PHILADELPHIA | Broad + Pine | 202 FT | 15 FLOORS

[PurpleWhiteOut]

Not much of an update, but the Starbucks is moved out now, so all the retail here is gone

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by PurpleWhiteOut

Not much of an update, but the Starbucks is moved out now, so all the retail here is gone

I wonder if this be demo'd soon now that construction activity has been allowed to resume. I hope this does not become another hole on Broad for ages just as Arthaus takes out the one up the block.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

I wonder if this be demo'd soon now that construction activity has been allowed to resume. I hope this does not become another hole on Broad for ages just as Arthaus takes out the one up the block.

Man, I sure hope they don't tear this down now. I mean, I guess if they're unfazed by everything and they're going to immediately build, then fine. But that just seems incredibly unlikely right now. I would hate for this to become a long term hole on Broad street.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by allovertown

Man, I sure hope they don't tear this down now. I mean, I guess if they're unfazed by everything and they're going to immediately build, then fine. But that just seems incredibly unlikely right now. I would hate for this to become a long term hole on Broad street.

I agree.

[PHL10]

Originally Posted by allovertown

Man, I sure hope they don't tear this down now. I mean, I guess if they're unfazed by everything and they're going to immediately build, then fine. But that just seems incredibly unlikely right now. I would hate for this to become a long term hole on Broad street.

The problem is that I don't see a downside for the developer to demo the property once the revenue generating businesses are gone. That's where I think government needs to put more restrictions in place. After all, it's not like they are tearing down a stand-alone fast food building but in many cases, historic buildings with otherwise good bones.

[summersm343]

Site To Be Cleared For 361-Foot-Tall Broad + Pine At 337 South Broad Street, Washington Square West, Center City

A long-extant Starbucks within a three story building at 337 South Broad Street in Washington Square West may soon meet the wrecking ball, and now, firm plans have been revealed for its replacement, in the form of a 28-story and 361-foot tower by Dranoff Properties. The new high-rise is the latest in a string of similarly-scoped developments along the Broad Street corridor, which have been steadily extending the Center City skyline since the 2009 completion of Symphony House.

The extant structure was built in 1945, and will be completely leveled for the new project. In September 2017, the city of Philadelphia gave Dranoff the green light for the replacement building, which will include underground parking, retail space, and condominiums.

With over two years passing since the city approved the project, the garage and Starbucks have now closed, and all tenants have vacated the extant structure. While demolition permits have not been filed yet, permits were filed last year for the construction of the replacement tower. No signs of demolition have yet become evident, but some speculate that Dranoff is currently focusing on the 542-foot Arthaus at 311 South Broad Street.

Read more here:
https://phillyyimby.com/2020/08/site...nter-city.html

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Site To Be Cleared For 361-Foot-Tall Broad + Pine At 337 South Broad Street, Washington Square West, Center City



Read more here:
https://phillyyimby.com/2020/08/site...nter-city.html

Again, there really needs to be restrictions compelling developers to build within a reasonable time after demolition. Really don't want this becoming a hole in the ground for as long as arthaus was. But arthaus is really moving now, assuming they plan to get started soon, this is great news.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by allovertown

Again, there really needs to be restrictions compelling developers to build within a reasonable time after demolition. Really don't want this becoming a hole in the ground for as long as arthaus was. But arthaus is really moving now, assuming they plan to get started soon, this is great news.

I see no way that is enforceable, once you own the lot I dont see how the government can force you to break ground within a specified time frame.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by cardeza

I see no way that is enforceable, once you own the lot I dont see how the government can force you to break ground within a specified time frame.

They're called laws. You enforce them with fines and legal actions.

You might be surprised to find out that even though I own my house there are laws that prevent me from burning it to the ground and replacing it with a pig shit processing plant. There are actually all types of laws that compel people to do, and not do, all kinds of things to their private property.

[thoughtcriminal]

Originally Posted by allovertown

They're called laws. You enforce them with fines and legal actions.

You might be surprised to find out that even though I own my house there are laws that prevent me from burning it to the ground and replacing it with a pig shit processing plant. There are actually all types of laws that compel people to do, and not do, all kinds of things to their private property.

what laws compel a parcel owner to build within a specific time period? I'm genuinely asking, I have never heard of this.
people typically build within a certain time period for economic reasons, not legal ones.

[TonyTone]

Originally Posted by thoughtcriminal

what laws compel a parcel owner to build within a specific time period? I'm genuinely asking, I have never heard of this.
people typically build within a certain time period for economic reasons, not legal ones.

Owners can have deed restrictions/clauses set on plots when being bought

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by allovertown

They're called laws. You enforce them with fines and legal actions.

You might be surprised to find out that even though I own my house there are laws that prevent me from burning it to the ground and replacing it with a pig shit processing plant. There are actually all types of laws that compel people to do, and not do, all kinds of things to their private property.

Laws? So if a developer buys a property with the plans to demo and then build and then the economy crashes or some other situation causes a delay in the start of construction (lets say the company gets bought out or merges) you are suggesting the government should have the right to fine that landowners because a high rise isn't built fast enough for your tastes?

