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

[Scottydont]

Originally Posted by McBane

I agree with this. 20th and Walnut is embarrassing given its proximity to the square.

Looking at Google maps, that lot doesn't seem overly large. Could it even handle a large development? Does the Rittenhouse Hotel have any air rights that we know of?

I get that parking lots are viewed as the devil around here, but I wouldn't imagine anything placed here would be a huge impact.

[Jawnadelphia]

^They build supertalls in NYC on lots of that size.

13th and Market is very bad too -- the location, and the buildings surrounding it. (I know we've seen a spec rendering - but seems like a long shot).

[McBane]

Originally Posted by Scottydont

Looking at Google maps, that lot doesn't seem overly large. Could it even handle a large development? Does the Rittenhouse Hotel have any air rights that we know of?

I get that parking lots are viewed as the devil around here, but I wouldn't imagine anything placed here would be a huge impact.

20th and Walnut doesn't necessarily need to support a high rise, although I think it could. Even something in the 8-12 floor range with ground floor retail would be adequate.

And yes, 13th and Market is another really egregious one - can't believe I forgot about that.

[Scottydont]

Originally Posted by TallCoolOne

^They build supertalls in NYC on lots of that size.

13th and Market is very bad too -- the location, and the buildings surrounding it. (I know we've seen a spec rendering - but seems like a long shot).

Personally I find most skinny supertalls to be unattractive. Something about the ratio just doesn't feel right. Given how much the Holy Trinity church complained about the Laurel, they'd sure raise a stink about something going literally next to them.

EDIT: But hey, look at 222 Rittenhouse. I guess they could do something like that :-P

[Redddog]

I seem to remember Goldenberg basically came out and stated that they were going to wait to see how East Market development went and then based on values, decide what to do with the DH. Three years was their guess, IIRC.

I do believe that the East Market development will be a home run along with the Fashion District. But the sheer amount of development that happened in Center City might push them into the NEXT development phase. This one is showing signs of growing pains.

Every project is different and this location sure does help any reasonable project's chances but if Goldenberg's stated goal of getting TOP dollar for this lot is something he's sticking to, it might not happen for a long time.

13th and Market is dead in the water ATM.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by Scottydont

Personally I find most skinny supertalls to be unattractive. Something about the ratio just doesn't feel right. Given how much the Holy Trinity church complained about the Laurel, they'd sure raise a stink about something going literally next to them.

EDIT: But hey, look at 222 Rittenhouse. I guess they could do something like that :-P

I like them. There's a place for them. But we're not getting one here anytime soon. It's a bit too busy a spot for the brand, perhaps, but the lot could probably support a Scannapieco tower and is close to the Square.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by Urbanthusiat

I'm sure you're not seriously suggesting that the city discriminate against a particular landowner just because they don't like how they choose to use their land. Mind you Parkway has indeed developed several of their lots. Hanover North Broad and 1706 Rittenhouse come to mind. They've got plans 709 Chestnut and the POD hotel is already under construction. We've seen them put forth plans for Broad and Spring Garden. To say they aren't active in development is patently false.

It would be illegal to specifically target Parkway. But there is nothing wrong with deciding that parking lots are undervalued in our tax code and should pay a higher rate. The way Philly taxes vacant land and parking lots, you'd think they were trying to encourage them.

[Urbanthusiat]

Originally Posted by allovertown

The way Philly taxes vacant land and parking lots, you'd think they were trying to encourage them.

To city council, that's a feature, not a bug.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by Urbanthusiat

To city council, that's a feature, not a bug.

I don't get why. I know their constituents are crazy about parking but doesn't it annoy the same constituents that they're getting taxed more unjustly to make up for parking lot owners who hardly pay a dime? A friend in my neighborhood recently disclosed how much they were paying in a local parking lot that is roughly the exact same size as my lot. The price was obscene. I know how much a house like mine rents for in my neighborhood and I think it would be tough for me to get a rent that would beat what they're making on that parking lot.

That parking lot is worth virtually the same amount as my house and I'm paying like 8 times more in taxes? I just don't get why this doesn't piss more people off.

[Jayfar]

Originally Posted by allovertown

It would be illegal to specifically target Parkway. But there is nothing wrong with deciding that parking lots are undervalued in our tax code and should pay a higher rate. The way Philly taxes vacant land and parking lots, you'd think they were trying to encourage them.

