PHILADELPHIA | THE LAUREL @ 1911 Walnut | 604 FT | 48 FLOORS

[TempleGuy1000]

Originally Posted by boxbot

Ten times the prior estimate? Sounds legit. Is SLC blackmailing you? Just post a smiley emoticon for yes.

when was the previous estimate done?

[boxbot]

Originally Posted by TempleGuy1000

when was the previous estimate done?

Not that long ago. There are many posts somewhere in this thread about the original rehab being an economic hardship. If memory serves, it was like $1.4m.

[TempleGuy1000]

Originally Posted by boxbot

Not that long ago. There are many posts somewhere in this thread about the original rehab being an economic hardship. If memory serves, it was like $1.4m.

I actually did find it online:

To support its hardship claim, the company cites an environmental report by the engineering firm Pennoni Associates, which states that the cost of remediation for the three buildings (removing asbestos-contaminated material, lead based paint, pigeon guano, and mold blooms) would require an estimated total cost of $1,610,000 (Rittenhouse Coffee Shop: $49,030, Warwick: $1,455,470, Baird Funeral Home: $105,500).

http://hiddencityphila.org/2015/11/d...sansom-street/

[ConstructStudent]

So I have a question. Say this project was not to be built or never even came about. What would happen to the deteriorating Warwick and Coffee Shop in 5 years when they are not structurally sound and start to crumble? Would these buildings be demolished anyway?

Or would the city pay a substantial amount of money to renovate them?

[RonnieStevens]

Originally Posted by ConstructStudent

So I have a question. Say this project was not to be built or never even came about. What would happen to the deteriorating Warwick and Coffee Shop in 5 years when they are not structurally sound and start to crumble? Would these buildings be demolished anyway?

Or would the city pay a substantial amount of money to renovate them?

Exactly I asked the same question a few pages back. No one has touched those building in 20+ years. And if they do build around them, in 5 years they will say they are dangerous and need to be demolished so they don't fall down on the new building. They will be gone regardless its a choice between eventual deterioration or lets put that land to good use

[boxbot]

Originally Posted by ConstructStudent

So I have a question. Say this project was not to be built or never even came about. What would happen to the deteriorating Warwick and Coffee Shop in 5 years when they are not structurally sound and start to crumble? Would these buildings be demolished anyway?

Or would the city pay a substantial amount of money to renovate them?

The PPA caused any damage and/or deterioration of those buildings. They should be held responsible. (Why are you laughing?) That said, to paint with a broad brush, these old brick buildings are built really extraordinarily well. The records show the roofing work was already done to keep water out. I'm not sure there'd be much of a difference five years from now.

[RonnieStevens]

Originally Posted by boxbot

The PPA caused any damage and/or deterioration of those buildings. They should be held responsible. (Why are you laughing?) That said, to paint with a broad brush, these old brick buildings are built really extraordinarily well. The records show the roofing work was already done to keep water out. I'm not sure there'd be much of a difference five years from now.

But realistically do you see anyone coming in a rehabbing those building into apartments or anything along those lines? I think the best chance is for a mega project to absorb these (if say they are rehabbed or just the facade is kept) so the marginal cost can be spread among the maximum amount of units/commercial space.

[boxbot]

Originally Posted by RonnieStevens

But realistically do you see anyone coming in a rehabbing those building into apartments or anything along those lines? I think the best chance is for a mega project to absorb these (if say they are rehabbed or just the facade is kept) so the marginal cost can be spread among the maximum amount of units/commercial space.

Who knows. I'm with you, though. The highest and best use of the Warwick at this point is facade preservation and incorporation. (Another reason why the newly inflated rehab numbers are ridiculous). The funeral home may have to go and that's ok. I just don't know why some on these forums are so quick to claim the sky is falling every time the developer says they'd rather demo the Warwick because that would be easier. That's not going to be the thing that makes or breaks this deal. I promise.

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by boxbot

(Another reason why the newly inflated rehab numbers are ridiculous).

The $15 million number is not inflated. The original $1.6 million number (or whatever it was) that was quoted was JUST for remediation (i.e., safe removal) of asbestos, lead, pigeon poop, and mold. That didn't even begin to account for structural stabilization, exterior restoration, interior gutting and construction, and finishing to a level commensurate with the market in that neighborhood, i.e., luxury finishes. So $15 million is not outrageous or extraordinary for this size and kind of rehab or renovation job.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by ConstructStudent

So I have a question. Say this project was not to be built or never even came about. What would happen to the deteriorating Warwick and Coffee Shop in 5 years when they are not structurally sound and start to crumble? Would these buildings be demolished anyway?

Or would the city pay a substantial amount of money to renovate them?

Exactly. These kind of questions should be built into preservation analyses by statute and considered when it is determined whether a mandate to preserve historic buildings should attach.

[Arch+Eng]

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by Philly Fan

The $15 million number is not inflated. The original $1.6 million number (or whatever it was) that was quoted was JUST for remediation (i.e., safe removal) of asbestos, lead, pigeon poop, and mold. That didn't even begin to account for structural stabilization, exterior restoration, interior gutting and construction, and finishing to a level commensurate with the market in that neighborhood, i.e., luxury finishes. So $15 million is not outrageous or extraordinary for this size and kind of rehab or renovation job.

