PHILADELPHIA | Lowrise/General Developments Thread - Page 749

summersm343 · #**14961** Posted **Feb 11, 2021, 4:47 PM**

Permits Issued For A 181-Unit Development At 1306-14 Callowhill Street

Read/view more here:
https://phillyyimby.com/2021/02/perm...nter-city.html

summersm343 · #**14962** Posted **Feb 11, 2021, 4:55 PM**

Amazon leases Philadelphia building previously eyed for indoor farming

Not sure exactly where. Probably in the Northeast somewhere. Article behind paywall here:
https://www.bizjournals.com/philadel...Pos=8#cxrecs_s

Mr. Franks · #**14963** Posted **Feb 11, 2021, 5:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeGuy

The insane amount of development happening at the Girard Ave. El stop makes it all the crazier that an individual citizen was allowed to 'take over' a huge lot immediately next to the SEPTA stop.

This is such a weird article.

PHL10 · #**14964** Posted **Feb 11, 2021, 6:11 PM**

This thing unclear to me is that if Galdo ultimately wins, does he get that entire lot? It’s not like it’s a rowhome lot or something or that his “improvements” cover the majority of the lot. Someone improving a small lot adjacent to their home is an entirely different scenario where his improvements across the street front several houses (that he doesn’t own). Further, I’m sure the value of the lot must be at least a couple million. Can you really put a lawn chair on the corner of a football field and then you can claim the whole football field 20 years later?

Vince_ · #**14965** Posted **Feb 11, 2021, 7:19 PM**

[/QUOTE]

I think the best compromise would be to remove his stuff and make it a park for everyone. He certainly deserves a plaque and the park named after him. There's about to be 2,000 new residents in a few block radius and liberty Lands isn't that close. The southern portion of Fishtown is pretty lacking with parks as well. Or a broke city could sell it to a developer for a massive profit...

iamrobk · #**14966** Posted **Feb 11, 2021, 7:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PHL10

This thing unclear to me is that if Galdo ultimately wins, does he get that entire lot? It’s not like it’s a rowhome lot or something or that his “improvements” cover the majority of the lot. Someone improving a small lot adjacent to their home is an entirely different scenario where his improvements across the street front several houses (that he doesn’t own). Further, I’m sure the value of the lot must be at least a couple million. Can you really put a lawn chair on the corner of a football field and then you can claim the whole football field 20 years later?

FWIW, the last I've heard of the case is the PA Supreme Court ruling in September 2019 that there could be an adverse possession claim made against the city (https://law.justia.com/cases/pennsyl...-eap-2018.html).

On your question, I just checked the Commonwealth Court opinion and they describe it as: "Between the streets of Lee, Front, Wildey, and Girard Avenue in Philadelphia is a rectangular lot of undeveloped land (Property) that is the subject of the instant appeal." The PA Supreme Court describes it as: "The record establishes that the property at issue in this appeal is a rectangular lot of undeveloped land located at 1101-1119 N. Front Street in Philadelphia (hereinafter, “the Parcel”)." So just going off those and the fact that the northern end of the lot is roughly across the street from 1119 N. Lee Street, I'm guessing it is in fact that entire piece of land which is at issue in the case.

In your lawn chair example, I would imagine your claim would be limited to the area of the football field you actually used on a regular basis - you can't claim the rest of the field if you didn't regularly use it. I'm not sure to what basis he regularly used the rest of this field, though. But I will note that adverse possession, while... unique, to the say the least, has a good reason to exist: We want to encourage productive and efficient usage of land, and make sure that it isn't just abandoned (or if it is, that it ends up with someone better). 21 years is such a comically long time that it hardly ever happens in practice, though (but I did have an essay question about it when I took the bar exam

).

Edit: Should have checked further, but he won his case in the Court of Common Pleas in January 2020 and doesn't look like the city appealed.

TonyTone · #**14967** Posted **Feb 11, 2021, 8:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamrobk

FWIW, the last I've heard of the case is the PA Supreme Court ruling in September 2019 that there could be an adverse possession claim made against the city (https://law.justia.com/cases/pennsyl...-eap-2018.html).