My understanding is, that at least in CC, surface parking lots are by law temporary and require a variance that expires, after which they need a new variance. [My efforts to find the specifics in a google search are coming up empty though.] I thought it was for 5 years, but I see 800 Market's current variance from 2017 is for 3 years only.

Appeal Number
30767
Grounds
PERMIT FOR THE NON-ACCESSORY SURFACE PARKING SPACES OF TOTAL OF TWO HUNDRED AND NINETY TWO (292) SPACES WITH SEVEN (7) ACCESSIBLE SPACES, FOUR (4) RESERVOIR SPACES OF AN EXISTING NON-ACCESSORY PARKING SPACES FOR THE REFACING OF EXISTING SIXTEEN (16) FREE-STANDING SIGNS WITH THE SAME SIZE AND FOR THE REFACE OF EXISTING ONE (1) FLATWALL ACCESSORY SIGN ALL AS PART OF AN EXISTING NON-ACCESSORY PARKING LOT. SIZE AND LOCATION AS SHOWN IN THE APPLICATION.
Primary Applicant
RONALD PATTERSON, ESQ.
Capacity
Permit Number
787517
Hearing Decisions History
Wed Jul 26 2017 click to collapse contents
Date
Wed Jul 26 2017
Decision
GRANTED/PROV
Proviso
3 YEAR TEMPORARY TO EXPIRE JANUARY 1, 2021

[eixample]

The idea of giving short term variances to allow surface lots is better than permanent variances of course, but there really is no justification for giving a variance at all. These are on weak legal footing I would guess (if you can develop other big lots like East Market and 1919 Market then I'm sure you can develop these).

[Jayfar]

Now as to the 1906-12 Walnut (SE corner 20th & Walnut) parking lot, it appears that most of the site has been a surface lot since at least the late 50s or early 60s, per this lengthy zoning file. The earliest permits were for 1 year, but renewable. 1906 Walnut was added to the lot around 1962.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/lni-zoning-pdfs/219-374790.pdf

Also, the lot, zoned RM-4, is not so small:

LAND AREA (SQFT)
8,558
IMPROVEMENT AREA (SQFT)
0
ZONING
RM-4

[McBane]

Originally Posted by allovertown

I don't get why. I know their constituents are crazy about parking but doesn't it annoy the same constituents that they're getting taxed more unjustly to make up for parking lot owners who hardly pay a dime? A friend in my neighborhood recently disclosed how much they were paying in a local parking lot that is roughly the exact same size as my lot. The price was obscene. I know how much a house like mine rents for in my neighborhood and I think it would be tough for me to get a rent that would beat what they're making on that parking lot.

That parking lot is worth virtually the same amount as my house and I'm paying like 8 times more in taxes? I just don't get why this doesn't piss more people off.

I'm not so sure people within Center City are obsessed with parking the way that people are in the surrounding neighborhoods. Center City was never an easy place to park and many buildings today have garages and lots of folks who live/work in CC don't own a car. In the neighborhoods however, there is this expectation that parking is a god given right. Seems like lots of folks prefer the days when neighborhoods such as Fairmount or Manayunk were blighted dumps but parking was easily available.

In regards to City Council, as I've argued many times, the entire council lacks anyone with half a brain related to finance. Fixing the way land values are taxed is a no brainer. But so is pushing back on NIMBY's constant demand to shorten and shrink every proposed development - does no one on Council realize that these actions reduce the City's revenues? It's indeed head scratching.

[mja]

Originally Posted by McBane

I'm not so sure people within Center City are obsessed with parking the way that people are in the surrounding neighborhoods. Center City was never an easy place to park and many buildings today have garages and lots of folks who live/work in CC don't own a car. In the neighborhoods however, there is this expectation that parking is a god given right. Seems like lots of folks prefer the days when neighborhoods such as Fairmount or Manayunk were blighted dumps but parking was easily available.

In regards to City Council, as I've argued many times, the entire council lacks anyone with half a brain related to finance. Fixing the way land values are taxed is a no brainer. But so is pushing back on NIMBY's constant demand to shorten and shrink every proposed development - does no one on Council realize that these actions reduce the City's revenues? It's indeed head scratching.

Couple things...