It's true the original number of 1.6 million was only for remediation and 15 million is not outrageous. BUT, it's certainly inflated, as the initial 1.6 million number was likely inflated as well. I mean, why wouldn't it be?

Haha i mean honestly, every single aspect of rehabbing the Warwick I guarantee you they're rounding up, and liberally. They've made no secret that they wish to demolish the building. It is in their absolute best interest to make the renovation of the Warwick to seem as costly as possible.

That is not to say the 15 million number is outright lie. But i guarantee if they ended up having to rehab the building and actually put their money where their mouth is, I'm sure they'd suddenly find a way to save a few million dollars.

[1487]

Originally Posted by Philly Fan

The $15 million number is not inflated. The original $1.6 million number (or whatever it was) that was quoted was JUST for remediation (i.e., safe removal) of asbestos, lead, pigeon poop, and mold. That didn't even begin to account for structural stabilization, exterior restoration, interior gutting and construction, and finishing to a level commensurate with the market in that neighborhood, i.e., luxury finishes. So $15 million is not outrageous or extraordinary for this size and kind of rehab or renovation job.

There was a forum last night hosted by the Design Advovacy Group and Alan Greenberger spoke. He said the City would have independent analysis done of developer cost estimates to show people they weren't blindly accepting the figures during Historical Commission meetings on hardship.

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by 1487

There was a forum last night hosted by the Design Advovacy Group and Alan Greenberger spoke. He said the City would have independent analysis done of developer cost estimates to show people they weren't blindly accepting the figures during Historical Commission meetings on hardship.

That's certainly appropriate.

And to be clear, I wasn't saying that we should just accept the $15 million cost without some sort of independent verification. I was just responding to the implication that the original $1.6 million figure was for a complete rehab of one or all of these buildings, and that the cost for a complete rehab has now been inflated to $15 million. As I said, the $1.6 million figure was just for remediation of asbestos, lead, etc. None of us really know how appropriate or reasonable those figures are for this particular project (although Pennoni Associates, the engineering firm that apparently came up with the $1.6 million remediation figure, is a large and respected engineering firm in the city), but $15 million is not, prima facie, an outrageous or unreasonable figure for a complete renovation of this scope. It really depends on the condition of the buildings, the scope of the rehab (i.e., a complete gut or a more modest rehab), and the finishes to be used (finishes, alone, can really drive up the cost of a residential project).

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by ConstructStudent

So I have a question. Say this project was not to be built or never even came about. What would happen to the deteriorating Warwick and Coffee Shop in 5 years when they are not structurally sound and start to crumble? Would these buildings be demolished anyway?

Or would the city pay a substantial amount of money to renovate them?

It's called demolition by neglect. Developers try it as a tactic all of the time.

The city has the power to levy fines on the developer that can prompt them to fix or restore the buildings if they deteriorate to a certain point.

Toll Brothers essentially made the same argument at Naval Square. After a fire at the main building, they claimed the building could not be salvaged and needed to be demolished. The city in turn counter-sued Toll and claimed that the fire was caused in no small part by their neglect of the historic property and that they were obligated to fix it. It was that counter suit that kicked off the Naval Square development. Not that everyone likes Naval Square, but there are many who believe that Toll would have continued to squat on that property for much longer than they did had it not been for the city's lawsuit.

So, the point is, they should tread lightly. It can certainly work against them to assume neglecting the structures will cause the city to go along with demolition plans in the future.

[Zoot]

Originally Posted by Philly Fan

That's certainly appropriate.

And to be clear, I wasn't saying that we should just accept the $15 million cost without some sort of independent verification. I was just responding to the implication that the original $1.6 million figure was for a complete rehab of one or all of these buildings, and that the cost for a complete rehab has now been inflated to $15 million. As I said, the $1.6 million figure was just for remediation of asbestos, lead, etc. None of us really know how appropriate or reasonable those figures are for this particular project (although Pennoni Associates, the engineering firm that apparently came up with the $1.6 million remediation figure, is a large and respected engineering firm in the city), but $15 million is not, prima facie, an outrageous or unreasonable figure for a complete renovation of this scope. It really depends on the condition of the buildings, the scope of the rehab (i.e., a complete gut or a more modest rehab), and the finishes to be used (finishes, alone, can really drive up the cost of a residential project).

That old $1.6MM estimate might have been a partial estimate and the current $15MM estimate could very well be accurate.....BUT that does not give SLC the right to a hardship. No developer would purchase a property without doing its due diligence and evaluating all of the costs. Preservation was a known requirement at the time of purchase so it's not like SLC only penciled in a demo scenario. Thus the high preservation costs would have been negotiated and built into the purchase price of the property. SLC would not have foolishly paid full price assuming the properties are in tip top shape. Again, the old $1.6MM figure might have been a partial estimate, but there absolutely was a full study and estimate conducted back when SLC considered their purchase. They negotiated those costs and are now trying to double dip and save more money. Why? Because they never intended on preserving these properties. They want to reduce their construction costs and maximize the efficiency of their site to maximize profits.

