HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #181  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2020, 2:40 PM
allovertown allovertown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,338
Couldn't they just make demonstration of the capability to begin construction on a replacement building part of the process to even receive a demolition permit in the first place? Make them go through zoning and that whole process for the replacement building and make them secure financing before the demolition permit is handed out. This way before they're even given permission to demo the building, you've ensured that everything is ready to go in regards to constriction of the replacement building.

Then if taxing a property is issue with Harrisburg, if a project fails to begin constriction on the date they agreed to in order to receive their demolition permit, couldn't the city just cite them like they would a building that has broken windows or any other code violation?

I know plenty on this board are involved in the industry. Does anyone have any insight on how much of a burden this would truly be? In my mind it would definitely affect situations where someone wants to just demo a building, float a plan and then flip the project to someone else. Also I guess cases like the jeweler's row project where the longer demolition is delayed, the more likely demolition could be halted through some type of appeal to the historic preservation of a building.

But for the most part, if a developer 100% intends to start construction after demoing the building anyway, how much would it really hurt them to change the order of the process of how they proceed with demolition?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #182  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2020, 4:16 PM
City Wide City Wide is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,623
^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, the City should definitely tie getting a demo permit into something, at least do it in such a way that the taxes don't go down while Carl spends several years working out his details. Meanwhile we the people get another hole in the ground, probably with sidewalks closed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #183  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2020, 4:51 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 cardeza View Post
the only time things like this exist is when the government is the seller of the property and the sale is based on a promise of delivering some sort of benefit for the government. With some of the land bank transactions there are contractual obligations to deliver on affordable housing within a certain timeframe or the property could potentially revert back to the land bank. I see no way you could apply such rules to private land sales. If I buy a house and then decide I want to demo that house and create green space the government cannot tell me that is illegal. What you cant do is build something that violates the zoning for that lot without going through the proper channels.
Seems simple to me. No demo permit without a construction commitment (with certain "outs" in case of a major unexpected turn of events).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #184  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2020, 6:15 PM
allovertown allovertown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller View Post
Seems simple to me. No demo permit without a construction commitment (with certain "outs" in case of a major unexpected turn of events).
Exactly. I don't get why this has to be so hard. And at least to me, it doesn't seem like any type of especially onerous burden that would have any significant affect on construction.

There must be cities that do something like this, right? Or are giant holes in the ground that sit as an eyesore for years the norm in other cities as well?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #185  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2020, 8:21 PM
eixample eixample is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller View Post
Seems simple to me. No demo permit without a construction commitment (with certain "outs" in case of a major unexpected turn of events).
Right, but then what do you do when they don't follow through with their commitments? You have to impose a tax, a fine, or, I suppose, a really large fee for the permit to start building. Or I guess you could make the landowner post a bond that they would forfeit if they didn't build?

I think one of the underlying issues with respect to underused property in the city is our taxation system. We do have a split tax rate where the land is given a separate value from what is built on the land. However, the property value ascribed to land should be a much higher percentage of the total valuation as compared to the improvements on the land. Right now, we are vastly undervaluing our vacant land in this city. I realize this isn't really related to the current debate, but it would eliminate to some degree people sitting on undertaxed, underbuilt lots.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #186  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2020, 9:33 PM
allovertown allovertown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by eixample View Post
Right, but then what do you do when they don't follow through with their commitments? You have to impose a tax, a fine, or, I suppose, a really large fee for the permit to start building. Or I guess you could make the landowner post a bond that they would forfeit if they didn't build?

I think one of the underlying issues with respect to underused property in the city is our taxation system. We do have a split tax rate where the land is given a separate value from what is built on the land. However, the property value ascribed to land should be a much higher percentage of the total valuation as compared to the improvements on the land. Right now, we are vastly undervaluing our vacant land in this city. I realize this isn't really related to the current debate, but it would eliminate to some degree people sitting on undertaxed, underbuilt lots.
Yes good point. Justin mentioned this tax issue previously. I think if you fixed the tax issues with the land itself being so undervalued and put the restrictions in place to get the demolition permit, then i really think you're 90% there.

Sure there will be people don't follow through on their commitments, but if someone actually wants to build and due to restrictions on the demolition permit, they've already gone through the zoning process and secured financing, why not just build? Especially if there is no tax incentive to delay either.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #187  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2020, 1:21 AM
hammersklavier's Avatar
hammersklavier hammersklavier is offline
Philly -> Osaka -> Tokyo
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The biggest city on earth. Literally
Posts: 5,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by allovertown View Post
Exactly. I don't get why this has to be so hard. And at least to me, it doesn't seem like any type of especially onerous burden that would have any significant affect on construction.