1) Fairmount was never a blighted dump. Hyperbole ain't helping you make your case.

2) Parking is a QOL issue. People have cars, even in the city. I'm personally fine with dealing with parking being difficult, I moved to Fairmount knowing that'd be the case and we're a 1 car household in no small part because of that, but older residents are going to get angry about such a change and they're not necessarily wrong for it. Last night, I literally drove around 20 minutes looking for a spot before I gave up and parked in a kind of 3-quarter-spot, blocking the edge of the curb cut, which I hate doing. I signed up for that, but my older neighbors certainly didn't sign up for it, and it negatively impacts their lives. Outright dismissing such concerns is short-sighted, to say the least.

3) How land is taxed isn't because City Council doesn't understand finance. I'm pretty sure Allan Domb understands finance reasonably well, as just one example. There are other factors involved. People like to pretend that you can just flip a light switch and change established tax policy with no negative repercussions. It's always more complicated than that. You can't just abolish the wage tax, for example, without opening up a hole in the budget. Any change in policy will have winners and losers and it's ridiculous and counter to human nature to expect the losers to just shrug their shoulders and go on with the rest of their lives. It doesn't work that way.

4) Those NIMBYs are their constituents. Look, I'm not pro-NIMBY, but you're just completely anti-NIMBY beyond any rational measure. Sometimes, NIMBYs are actually....gasp...right! Sometimes developers, in their understandable focus to make money, lose sight of what makes a place a worthwhile investment in the first place, accidentally killing the golden goose through a death of a hundred bad developments. And then you have guys like Ori Feibush knocking down cool old irreplaceable churches out of spite, because neighbors didn't want to trade that for more middle brow cheaply built townhomes that are going to look dated as hell in a decade. This is not a binary, we can both address the concerns of near neighbors and balance those with the needs of developers to create good development. This project is a actually a perfect example of that.

5) This is a weird time to be griping about surface lots. The last 5 years has seen lot after lot developed throughout Center City at a dizzying pace.

[Mark in Mount Airy]

Response to McBane's post:

First off, Council is and has been filled for years with people who aren't smart or talented enough to earn their salary in the private sector -- except maybe as a revolving door lobbyist after they left office. Allan Domb (for whom I gleefully vote) is the exception that proves the rule. If you think there are multiple officeholders of his type, please inform us. Anna Verna, Marian Tasco, Frank Rizzo, Jr., these are the typical folks who have populated Council over the years along with the pure shake-down artists like Jannie Blackwell and Kenyatta Johnson. None of these people are IMO opinion competent to make the decisions for the City they do. There is a reason Mayor Bill Green called City Council the worst deliberative body in the free world.

From my view, the City is being killed by a conspiracy of (1) politicians who in every tax/spend decision want to help the seniors, disabled and poor but refuse to acknowledge that capitalism renders it pretty difficult for a City to do so, and (2) NIMBYs who somehow missed the school lecture on private ownership of land and think they can impose their will on neighboring property owners. The first group wants to keep raising taxes even though it drives the rich and middle class out of the City, and the second group opposes commercial growth that could allow us to increase the City budget without raising taxes. The first group needs to understand that we need action in Harrisburg or DC to truly help the seniors, disabled and poor and the second group needs to go -- sorry, Michele Obama told me to go high so I'll leave the rest to your imagination.

No where can one see this conspiracy in action more than the crazy hand-wringing over gentrification in Philadelphia. The City in 1950 housed about 2 million people and has an enormous housing stock of vacant homes and lots. We actually need more gentrification not less, especially if we want to keep increasing spending on pre-K and the School District of Philadelphia. Gentrification is a problem when there are no neighborhoods whatsoever where a working class person can find a place to live (like San Francisco) not when a particular neighborhood moves up the income scale. The renters can move to another neighborhood and the existing property owners can cry all the way to the bank. We need to keep the generous social programs at a level where they can be afforded (Harrisburg or DC) and where the tax rates are harder to evade through business relocation. In the meantime, we need a whole lot more rich people living in the City and paying our wage tax.

[nemesisinphilly]

Originally Posted by mja

5) This is a weird time to be griping about surface lots. The last 5 years has seen lot after lot developed throughout Center City at a dizzying pace.

Not really. There are still 250+ vacant lots in the 4 center city zip codes.