There is nothing wrong with maximizing profits (I am a fellow developer), but let's play by the rules and don't try a bait and switch. Don't be fooled Philadelphia.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by Philly Fan

The $15 million number is not inflated. The original $1.6 million number (or whatever it was) that was quoted was JUST for remediation (i.e., safe removal) of asbestos, lead, pigeon poop, and mold. That didn't even begin to account for structural stabilization, exterior restoration, interior gutting and construction, and finishing to a level commensurate with the market in that neighborhood, i.e., luxury finishes. So $15 million is not outrageous or extraordinary for this size and kind of rehab or renovation job.

Exactly. Not only that, let's it a step further. The vacant property itself is not huge but it's prime land and expensive. So a tall building needs to be built but idiotic FAR zoning requirements and NIMBYs stand in the way of a tall building so any developer interested in this property will need to incorporate these protected buildings. If I'm SLC, I'd present the following options:

1) Build a tall, but thin tower somewhere in the range of 700-800 feet only on the empty land in exchange for deeding the preserved buildings to the city at no cost. (At which point it would only be a matter of time before those buildings crumble into nothing).

2) Allow SLC to go on with their current plan and settle for preserving one building and the facade of the other.

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by Zoot

That old $1.6MM estimate might have been a partial estimate and the current $15MM estimate could very well be accurate.....

No, the $1.6 million estimate was only for environmental remediation (asbestos, lead, pigeon guano, and mold) of all 3 buildings, and was calculated by the engineering firm of Pennoni Associates:

To support its hardship claim, the company cites an environmental report by the engineering firm Pennoni Associates, which states that the cost of remediation for the three buildings (removing asbestos-contaminated material, lead based paint, pigeon guano, and mold blooms) would require an estimated total cost of $1,610,000 (Rittenhouse Coffee Shop: $49,030, Warwick: $1,455,470, Baird Funeral Home: $105,500).

http://hiddencityphila.org/2015/11/d...sansom-street/

The $15 million is the total construction cost estimate for reuse of the Warwick as 18 apartments, and was calculated by Intech Construction, and reviewed (and adjusted downward a bit) by International Consultants, Inc. (see page 2 and attachment for breakdown of estimated costs):

http://www.phila.gov/historical/Docu...-3-10-2016.pdf

[City Wide]

Originally Posted by 1487

There was a forum last night hosted by the Design Advovacy Group and Alan Greenberger spoke. He said the City would have independent analysis done of developer cost estimates to show people they weren't blindly accepting the figures during Historical Commission meetings on hardship.

I wouldn't believe any estimate put together by the City any more then I would believe in the validly of this $15M or the tooth fairy. But maybe Greenberger has some crazy beliefs. Even Greenberger saying this with a straight face tells me he hasn't fully recovered from his last 8 years work for Nutter.

The $15M figure pretty much is based on replacing alot of the ext. walls, a new roof, all new systems, and a complete rebuild of the inside. So this $15M figure isn't just pulled out of somebodies pocket. The problem is, IMO, what the figure is based on.

How much is being spent on the Divine restoration/rebuild on N. Broad? That's probably 4 or 5 times the sq. footage as the Warwick.

If the City wants this project to go forward and include Sansom St. their estimate will be higher then $15M, but if Southern isn't playing the game in the right way----which usually takes a certain amount of political balls---then the estimate will suddenly turn out to be a nice low figure.

There were people living here until PPA kicked them out and unless theres been huge water damage then there shouldn't be any need for a complete re-structuring of the Warwick. All the windows look they have been kept closed. Water is always the big problem.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

It's called demolition by neglect. Developers try it as a tactic all of the time.

The city has the power to levy fines on the developer that can prompt them to fix or restore the buildings if they deteriorate to a certain point.

Toll Brothers essentially made the same argument at Naval Square. After a fire at the main building, they claimed the building could not be salvaged and needed to be demolished. The city in turn counter-sued Toll and claimed that the fire was caused in no small part by their neglect of the historic property and that they were obligated to fix it. It was that counter suit that kicked off the Naval Square development. Not that everyone likes Naval Square, but there are many who believe that Toll would have continued to squat on that property for much longer than they did had it not been for the city's lawsuit.

So, the point is, they should tread lightly. It can certainly work against them to assume neglecting the structures will cause the city to go along with demolition plans in the future.

What demolition by neglect? These buildings already deteriorated to a terrible point BEFORE SLC bought them. The fault of the city. Toll Brothers owned the Naval Square property for FIFTEEN years when that fire broke out (and it had optioned it 7 years before that), allowed it to decline for 15 years, and it was in comparatively good shape when they acquired it in 1988 (even more so when they optioned it in 1981). They had done nothing with the property and were already cited with building violations in 1995. Demolition by neglect in 2002, 15 years after acquiring the property outright and 22 years after first optioning it. It's not at all the same thing.