There must be cities that do something like this, right? Or are giant holes in the ground that sit as an eyesore for years the norm in other cities as well?
Usually they get paved over and turned into parking lots, but giant holes in the streetscape kind of are the norm in American cities.
__________________
Urban Rambles | Hidden City

Who knows but that, on the lower levels, I speak for you?’ (Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #188  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2020, 12:05 PM
cardeza cardeza is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by allovertown View Post
Exactly. I don't get why this has to be so hard. And at least to me, it doesn't seem like any type of especially onerous burden that would have any significant affect on construction.

There must be cities that do something like this, right? Or are giant holes in the ground that sit as an eyesore for years the norm in other cities as well?
so you are saying no demo permit should ever be issued unless a construction permit for a larger, taller building is included? We know countless examples of developers that tear down a building just to use that parcel as a temporary parking lot to generate revenue in the short term. When two private entities engage in a sale there is very little say in the matter by the government. If the government is the conveyor of the land they have the right to put in stipulations, but you cannot do that when no public land or money are in involved. Imagine if you brought a fixer upper house and the government mandated that your renovation be done within 2 years or they apply a special tax to your parcel. Would anyone be OK with that? Of course not. All kinds of things could slow up your progress.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #189  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2020, 1:18 PM
Justin7 Justin7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 820
^ There is a difference between single family homes and large commercial projects. There is a difference between performing renovations and replacing a functional building with a vacant lot. Are you entirely incapable of nuance?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #190  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2020, 3:22 PM
eixample eixample is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardeza View Post
so you are saying no demo permit should ever be issued unless a construction permit for a larger, taller building is included? We know countless examples of developers that tear down a building just to use that parcel as a temporary parking lot to generate revenue in the short term. When two private entities engage in a sale there is very little say in the matter by the government. If the government is the conveyor of the land they have the right to put in stipulations, but you cannot do that when no public land or money are in involved. Imagine if you brought a fixer upper house and the government mandated that your renovation be done within 2 years or they apply a special tax to your parcel. Would anyone be OK with that? Of course not. All kinds of things could slow up your progress.
You are going off in 50 different directions all unrelated to the topic that is being discussed in this thread. This discussion is not about when "two private entities engage in sale." It's also not about putting conditions on how fast a homeowner has to finish their renovations. This is about a landowner tearing down a viable building (whether or not it is in advance of a sale of the property to another party) and not doing anything on it while they wait for financing or the market to change, or try to flip the project - whatever. Most of us are probably just thinking of the types of projects built by big-time developers rather than one-off home demolitions (although that is an issue too). Yes, a state government (or a municipality to the extent the state authorizes it) definitely has the authority to put conditions on demolitions and building. At the very least, in the situation you describe where a developer tears down a building to use as a parking lot to generate revenue while figuring out a development, the city can - and should - prevent that through the zoning code.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #191  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2020, 4:37 PM
allovertown allovertown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by eixample View Post
you are going off in 50 different directions all unrelated to the topic that is being discussed in this thread. This discussion is not about when "two private entities engage in sale." it's also not about putting conditions on how fast a homeowner has to finish their renovations. This is about a landowner tearing down a viable building (whether or not it is in advance of a sale of the property to another party) and not doing anything on it while they wait for financing or the market to change, or try to flip the project - whatever. Most of us are probably just thinking of the types of projects built by big-time developers rather than one-off home demolitions (although that is an issue too). Yes, a state government (or a municipality to the extent the state authorizes it) definitely has the authority to put conditions on demolitions and building. At the very least, in the situation you describe where a developer tears down a building to use as a parking lot to generate revenue while figuring out a development, the city can - and should - prevent that through the zoning code.
+1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #192  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2020, 4:47 PM
PHL10's Avatar
PHL10 PHL10 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by allovertown View Post
+1
+2
__________________
I've been living under a rock.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #193  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2020, 7:31 PM
cardeza cardeza is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin7 View Post
^ There is a difference between single family homes and large commercial projects. There is a difference between performing renovations and replacing a functional building with a vacant lot. Are you entirely incapable of nuance?
from a legal perspective what is the difference? Please explain. You are suggesting that the public is harmed by a building being demolished and the government should take punitive action against a commercial property owner that does not build on some arbitrary timetable after acquiring a property. What is the basis for the government to get involved in issuing fines and penalties? The fact that some people are skyscraper fans and don't like waiting to see them built? Look at all the twists and turns that led to the Laurel finally becoming a reality, do you really think piling millions in fines on that lot would've HELPED get things started? Recessions, ownership changes and a host of other things slowed down the process of developing that parcel. I don't think it was delayed because the owner just loved having an underperforming grass lot.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #194  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2020, 7:36 PM
cardeza cardeza is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by eixample View Post
You are going off in 50 different directions all unrelated to the topic that is being discussed in this thread. This discussion is not about when "two private entities engage in sale." It's also not about putting conditions on how fast a homeowner has to finish their renovations. This is about a landowner tearing down a viable building (whether or not it is in advance of a sale of the property to another party) and not doing anything on it while they wait for financing or the market to change, or try to flip the project - whatever. Most of us are probably just thinking of the types of projects built by big-time developers rather than one-off home demolitions (although that is an issue too). Yes, a state government (or a municipality to the extent the state authorizes it) definitely has the authority to put conditions on demolitions and building. At the very least, in the situation you describe where a developer tears down a building to use as a parking lot to generate revenue while figuring out a development, the city can - and should - prevent that through the zoning code.
If you need a lot to be vacant at some point to start new construction how can the city use the zoning code to make it illegal to have a vacant lot? Demolition is part of the process of repurposing a lot. There are dozens of things that can delay the process of going from demo to groundbreaking and 99% of the time the developer isn't really in favor of having a pricey piece of ground just sit there so they would prefer to actually start work on the project. But that just isn't reality when complex financing and other issues are involved. Once you get into issuing penalties for FUTURE uses of the property or plans being delayed you are in dangerous territory. What if the delay leads to a new owner or a new and superior design? Not every delay ends up in a negative result and saying that the #1 priority should be to build quickly no matter what could have unintended negative consequences.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #195  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2020, 8:02 PM
allovertown allovertown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardeza View Post
from a legal perspective what is the difference? Please explain. You are suggesting that the public is harmed by a building being demolished and the government should take punitive action against a commercial property owner that does not build on some arbitrary timetable after acquiring a property. What is the basis for the government to get involved in issuing fines and penalties? The fact that some people are skyscraper fans and don't like waiting to see them built? Look at all the twists and turns that led to the Laurel finally becoming a reality, do you really think piling millions in fines on that lot would've HELPED get things started? Recessions, ownership changes and a host of other things slowed down the process of developing that parcel. I don't think it was delayed because the owner just loved having an underperforming grass lot.