[skyscraper]

Originally Posted by Mark in Mount Airy

Response to McBane's post:

First off, Council is and has been filled for years with people who aren't smart or talented enough to earn their salary in the private sector -- except maybe as a revolving door lobbyist after they left office. Allan Domb (for whom I gleefully vote) is the exception that proves the rule. If you think there are multiple officeholders of his type, please inform us. Anna Verna, Marian Tasco, Frank Rizzo, Jr., these are the typical folks who have populated Council over the years along with the pure shake-down artists like Jannie Blackwell and Kenyatta Johnson. None of these people are IMO opinion competent to make the decisions for the City they do. There is a reason Mayor Bill Green called City Council the worst deliberative body in the free world.

From my view, the City is being killed by a conspiracy of (1) politicians who in every tax/spend decision want to help the seniors, disabled and poor but refuse to acknowledge that capitalism renders it pretty difficult for a City to do so, and (2) NIMBYs who somehow missed the school lecture on private ownership of land and think they can impose their will on neighboring property owners. The first group wants to keep raising taxes even though it drives the rich and middle class out of the City, and the second group opposes commercial growth that could allow us to increase the City budget without raising taxes. The first group needs to understand that we need action in Harrisburg or DC to truly help the seniors, disabled and poor and the second group needs to go -- sorry, Michele Obama told me to go high so I'll leave the rest to your imagination.

No where can one see this conspiracy in action more than the crazy hand-wringing over gentrification in Philadelphia. The City in 1950 housed about 2 million people and has an enormous housing stock of vacant homes and lots. We actually need more gentrification not less, especially if we want to keep increasing spending on pre-K and the School District of Philadelphia. Gentrification is a problem when there are no neighborhoods whatsoever where a working class person can find a place to live (like San Francisco) not when a particular neighborhood moves up the income scale. The renters can move to another neighborhood and the existing property owners can cry all the way to the bank. We need to keep the generous social programs at a level where they can be afforded (Harrisburg or DC) and where the tax rates are harder to evade through business relocation. In the meantime, we need a whole lot more rich people living in the City and paying our wage tax.

wtf are you talking about?

[jjv007]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

wtf are you talking about?

anything particular about his points you disagree with?
i thought they were very pretty well thought out.

[iheartphilly]

Originally Posted by Mark in Mount Airy

Response to McBane's post:

First off, Council is and has been filled for years with people who aren't smart or talented enough to earn their salary in the private sector -- except maybe as a revolving door lobbyist after they left office. Allan Domb (for whom I gleefully vote) is the exception that proves the rule. If you think there are multiple officeholders of his type, please inform us. Anna Verna, Marian Tasco, Frank Rizzo, Jr., these are the typical folks who have populated Council over the years along with the pure shake-down artists like Jannie Blackwell and Kenyatta Johnson. None of these people are IMO opinion competent to make the decisions for the City they do. There is a reason Mayor Bill Green called City Council the worst deliberative body in the free world.

From my view, the City is being killed by a conspiracy of (1) politicians who in every tax/spend decision want to help the seniors, disabled and poor but refuse to acknowledge that capitalism renders it pretty difficult for a City to do so, and (2) NIMBYs who somehow missed the school lecture on private ownership of land and think they can impose their will on neighboring property owners. The first group wants to keep raising taxes even though it drives the rich and middle class out of the City, and the second group opposes commercial growth that could allow us to increase the City budget without raising taxes. The first group needs to understand that we need action in Harrisburg or DC to truly help the seniors, disabled and poor and the second group needs to go -- sorry, Michele Obama told me to go high so I'll leave the rest to your imagination.

No where can one see this conspiracy in action more than the crazy hand-wringing over gentrification in Philadelphia. The City in 1950 housed about 2 million people and has an enormous housing stock of vacant homes and lots. We actually need more gentrification not less, especially if we want to keep increasing spending on pre-K and the School District of Philadelphia. Gentrification is a problem when there are no neighborhoods whatsoever where a working class person can find a place to live (like San Francisco) not when a particular neighborhood moves up the income scale. The renters can move to another neighborhood and the existing property owners can cry all the way to the bank. We need to keep the generous social programs at a level where they can be afforded (Harrisburg or DC) and where the tax rates are harder to evade through business relocation. In the meantime, we need a whole lot more rich people living in the City and paying our wage tax.