On your question, I just checked the Commonwealth Court opinion and they describe it as: "Between the streets of Lee, Front, Wildey, and Girard Avenue in Philadelphia is a rectangular lot of undeveloped land (Property) that is the subject of the instant appeal." The PA Supreme Court describes it as: "The record establishes that the property at issue in this appeal is a rectangular lot of undeveloped land located at 1101-1119 N. Front Street in Philadelphia (hereinafter, “the Parcel”)." So just going off those and the fact that the northern end of the lot is roughly across the street from 1119 N. Lee Street, I'm guessing it is in fact that entire piece of land which is at issue in the case.

In your lawn chair example, I would imagine your claim would be limited to the area of the football field you actually used on a regular basis - you can't claim the rest of the field if you didn't regularly use it. I'm not sure to what basis he regularly used the rest of this field, though. But I will note that adverse possession, while... unique, to the say the least, has a good reason to exist: We want to encourage productive and efficient usage of land, and make sure that it isn't just abandoned (or if it is, that it ends up with someone better). 21 years is such a comically long time that it hardly ever happens in practice, though (but I did have an essay question about it when I took the bar exam

).

Edit: Should have checked further, but he won his case in the Court of Common Pleas in January 2020 and doesn't look like the city appealed.

Isn't it 20+ years and you get the Deed of a property if you are "squatting"

Vince_ · #**14968** Posted **Feb 11, 2021, 8:31 PM**

Well if the lot is his now, the city should fine him for not being ADA compliant and litter fines too. I've walked by here a lot going to shows at the Fillmore and this stretch is always covered in trash. Good for him for cleaning it up and maintaining it but come on this is bullshit, it should be a park for everyone. So does he have to pay property taxes on this? He has all of these "no dogs" and "private property" signs up...

I'd be willing to bet I know what happens...he'll sell a portion of the giant lot eventually to a developer for a massive profit.

iamrobk · #**14969** Posted **Feb 11, 2021, 9:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyTone

Isn't it 20+ years and you get the Deed of a property if you are "squatting"

It's a little more complicated than that but generally speaking yes. The key is really that you have to have sole control of the land for a continuous 21+ year period.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vince_

Well if the lot is his now, the city should fine him for not being ADA compliant and litter fines too. I've walked by here a lot going to shows at the Fillmore and this stretch is always covered in trash. Good for him for cleaning it up and maintaining it but come on this is bullshit, it should be a park for everyone. So does he have to pay property taxes on this? He has all of these "no dogs" and "private property" signs up...

Yeah, he will. At this point (assuming there isn't an appeal that I missed, which is possible I suppose), the land is his, with all the good and bad that comes with that. The OPA website still shows the city as owning it, but its been valued at $1.4m the last few years, which is about a $20k annual property tax bill (assuming I did my math right...).

TonyTone · #**14970** Posted **Feb 11, 2021, 9:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamrobk

It's a little more complicated than that but generally speaking yes. The key is really that you have to have sole control of the land for a continuous 21+ year period.

Yeah, he will. At this point (assuming there isn't an appeal that I missed, which is possible I suppose), the land is his, with all the good and bad that comes with that. The OPA website still shows the city as owning it, but its been valued at $1.4m the last few years, which is about a $20k annual property tax bill (assuming I did my math right...).

Ok I thought so & sheesh 1.4 Million plot and a 20k tax every year? He could give some of the plot to the city for a park and keep the rest and build a real home.

ORRRR

He could lease it as a parking lot and charge a monthly or daily fee and make good money or use it as a place for food trucks/ vendors to pull up

ORRRR

sell it to a developer and pocket 1. something million

3rd&Brown · #**14971** Posted **Feb 12, 2021, 1:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vince_

Well if the lot is his now, the city should fine him for not being ADA compliant and litter fines too. I've walked by here a lot going to shows at the Fillmore and this stretch is always covered in trash. Good for him for cleaning it up and maintaining it but come on this is bullshit, it should be a park for everyone. So does he have to pay property taxes on this? He has all of these "no dogs" and "private property" signs up...

I'd be willing to bet I know what happens...he'll sell a portion of the giant lot eventually to a developer for a massive profit.

I'm the first person to get lambasted for complaining about the lack of street cleaning, etc.

But those pictures of litter are on the street and sidewalk. They are the public domain and the city's responsibility. The lot is relatively meticulous. And private property owners for sure aren't responsible for ADA compliance on street corners. Again, that's the city.