I was aware that a landowner cannot do things detrimental to the welfare and safety of neighbors due to rules a regulations. Not breaking ground based on an arbitrary schedule doesn't quite fall into that category.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by thoughtcriminal

what laws compel a parcel owner to build within a specific time period? I'm genuinely asking, I have never heard of this.
people typically build within a certain time period for economic reasons, not legal ones.

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.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by cardeza

Laws? So if a developer buys a property with the plans to demo and then build and then the economy crashes or some other situation causes a delay in the start of construction (lets say the company gets bought out or merges) you are suggesting the government should have the right to fine that landowners because a high rise isn't built fast enough for your tastes?

I was aware that a landowner cannot do things detrimental to the welfare and safety of neighbors due to rules a regulations. Not breaking ground based on an arbitrary schedule doesn't quite fall into that category.

How is a giant trash strewn hole in the ground not detrimental to everything and everyone around it?

If the building is not in use or dilapidated that's one thing. But I'm sick of people clearing away useful buildings, with residents and businesses that contribute to the community and leaving the lots to sit vacant for years while they try to flip the land or secure financing or whatever.

Demolition of useful buildings should be the first step in the construction process of a new building. Not something you just do asap to protect your investment and ensure there are no complications with obtaining a demo permit at a later date.

How much of a burden would it really be to require a developer to wait until financing is secured and construction is ready to commence before they knock down the existing building?

If a regulation like this was in place, we'd have an intact jeweler's row instead of a street marred by a giant hole that will disrupt the block indefinitely.

[TonyTone]

Originally Posted by allovertown

How is a giant trash strewn hole in the ground not detrimental to everything and everyone around it?

If the building is not in use or dilapidated that's one thing. But I'm sick of people clearing away useful buildings, with residents and businesses that contribute to the community and leaving the lots to sit vacant for years while they try to flip the land or secure financing or whatever.

Demolition of useful buildings should be the first step in the construction process of a new building. Not something you just do asap to protect your investment and ensure there are no complications with obtaining a demo permit at a later date.

How much of a burden would it really be to require a developer to wait until financing is secured and construction is ready to commence before they knock down the existing building?

If a regulation like this was in place, we'd have an intact jeweler's row instead of a street marred by a giant hole that will disrupt the block indefinitely.

+1 Card seems to have an issue with city/other bodies coordinating and working together, it's just how it is nothing can be done to having everything & everybody working together.

the city can easily say buildings can only be destroyed if you are ready to build, simple nothing around it, if that can't be done then their funding/business isn't solid.

[Nanyika]

From what I heard a while ago, the plans were to put a hotel into the Broad & Pine building — not condominiums. If a hotel still remains in the picture, in the present economic situation, there would be obvious marketing problems to contend with that might slow construction. In any case, from what I was told, construction would likely not begin until the Arthaus is completed. In general, I would agree with other posters that buildings should not be torn down until shortly before construction is scheduled to begin. At Broad & Pine, however, it could be that demolition of the garage would be a first step toward resolving some of the foundational issues on the property. I am not sure of that, but it occurs to me as a possibility.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by TonyTone

+1 Card seems to have an issue with city/other bodies coordinating and working together, it's just how it is nothing can be done to having everything & everybody working together.

the city can easily say buildings can only be destroyed if you are ready to build, simple nothing around it, if that can't be done then their funding/business isn't solid.

You cannot "easily" mandate that high rises be built after a building is demo if the landowner doesn't want to be fined. It is not illegal to own a vacant lot....there are 20K+ of them in Philadelphia currently. All kinds of things happen that delay or cancel a project, to suggest it should be CRIMINAL to miss a groundbreaking deadline (a date that is often arbitrary) is absurd.

[Justin7]

Taxes on vacant lots are absurdly low. Fixing that won't completely solve the problem, but would certainly help. We currently actually incentivize tearing down buildings as quickly as possible.

[Urbanthusiat]

I'm with Cardeza on this one. I'm not sure how you could enforce a law that requires somebody to build... that would require the city making a normative judgement that "there should be a new building here" when I'm not really sure it's the city's place to make such a judgement. The city can't just presume that demand exists. Because then ultimately it would force the city to make decisions about what is acceptable to build, when is it acceptable to build, under what circumstances is it OK to not build, etc. Could I just put up a shed and say I built something on the new lot to satisfy the law while I wait for my actual project? It just doesn't seem to me that the city should have that kind of control over private property, and like I said I'm not sure it would be legal under state law anyway. You could make it more difficult to demo, sure, but I don't see how you could legally enforce someone to build multi-million dollar projects.

[eixample]

You would probably impose a tax on parties that demolish existing, habitable structures but don't start construction to replace them within, say, one year. It's not difficult to imagine how it works, and it's not particularly burdensome on property owners. However, I'm not sure if the city has the authority from the state to impose such a tax and it may run afoul of the uniformity clause of the state constitution (requiring taxes to be imposed uniformly).