HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive


    Arthaus in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Philadelphia Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
Philadelphia Projects & Construction Forum

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #501  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2016, 2:16 PM
Philly-Drew's Avatar
Philly-Drew Philly-Drew is offline
Φιλαδέλφεια
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NoLibs
Posts: 1,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxbot View Post
Straight from the horse's mouth:

"We want to start in the summer, and we're not going to be able to do that unless this money becomes available pretty soon." - Carl Dranoff 2/24/2016
Thanks for posting boxbot. Dranoff is certainly pointing to the budget debacle. If the delayed start is indeed directly tied to the budget impasse, as Dranoff claims, then let's hope it gets going again. And let's hope for the higher floor version.

Does anyone know how this is tied to the state budget. I mean, if this building is 600', 400', or 200', does Dranoff get the same amount of subsidy from the state? There has to be a line somewhere, right? I realize that's a super technical question, but I wonder what is Dranoff's commitment, once the state agrees to send the subsidy?
__________________
"Imagine all the people, living life in peace." :Lennon
     
     
  #502  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2016, 2:35 PM
Cro Burnham's Avatar
Cro Burnham Cro Burnham is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: delco
Posts: 2,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1487 View Post
That doesn't make much sense when you consider how close this is to Symphony House. whatever the issues are I don't think they are related to the notion that it's tough to attract buyers at this intersection.
Presumably Symphony House, with its squat 375' profile and prefab concrete facade paneling would make more financial sense at this corner too.

Symphony House was also timed exceptionally well, as one of the first (if not the first) large condo tower to hit the market in Philly as one of the greatest property bubbles in US history swelled. A lot of the subsequently constructed luxury condo towers suffered quite a bit having come on line when the market was already deflating.

But I agree, in general, the issue isn't necessarily about drawing buyers, who may well be out there, it's probably about finding buyers willing to pay the price necessary to make a very, very expensive design pencil out financially. (perhaps more such buyers might exist if the project were nearer Rittenhouse Sq.)

Finding top end buyers might be a bit more difficult given the competition likely posed by Scannepieco, whose project, if not better located, is at least out of the ground and is probably seen as more of a sure bet to prospective buyers. And perhaps Dranoff also would like to have One Riverside sewed up before he starts competing with himself with this project.

But perhaps you are right and Dranoff is sure there are enough buyers for condos at this site willing to pay the probably very high prices necessary to meet his risk and return thresholds for a very costly building. He and his bankers would need to be to get started, so we'll know for sure they are once they start. But until they start, it's sort of hard to know.

Perhaps the delay is totally unrelated to the market of such buyers. What do you think might be the cause of the apparent delay, if not financial feasibility?
     
     
  #503  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2016, 3:03 PM
Philly-Drew's Avatar
Philly-Drew Philly-Drew is offline
Φιλαδέλφεια
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NoLibs
Posts: 1,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cro Burnham View Post
And perhaps Dranoff also would like to have One Riverside sewed up before he starts competing with himself with this project.
You may have a point there Cro.
__________________
"Imagine all the people, living life in peace." :Lennon
     
     
  #504  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2016, 1:21 PM
cjPhilly cjPhilly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Center City
Posts: 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxbot View Post
Straight from the horse's mouth:

"We want to start in the summer, and we're not going to be able to do that unless this money becomes available pretty soon." - Carl Dranoff 2/24/2016
Thanks for posting this. It confirms what I was thinking, which is that no projects were awarded funding under this round of RACP grants! I imagine this should change pretty soon, and Dranoff may have some inside information/insight, but this project and others haven't been awarded anything yet, and very well may not. The budget impasses is irrelevant if this project wasn't going to get awarded a grant anyway. And considering they were rejected the first time around (in 2014), it's quite possible it could happen again.

From the linked article:
Quote:
Jeff Sheridan, a spokesman for Gov. Wolf, said the applications will remain under review "until there is an agreement on current and future revenue plans to fully fund state obligations."
     
     
  #505  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2016, 12:33 PM
1487 1487 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 3,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philly-Drew View Post
Thanks for posting boxbot. Dranoff is certainly pointing to the budget debacle. If the delayed start is indeed directly tied to the budget impasse, as Dranoff claims, then let's hope it gets going again. And let's hope for the higher floor version.

Does anyone know how this is tied to the state budget. I mean, if this building is 600', 400', or 200', does Dranoff get the same amount of subsidy from the state? There has to be a line somewhere, right? I realize that's a super technical question, but I wonder what is Dranoff's commitment, once the state agrees to send the subsidy?
Developers ask for X dollars but they don't have to get X dollars. They can be rejected outright or they can get a grant amount that is less than their ask. That's how you know these projects are not totally dependent on the dollar figure requested from the state.
     
     
  #506  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2016, 12:39 PM
TempleGuy1000 TempleGuy1000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,223
If you look the RACP's website, SLS did indeed recieve $0 after a large request in 2014. East Market project got it requested. It looks like they haven't updated the website for what was allocated in 2015 or who put in requests.

In all honesty after looking at what other groups apply for these grants, I do hope Project Home and other entities like that get the money first.

http://www.budget.pa.gov/Programs/RA...x#.Vvk4QUes46k

Last edited by TempleGuy1000; Mar 28, 2016 at 1:57 PM.
     
     
  #507  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2016, 2:58 PM
Cro Burnham's Avatar
Cro Burnham Cro Burnham is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: delco
Posts: 2,396
I love this project, but there is about zero rationale for why it should get public grant subsidies.

If Dranoff can't pull it off without free taxes from us, then he should build a more realistic, affordable project for what the market will bear at that location - like most other developers seem to be able to do around Center City these days.