Nice laid out thoughts. You should post more. People sometimes don't know, and don't want to here the truth. #truthteller. LOL.

[City Wide]

Originally Posted by Mark in Mount Airy

Response to McBane's post:

First off, Council is and has been filled for years with people who aren't smart or talented enough to earn their salary in the private sector -- except maybe as a revolving door lobbyist after they left office. Allan Domb (for whom I gleefully vote) is the exception that proves the rule. If you think there are multiple officeholders of his type, please inform us. Anna Verna, Marian Tasco, Frank Rizzo, Jr., these are the typical folks who have populated Council over the years along with the pure shake-down artists like Jannie Blackwell and Kenyatta Johnson. None of these people are IMO opinion competent to make the decisions for the City they do. There is a reason Mayor Bill Green called City Council the worst deliberative body in the free world.

From my view, the City is being killed by a conspiracy of (1) politicians who in every tax/spend decision want to help the seniors, disabled and poor but refuse to acknowledge that capitalism renders it pretty difficult for a City to do so, and (2) NIMBYs who somehow missed the school lecture on private ownership of land and think they can impose their will on neighboring property owners. The first group wants to keep raising taxes even though it drives the rich and middle class out of the City, and the second group opposes commercial growth that could allow us to increase the City budget without raising taxes. The first group needs to understand that we need action in Harrisburg or DC to truly help the seniors, disabled and poor and the second group needs to go -- sorry, Michele Obama told me to go high so I'll leave the rest to your imagination.

No where can one see this conspiracy in action more than the crazy hand-wringing over gentrification in Philadelphia. The City in 1950 housed about 2 million people and has an enormous housing stock of vacant homes and lots. We actually need more gentrification not less, especially if we want to keep increasing spending on pre-K and the School District of Philadelphia. Gentrification is a problem when there are no neighborhoods whatsoever where a working class person can find a place to live (like San Francisco) not when a particular neighborhood moves up the income scale. The renters can move to another neighborhood and the existing property owners can cry all the way to the bank. We need to keep the generous social programs at a level where they can be afforded (Harrisburg or DC) and where the tax rates are harder to evade through business relocation. In the meantime, we need a whole lot more rich people living in the City and paying our wage tax.

My two cents--------------City Council is what it is and declaring that it needs to radically change, however true that might be, doesn't go very far in dealing with the day to day reality of living in the City. I completely agree as long as people like Blackwell (or fill in the blank) keep getting elected there seems to be little hope. A well funded campaign to institute term limits might at least bring more new blood more often into the council.

Most organizations benefit from a return to basics every so often, and City gov't. is no different. This is why I believe most/all laws and tax increases should have a 5 or 10 year sunset provision. If the law in question is working it shouldn't have any trouble getting a 2/3's vote for being kept in place for another term. Also changing the City's Charter should include methods that allow the citizens much easier means to bring change before the voters. In the mean while, I'd like to see this or any mayor state in 10 minutes or less what the basic needs or the City are and how they will be addressed.

Gentrification has many different faces----35 years ago I bought 4 row houses, 3 which were empty, in Powelton Village for around $20K. I more or less lost money fixing/rebuilding 2 of them and made out pretty good selling the other 2 as shells. I'd call that 'hands on' gentrification, and I'm sure some of that goes on today. But mostly what I think goes on today is happening by small and mid sized developers who IMO just don't care about the neighborhoods and the people already living there as much as they care about the $$$ rewards. If you are fixing up or building new and plan to live there you are going to have a different attitude then if all you do is buy what somebody else has built. There's also a type of what's called gentrification where good solid neighborhoods get even more desirable. I live in UC on what was near the outer edges, now a neighbors house sold for almost $1M last year. Not only do I belly arch about the type of people moving in who don't know and don't care about living in a 120 year old house, but because of taxes I don't know how much longer I can afford to live here. Sure, I'll make out big time when I sell, but that doesn't help pay the $6+K tax bill due early next year, when about 10 years ago the bill was $1100. The difference does make a difference to me.
There should be some better ways to allow parts of the City to improve and let the market determine value and at the same time offer means for long time residents to continue to be long time residents. Change is not good or bad in itself, all it is is change.