You know what? I hope the guy wins the lot and sells it.

The city is incapable of providing basic services and enforcing code issues. This lot was absolutely 100% for sure a visual nightmare before this man started maintaining it so in my mind, it's his.

It should teach the city to get its ducks in a row. There are plenty more lots like this further north along the El and I hope people follow a similar playbook and get them from the city.

City Wide · #**14972** Posted **Feb 12, 2021, 5:23 PM**

generally the homeowner is responsible for the upkeep (sidewalks) and for cleaning of the area between their property and the street. I don't know if this applies to lots that are empty. I was once given a ticket for weeds growing in the gutter of the street! I'm ok with taking care of the sidewalk but I'm not going to try to fix the street!

iamrobk · #**14973** Posted **Feb 12, 2021, 6:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by City Wide

generally the homeowner is responsible for the upkeep (sidewalks) and for cleaning of the area between their property and the street. I don't know if this applies to lots that are empty. I was once given a ticket for weeds growing in the gutter of the street! I'm ok with taking care of the sidewalk but I'm not going to try to fix the street!

I'm 99.9% sure it does. But yes, its worth pointing out that homeowners are responsible for the sidewalk in front of their property.

PurpleWhiteOut · #**14974** Posted **Feb 13, 2021, 8:25 AM**

Great news! A variance was granted for the redevelopment of the city block between 6th and 7th between Fairmount and Green St that currently is a sprawling urban renewal nightmare.
The update is posted at the bottom, and on the Rising Real Estate Twitter.

As a quick summary, 404 units with a mix of rentals and homes for sale, over 19k sqft commercial, and preservation of the historic (EDIT: church-turned-synagogue-turned-church?) church. Costs are estimated around $100 million with some affordability components.

Zoning permits were also pulled for the Beury Building Annex!

SEFTA · #**14975** Posted **Feb 13, 2021, 6:27 PM**

This will be an amazing transformation

Fairmount Avenue and East Poplar -Northern Liberties

Fairmount Avenue and East Poplar -Northern Liberties 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by PurpleWhiteOut

Great news! A variance was granted for the redevelopment of the city block between 6th and 7th between Fairmount and Green St that currently is a sprawling urban renewal nightmare.
The update is posted at the bottom, and on the Rising Real Estate Twitter.

As a quick summary, 404 units with a mix of rentals and homes for sale, over 19k sqft commercial, and preservation of the historic (EDIT: church-turned-synagogue-turned-church?) church. Costs are estimated around $100 million with some affordability components.

Zoning permits were also pulled for the Beury Building Annex!

TonyTone · #**14976** Posted **Feb 14, 2021, 12:33 AM**

2 Examples of how we can preserve old construction and make it look good and updated without making the new tin boxes.

ScreamShatter · #**14977** Posted **Feb 14, 2021, 1:32 PM**

^ Yup! Would love to see a revival of the older Philly styles and a shift away from this modern plastic box architecture that’s going to look awful in 10 years.

Busy Bee · #**14978** Posted **Feb 14, 2021, 3:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SEFTA

This will be an amazing transformation

Fairmount Avenue and East Poplar -Northern Liberties

Fairmount Avenue and East Poplar -Northern Liberties 2

Win-Win

Busy Bee · #**14979** Posted **Feb 14, 2021, 3:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyTone

2 Examples of how we can preserve old construction and make it look good and updated without making the new tin boxes.

I agree with the sentiment BUT one has to admit some of these attempts at historic recreation (not necessarily the ones above) aren't exactly 100% and a bad, poorly executed re-creation can be just as unfortunate as a bad "tin box."

TonyTone · #**14980** Posted **Feb 14, 2021, 4:38 PM**

I agree busy bee remodels have to be done correctly or it isnt worth it & being in construction my self. Some homes are better of being destroyed & rebuilt because it just isnt worth it to fix them with the magnitude of problems they have.

However when I get to the point of purchasing homes & rehabbing. I want to build up to where I have the money to destroy the home & rebuild it 100% back to how it looked when it was first built. Im not putting up a tin can in the middle of beautiful rowhome styled homes. It just looks tacky & cheap.

But hey thats life now money outrules common sense.