I think we are so enthralled with SLS's glamor, height, and beauty, we just want the state to throw money at it to get it done. But if Dranoff hasn't been awarded the money yet, I don't think he should be. He should just come up with a more feasible project. Even if it's just 375' tall and not 600' feet tall.

It's ashame he's dilly dallying over this stuff. He should just get a decent project done at a great location before the window of opportunity closes. If he keeps holding out for money that's not forthcoming, I suspect that hole will remain empty till the next cycle.
     
     
  #508  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2016, 6:25 PM
1487 1487 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 3,401
the tax abatement is supposed to help make these projects more economically feasible. I don't believe market rate or luxury residential projects should be granted money. Not when that money could go towards helping a project in an area that needs more help where the financials don't quite make sense. The state shouldn't be subsidizing projects like this near the core of the city. Hotels get the grants because the financing doesn't make sense based on Philly's current room rates and high labor costs. I'm OK with that if the hotel is replacing a parking lot or rehabbing a significant structure like the Aloft project. At least hotels create dozens of jobs- not great jobs, but jobs. You aren't getting that in a hi rise condo project.
     
     
  #509  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2016, 3:09 AM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Bala Cynwyd
Posts: 3,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1487 View Post
the tax abatement is supposed to help make these projects more economically feasible. I don't believe market rate or luxury residential projects should be granted money. Not when that money could go towards helping a project in an area that needs more help where the financials don't quite make sense. The state shouldn't be subsidizing projects like this near the core of the city. Hotels get the grants because the financing doesn't make sense based on Philly's current room rates and high labor costs. I'm OK with that if the hotel is replacing a parking lot or rehabbing a significant structure like the Aloft project. At least hotels create dozens of jobs- not great jobs, but jobs. You aren't getting that in a hi rise condo project.
Good thing SLS is largely/principally a hotel.
     
     
  #510  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2016, 12:25 PM
1487 1487 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 3,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbrook View Post
Good thing SLS is largely/principally a hotel.
I thought it was close to half and half. The condos should help make this a STRONGER financial case, not a weaker one more deserving of subsidy.
     
     
  #511  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2016, 1:12 PM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Bala Cynwyd
Posts: 3,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1487 View Post
I thought it was close to half and half. The condos should help make this a STRONGER financial case, not a weaker one more deserving of subsidy.
I think as originally proposed, it was 125 condos and 150 hotel rooms. So maybe. Space-wise, I suppose the condos make up a greater portion of the building than the hotel (though maybe not with retail/restaurant component and hotel amenity floors).
     
     
  #512  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2016, 4:17 PM
summersm343's Avatar
summersm343 summersm343 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 18,362
Updated information

Original proposed height: 590 FT
New proposed height: 566 FT

Original proposed floors: 47
New proposed floors: 45

Original proposed # of hotel rooms: 149
New propsoed # of hotel rooms: 152

Original proposed # of condo units: 125
New proposed # of condo units: 90

Original completion date: Q2 2018
New completion date: Q2 2019

All information from Dranoff website here:
http://dranoffproperties.com/places/...-philadelphia/
     
     
  #513  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2016, 5:31 PM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Bala Cynwyd
Posts: 3,658
Not bad. If the materials and design remain roughly the same, the small reduction in height is immaterial to me. Probably smart that they are reducing the number of condos. There are a lot of luxury condos hitting the market. I suspect they are increasing unit size of many of the units.

Quote:
Originally Posted by summersm343 View Post
Updated information

Original proposed height: 590 FT
New proposed height: 566 FT

Original proposed floors: 47
New proposed floors: 45

Original proposed # of hotel rooms: 149
New propsoed # of hotel rooms: 152

Original proposed # of condo units: 125
New proposed # of condo units: 90

Original completion date: Q2 2018
New completion date: Q2 2019

All information from Dranoff website here:
http://dranoffproperties.com/places/...-philadelphia/
     
     
  #514  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2016, 5:40 PM
Philly Fan Philly Fan is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,478
     
     
  #515  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2016, 9:11 PM
Philly-Drew's Avatar
Philly-Drew Philly-Drew is offline
Φιλαδέλφεια
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NoLibs
Posts: 1,395
How about a start date?
__________________
"Imagine all the people, living life in peace." :Lennon
     
     
  #516  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2016, 12:57 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is online now
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 6,008
Slight height but but will probably get built.

All good with me
     
     
  #517  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2016, 6:28 PM
PhilliesPhan's Avatar
PhilliesPhan PhilliesPhan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,257
566' at Broad and Spruce is still HUGE, especially given that it retained the same design despite a decrease in height. I am super-excited to see this one rise, along with W and Elements!
__________________
No one outsmarts a Fox!

Temple University '18 ']['
     
     
  #518  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2016, 7:27 PM
McBane McBane is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,717
I agree with the general sentiment. I'd much prefer a slightly reduced tower than one not built at all. It's not as if they're going from 590 feet to 390 feet. At 566, at this location, it will still be very, very visible.
     
     
  #519  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2016, 8:58 PM
boxbot's Avatar
boxbot boxbot is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Delco., Pa.
Posts: 842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philly-Drew View Post
How about a start date?
That is a key piece of information that is absent from the website.
     
     
  #520  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2016, 9:16 PM
Knight Hospitaller's Avatar
Knight Hospitaller Knight Hospitaller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Greater Philadelphia
Posts: 2,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxbot View Post
That is a key piece of information that is absent from the website.
Does anyone recall the last stated start date? Since we see from Summers' post that the completion is delayed one year, we can infer a one year delay in the start date (whatever that was). If shovels aren't in by then, we can go back to wringing our hands.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:11 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.