castle in the air" Chet Baker

Swinefeld · #**155** Posted **Apr 15, 2006, 12:08 AM**

Hal, there is a way of making your point without being an insufferably condescending j/o. Please make a note of that and act accordingly in the future.

Hal · #**156** Posted **Apr 15, 2006, 12:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swinefeld

Hal, there is a way of making your point without being an insufferably condescending j/o. Please make a note of that and act accordingly in the future.

Touchy?

Ok

1990's Parking Garage Bubble = 2000's Condo Bubble

Better?

Hal

McBane11 · #**157** Posted **Apr 15, 2006, 6:51 AM**

Hal - the devils advocate of the skyscraper forum....gotta love it.

Philly-Drew · #**158** Posted **Apr 15, 2006, 2:02 PM**

Good to hear from you Hal. My opinion is that you wait too long between your posts.
I didn’t take your tone above as condescending, but then, it wasn’t directed at me and I normally don’t take things personally (at least I don’t think so).

Now that the demolition is completed, this is the point in time where one of two things will happen:

1) There is a waiting period while the developer prepares for construction, starts selling units, and finally starts the building. So far we can’t actually see any of this but maybe it’s like what Phillydude said above, it’s behind the scenes stuff going on now.
2) There is a waiting period while the developer “prepares for construction, starts selling units, and finally starts the building” except that none of that happens and instead we see a big “FOR SALE” sign in the middle of the lot. After all, as said above, the lot is worth some serious $$$$ now that it’s been cleared.

The one thing that’s bothering me about it is that there is no sales office to speak of. I’d think that the developer would want to seriously get busy with selling these units as quickly as possible. Being a big fan of high rise buildings, can any of you think of a reason why the ARCWheeler group would be waiting to start selling units here? Maybe it’s all part of the plan, or necessary for some reason we’re not sure of?

Either way, I’d love to see this building built, now more then ever but if it doesn’t happen, OUCH!!!!

One other thing, the website hasn’t really been updated too much for this site. The worst part of it is that it doesn’t seem to be “FireFox Compatible”.

http://www.10rittenhouse.com//

CondoGuru · #**159** Posted **Apr 15, 2006, 3:09 PM**

Actually, there is a sales office and they began "pre-sales" last summer. The lady in their office said they're 100% reserved with even "backup" reservations. I'm not sure if that's spin or what not, but I stand corrected in one of my previous posts regarding 10...they do NOT yet have financing because they have not signed any Agreements and therefore have no earnest deposits...only refundable reservations. That's why Turner has not yet moved in to start...the lender hasn't ok'd it yet. Once they get their HUD statements back and can start signing Agreements, we'll see some action on the ground.

Swinefeld · #**160** Posted **Apr 15, 2006, 3:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philly-Drew

I didn’t take your tone above as condescending, but then, it wasn’t directed at me and I normally don’t take things personally (at least I don’t think so).

Actually, he edited his post to be less condescending. Perhaps he got a stern lecture from a moderator. Is Hal hoping this project doesn't get done just so he can say, "I told you so"? That wouldn't terribly mature.

CG, thanks for the update!