PHILADELPHIA | American Commerce Center | 1,510' Pinnacle / 1,210' Roof | 63 FLOORS

[teeheee]

I don't see how politics factors into this discussion. Let's keep this on topic, fellas.

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by wanderer34

I have no idea why this thread has veered into city bashing (although having the tallest building in America would make NYers blush w/ envy !!!)

But seriously, the ACC (and Cira Centre 2) seem like the only viable projects for CC right now, since they're both multipurpose developments and not just condos or just office buildings. If both buildings cannot start by the end of the year, at least, then I really have no faith in Obama, seriously.

I know the man has been in office for a year and a half, but somethings got to give, especially when out metro is expanding into Berks, Lancaster, and the Lehigh Valley, and I have yet to hear about the start of the SEPTA expansion into those regions (as well as high speed rail connecting Phila w/ Pittsburgh and the rest of the midwest).

All I'm saying is that Obama needs to start creating jobs which will stimulate the economy and not just hand out cash to corporations and the wealthy and stop focusing on the GOP. They're only distracting him.

I'm hoping for HSR to finally be extended to Pittsburgh myself, especially considering that that's my birth place and where most of my family is located.

As far as this building is concerned tho, sure, it would be sweet to see something supremely large in Center City, but that's not a priority right now. How much of Comcast Center is fully leased? I hear that the corporate vacancy rate for Center City is pretty high.

Then again, when they built the Twin Towers back in the early 1970s, weren't those mostly empty for at least a decade? Not to mention, all the other buildings that were built around that same time in NYC. Soo...

Concerning the problem with luring businesses to Philly and encouraging them to grow and expand, how about Philadelphia and Pittsburgh gang up on Harrisburg over their getting away with rape on businesses pretty much (i.e. lower the damned corporate taxes already!) Why else would companies like Alcoa and those mentioned in this thread want to move elsewhere? Kennametal (Pittsburgh-based) came close to moving its corporate HQ to Dallas because of the business climate.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/business/s_693479.html

[cubanChris]

I'm pretty positive Comcast is 100% leased.


In fact my single cubicle (and almost everyone on my floor now) is operating under double occupancy. I'd say they're actually short on space.

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

As far as this building is concerned tho, sure, it would be sweet to see something supremely large in Center City, but that's not a priority right now. How much of Comcast Center is fully leased? I hear that the corporate vacancy rate for Center City is pretty high.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/business/s_693479.html

Where do you hear this from? People make that fact up consistently, and i'm confused as to where that rumor comes from. Vacancy rate in Center City is around 10%, which is doing far better than the national average, and WAY better than the surrounding suburban submarkets. There's approximately 40mil square ft of space in CC, and 36mil of it is occupied.

[We Got Five]

Londonee - the CC vacancy rate is creeping up...it's currently 14.7% and rising. We all knew the Verizon Tower would revamp itself and market "large blocks" of space. Look for those tenants seeking 100,000 sf to 125,000 sf to set up shop here.

At the rate we're going we won't see a new office building break ground within the next 5 years. That's not being negative, that's reality.

[Infernal_Elf]

Sad to hear this proposed building has such an amazing design

[OneWorldTradeCenter]

Are there images of the site at time?

[Swinefeld]

Originally Posted by OneWorldTradeCenter

Are there images of the site at time?

Right now it's just a surface parking lot. Not much to see at all.

[TheBroadStreetBull]

So does this mean that we are unlikely to see this thing built any time soon?

Do we have any reference-able info in regards to tenants/possible tenants?

[thenbagis]

Originally Posted by TheBroadStreetBull

So does this mean that we are unlikely to see this thing built any time soon?

Do we have any reference-able info in regards to tenants/possible tenants?

I posted this article in the Development Thread
http://planphilly.com/development-philly-steady-she-goes

“Relatively speaking, Philadelphia is a stable market,” said Steelman. “They’ve held their own.” But, “there’s more talk about Cira Centre Two than about the American Commerce Center. A lot of that has to do with Cira as a Keystone Opportunity Zone. There are enormous benefits to relocating.”

So... one could assume that until Cira Centre Two gets rolling, the chances of ACC going are slim to none. We can always hope that assumption is wrong, though...

[philatonian]

Originally Posted by thenbagis

I posted this article in the Development Thread
http://planphilly.com/development-philly-steady-she-goes



So... one could assume that until Cira Centre Two gets rolling, the chances of ACC going are slim to none. We can always hope that assumption is wrong, though...

As much as I'd love Philly to have one of the world's tallest, I'd almost rather see Cira Centre South built. More height on the Schuylkill would draw your eye westward, making the city look even bigger.

At the ACC location I'd like to see something, anything, built there. It's disgraceful how many surface parking lots litter Center City. And somehow people still complain about parking.

[brian.odonnell20]

can't they just take away all the surface parking lots in cc or anywhere and build underground ones under new buildings put there? ...like the acc?

[volguus zildrohar]

The surface parking lots, like any other non-city owned property, are private. In Philadelphia, these lots are hard to get rid of. In Center City they often occupy well-located real estate and that's exactly the thing - the landowners know they can make a bundle selling it to a developer so they can hold out until they get an offer they like and until then they can charge exorbitant parking rates because they know people will pay them - particularly at a time when Center City is a hot draw.