Not only was the Laurel primarily a preexisting vacant lot, but the small amount of demolition that did occur in order for the Laurel to rise immediately preceded construction. Oh and the Laurel got everything in place and their construction plans approved before they began demolition. So they basically did everything EXACTLY like many here are suggesting projects involving demolition should proceed. And they did it this way even though the demolition they did involved buildings that were vacant for decades and largely uninhabitable anyway.

So in summary, everything about the Laurel project is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to what is being discussed here and in fact the way the Laurel proceeded, is if anything, evidence in our favor that there is no reason for our city to be scarred by vacant holes in the ground for years while we await development.

I don't think i could imagine anyone more severely missing the point if they tried.

Last edited by allovertown; Sep 10, 2020 at 8:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #196  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2020, 1:26 AM
hammersklavier's Avatar
hammersklavier hammersklavier is offline
Philly -> Osaka -> Tokyo
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The biggest city on earth. Literally
Posts: 5,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardeza View Post
so you are saying no demo permit should ever be issued unless a construction permit for a larger, taller building is included? We know countless examples of developers that tear down a building just to use that parcel as a temporary parking lot to generate revenue in the short term.
You just unwittingly put the problem statement and its solution right next to each other. Of course
Quote:
developers tear[ing] down a building just to use that parcel as a temporary parking lot to generate revenue in the short term.
is a problem, we've known that for ages. Especially when "short term" becomes "long term". So
Quote:
no demo permit should ever be issued unless a construction permit for a larger, taller building is included
is a crude -- but effective -- solution to that problem. Demolition should be a prelude to intensification.

Of course, the better solution would be to use a land value tax, which does not place property tax onus on improvements and therefore incentivizes intensification in economically dynamic and growing cities...
__________________
Urban Rambles | Hidden City

Who knows but that, on the lower levels, I speak for you?’ (Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #197  
Old Posted Feb 7, 2021, 1:11 PM
700 Level 700 Level is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 157
New renderings! I like it - I think it provides a stately look that will fit in well on South Broad. With Arthaus moving so quickly, hopefully this one follows right behind. YIMBY article has updated renderings:

https://phillyyimby.com/2021/02/broa...nter-city.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #198  
Old Posted Feb 7, 2021, 1:55 PM
ScreamShatter ScreamShatter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,954
^ Very nice improvement!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #199  
Old Posted Feb 7, 2021, 4:40 PM
DudeGuy's Avatar
DudeGuy DudeGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Center City Philadelphia
Posts: 281


Another Cecil Baker Partners special...I give it a solid 'meh'
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #200  
Old Posted Feb 7, 2021, 6:01 PM
Frontst17 Frontst17 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 279
I dunno, I think the city could use 3-4 more of these before hitting critical mass. These cookie cutter high rises are going up by the handful in other cities and it does start to get blah. I think we got room though
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:10 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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