Circles on Central - Page 10

exit2lef · #**181** Posted **Feb 21, 2017, 12:52 PM**

So here's some coverage of the new demolition permit:

http://downtowndevil.com/2017/02/21/...e-negotiations

I haven't seen much outrage about this -- at least not yet. I'm not sure if it's progress toward a negotiated solution or another instance of hostage taking.

Obadno · #**182** Posted **Feb 21, 2017, 6:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by exit2lef

So here's some coverage of the new demolition permit:

http://downtowndevil.com/2017/02/21/...e-negotiations

I haven't seen much outrage about this -- at least not yet. I'm not sure if it's progress toward a negotiated solution or another instance of hostage taking.

As I've said before of all the buildings to fight for this is probably the least important. Be happy they are keeping the rotunda at all. Just because something is old doesn't mean its worth saving.

CrestedSaguaro · #**183** Posted **Feb 21, 2017, 9:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno

As I've said before of all the buildings to fight for this is probably the least important. Be happy they are keeping the rotunda at all. Just because something is old doesn't mean its worth saving.

As far as I know, they are proceeding just as planned in the latest proposal. But since construction does require some of the original Circles to be removed/replaced, the demolition permit would still be required.

dtnphx · #**184** Posted **Feb 21, 2017, 10:55 PM**

I'm wondering if they will accidently damage more of the building saving only the slightest bit of it with the excuse that it was an accident and they have to stabilize the building by removing more of it. Not usually a conspiracy guy, but I could see it happen. They already proceeded with demolition before and apologizing...

nickw252 · #**185** Posted **Feb 21, 2017, 11:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dtnphx

I'm wondering if they will accidently damage more of the building saving only the slightest bit of it with the excuse that it was an accident and they have to stabilize the building by removing more of it. Not usually a conspiracy guy, but I could see it happen. They already proceeded with demolition before and apologizing...

Yeah the rank and file construction workers are definitely in cahoots with the developers and architects.

KEVINphx · #**186** Posted **Feb 22, 2017, 12:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickw252

Yeah the rank and file construction workers are definitely in cahoots with the developers and architects.

Uh - I run a 3rd generation family construction business here in the valley and it is NOT terribly difficult to conceive of such a potentially corrupt set-up. It is very common for developers to work with "regular" subcontractors who perform the work for them on various projects. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a stretch -but I could see such a set-up conceivably working in the valley - especially on historic single family residential projects where the "developer" doesn't give two shits about preservation, community history etc and just wants to make the best margins.

anyway just my .02

nickw252 · #**187** Posted **Feb 22, 2017, 2:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KEVINphx

Uh - I run a 3rd generation family construction business here in the valley and it is NOT terribly difficult to conceive of such a potentially corrupt set-up. It is very common for developers to work with "regular" subcontractors who perform the work for them on various projects. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a stretch -but I could see such a set-up conceivably working in the valley - especially on historic single family residential projects where the "developer" doesn't give two shits about preservation, community history etc and just wants to make the best margins.

anyway just my .02

I'm an attorney who spent years working in governmental regulatory compliance consulting for large businesses (many of whom were developers). Not once did I see a company intentionally try to defraud regulators by working in cahoots with contractors (or any rank and file employee for that matter). I've seen businesses take aggressive positions, but never intentional non-compliance.

I'm not saying that it's impossible. From my experience, I'm just saying that it's improbable for a business that can get tens of millions in financing to be doing something like that.

KEVINphx · #**188** Posted **Feb 22, 2017, 4:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickw252

I'm an attorney who spent years working in governmental regulatory compliance consulting for large businesses (many of whom were developers). Not once did I see a company intentionally try to defraud regulators by working in cahoots with contractors (or any rank and file employee for that matter). I've seen businesses take aggressive positions, but never intentional non-compliance.

I'm not saying that it's impossible. From my experience, I'm just saying that it's improbable for a business that can get tens of millions in financing to be doing something like that.

Right, which is why my experience has led my to believe that this could conceivably happen in small-scale projects. Likely not something like a 20 story residential building - but definitely could happen with a single family home or small commercial project. I believe this DOES indeed happen regarding "historic" single family homes for certain - but I would bet often times the "developer" and builder are essentially the same entity.

Either way, a lender likely does NOT really have a good way of knowing if a "builder" privately discussed with their contractors (particularly if they personally know one-another which again is very common in the development world) and concocted such a plan to circumvent whatever obstacle the existing structures present - one way or the other unless they are going to send in their own construction/engineering/architectural professionals to gain an independent assessment - and that could likely be financially justifiable if the amount being lent is large enough or the issue at hand presents some sort of potential liability to be concerned about - but I really would doubt that historic preservation for preservation's sake would raise such attention - but what do I know.

It reminds me of the Russian oligarch whose "Polish contractor" "mistakenly" demolished a 17th century protected chateau in France - the owner blamed the contractor but also conveniently had the chateau renovation out of the way and a fresh slate to do what he wanted with the once-protected property.

dtnphx · #**189** Posted **Feb 22, 2017, 6:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickw252

Yeah the rank and file construction workers are definitely in cahoots with the developers and architects.

I didn't say anyone is in cohoots with anyone. The developer points and says "tear this down right here." That's all it takes. Who are they to question a directive? They are there to do preform demolition and usually don't question whether that part or this part should go. Pointing out that you've never seen corruption in these cases (as an attorney) is laughable

PHXFlyer11 · #**190** Posted **Feb 24, 2017, 12:50 PM**

They're not going to tear down the important & interesting part of the structure. I hope this means that this is moving forward quickly now. Need to see one of these residential towers going up. Not to mention, this one fills a nice gap in the skyline.

CrestedSaguaro · #**191** Posted **Feb 25, 2017, 6:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PHXFlyer11

They're not going to tear down the important & interesting part of the structure. I hope this means that this is moving forward quickly now. Need to see one of these residential towers going up. Not to mention, this one fills a nice gap in the skyline.

Me too. Enough with the drama and on to the development. I actually think this is a decent development and want to see it built.

nickw252 · #**192** Posted **Mar 11, 2017, 8:58 PM**

muertecaza · #**193** Posted **Mar 21, 2017, 12:32 AM**

Interesting that after all of the hullabaloo over demo the first time, there seems to have been basically zero protest of the newly issued demo permit, which issued today.

Quote:

DESCRIPTION OF WORK: PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF THE CIRCLES BUILDING - 13,581 S.F. (BUILDING FRONT TO REMAIN)

CrestedSaguaro · #**194** Posted **Mar 21, 2017, 10:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by muertecaza

Interesting that after all of the hullabaloo over demo the first time, there seems to have been basically zero protest of the newly issued demo permit, which issued today.

Didn't they come up with some kind of compromise that made the Roosevelt Action Association and Sherry Rampy happy enough to give them their approval a few months back?