Underground/garage parking is something you will usually only see with institutions. A plot owner will not go through the expense of building a full scale garage when they intend to sell the land to a developer anyway someday. It also helps not that building anything of significant size is difficult enough in this city - how many of those surface lots would be buildings or plazas now if not for this city's onerous taxes, byzantine building code, difficult/expensive trade unions and the other sad drawbacks to business and residential development here. You'll note that major construction only seems to happen here during nationwide building booms when the tide raises everyone's ships - other major cities generate their own booms or at least have a steady stream.

[philatonian]

Surface lots also have relatively no overhead. And thus no reason to sell. They operate like slumlords. Most aren't even maintained and are filled with weeds and trash, and uneven asphalt. They're eyesores.

I thought though that the RDA had some policy that surface lots had to be redeveloped within five years or they had to be sold, or seized by the city, or something? I'm not sure. I heard about it when there was that scuffle over the lot where the Mormon Temple is being built. It is some policy that is in place but they never enforced it until now? If that's true and the RDA does have such a policy, maybe they should be putting a little fire under Sl-EZ Park's butt and getting rid of some of these lots.

[volguus zildrohar]

philatonian, I believe that was a case of the RDA selling lots it owned to developers and giving them that 5 year window to redevelop it. A lot doesn't become de facto RDA property/jurisdiction by virtue of it being unbuilt upon. That particular case was very strange - I used to pass by that lot every day during middle and high school during the 90s and it was undeveloped long before that, I'm sure. Why suddenly the RDA wanted to take it back when a concrete proposal had been made for it is beyond me.

[thenbagis]

The city is doing a small part to get rid of these surface lots. There is a new Stormwater Management charge based on the amount of impervious surface. Unless these "slumlords" are planning to repave their lots with higher tech (porous) pavement, the cost of business and thus, incentive to sell, is going up.

http://www.mmwr.com/home/publications/default.aspx?d=2793

Prior to July 1, 2010, stormwater management services were funded from charges levied against a property based solely on the size of the property's water meter, such that those properties that were served by the largest meters were assessed the highest service charges. In addition, those properties that did not have a water meter (such as vacant lots and parking lots that are not connected to the City water supply), were not assessed any service charge at all and thus did not pay any portion of costs incurred by the City for stormwater management services.

Believing that it needed to allocate more equitably the cost of treating stormwater runoff to those properties that contribute most heavily to the volume of water treated, beginning July 1, 2010 the City instituted a separate SWMS Charge based on a property's size and impervious coverage. Over a four-year phase-in period, an increasing portion of the SWMS Charge will be based on the gross area and impervious area of the property (the "Parcel-Based Charge") as opposed to the size of the water meter, if any, serving the property (the "Meter-Based Charge"). For the year beginning July 1, 2010, 75% of the SWMS Charge will be a Meter-Based Charge and 25% of the charge will be a Parcel-Based Charge. For the year beginning July 1, 2011, 50% of the SWMS Charge will be a Meter-Based Charge and 50% will be a Parcel-Based Charge. For the year beginning July 1, 2012, 25% of the SWMS Charge will be a Meter-Based Charge and 75% will be a Parcel-Based Charge, and for years beginning on and after July 1, 2013, the entire SWMS Charge will be a Parcel-Based Charge.

[wanderer34]

Unless it's green spaces (parks), Philly needs to tack an extra monthly tax on empty lots, abandoned properties, and parking lots. It's ridiculous that a major city would be covered w/ so many empty lots, the city puts it's hand in their pockets rather than do something. The Cira Centre debacle is a great example. How do you just build a garage, when the two towers that are supposed to come with it don't get built. Why couldn't the developers pre-purchase materials than just pay one by one. I was at least looking forward to seeing the constructing of the Cira Centre 2 towers. I can understand why ACC has a delay (no committed tenants), but there was really no excuse for Cira Centre 2 to stop construction of the towers. We could've gotten BlackRock if construction continued, but I'm not completely sure whether Nutter wants to suceed as mayor, I'm just dissapointed in how this is going!!!

[hammersklavier]

Good.

I still want to see a land-use incentivization, though--more than just a stormwater tax: a tax enforced on lack of density relative to neighboring parcels in a given parcel.

[volguus zildrohar]

wanderer, the city can levy all the taxes, fines and fees on abandoned property that it wants. One thing that anyone interested in development in this city should be aware of is the fact that many, if not most, of the parcels are owned by people who don't care about the property. They aren't making money off of it, they can't sell it, it isn't worth the expense of building something when you consider where most of the properties are - there's no incentive. The same would apply if the city simply chose to seize those properties. Suppose a lot on East Lehigh Avenue is in arrears for $300,000. Who in their right mind would purchase a lot in that location for that much in addition to the cost of developing it for whatever their purpose is? It's the same case anywhere else you see acres of abandon - the easiest thing for a parcel owner to do is walk away.

thenbagis, I do remember reading about that. I hope the city enforces that new policy with the same fervor with which it fines good homeowners for having 3-inch weeds.

[brian.odonnell20]

they should have an incentive for the development of abandoned properties instead of a higher taxation upon it.