You must log in or register to comment.

OldAgedZenElf t1_j1lqogy wrote

They should lose the rights and not be able to just sit on it.


ColdJay64 t1_j1m19zz wrote

“It was just yesterday then that the construction pause was confirmed by Durst, citing rising construction costs and difficulties with financing as rationale, despite already sinking $40+ million into the archaeological and construction work thus far.”

Damn. Their plan for the waterfront looks awesome and is much needed.


NickSabbath666 t1_j1m2hfp wrote

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm I have this theory that every property developer in America right now is just really stupid. This company realized they can probably cut their losses and build a built to rent community in the suburbs and make significantly more money. While writing off the loss of this mess on their taxes.


nemesisinphilly t1_j1m7cfd wrote

This company has never built a residential project in the suburbs. All of their projects are in NYC including One World Trade Center the tallest building in the United States. This is not a suburban developer.

Your skepticism is valid when it comes to companies like Toll Brothers but not in this case.


ikover15 t1_j1m86o5 wrote

Shitty lending environment is gonna do this to some projects


NickSabbath666 t1_j1m91rc wrote

Hold the phone… the Durst Organization? The one that produced Robert Durst, and all the empty ultra luxury condos on billionaire’s row?

This would be a very, very, very good thing for future generations in Philadelphia if this company does not develop ANY property on the waterfront.

It’s going to be abandoned multi million dollar condos that the tax payer is going to have to pay to demolish.


mbz321 t1_j1mo6bk wrote

Just prepping for the upcoming economic shitstorm, it seems.


outerspace29 t1_j1mq5ym wrote

This really sucks, and exactly what this city doesn't need. I'd read elsewhere that low interest rates and young millennials entering adulthood were the driving force behind urban revitalization. The rates are higher, and many millennials have now entered the "have kids and move to the suburbs" phase of their lives, so there's a fear that the widespread urban blight of past decades could return and development/gentrification will slow significantly. I really really hope this isn't the case because Philadelphia would not weather that storm.


jpstanton93 t1_j1n0k8d wrote

The good news is the Park at Penn's Landing is still moving forward. PennDOT has been soliciting bids for all of the infrastructure work related to the I-95 cap and adjacent bridge structures. Also, DRWC is the project owner for the park, not the City, so there's more likihood the project will keep moving forward, versus the City just sitting on it.


outerspace29 t1_j1n7j4b wrote

I just knew some reactionary stupidity like this would be incoming. We need to encourage more investment in every part of the city, and that means more construction projects, more people moving in, and more new businesses opening. New housing also means more supply and lower rents.

Or does it fill you with holiday cheer to drive around and see crumbling buildings, vacant husks of homes, and general poverty all over the place?


outerspace29 t1_j1nb98n wrote

It's been argued over and cited to death on this sub that increasing supply frees up existing housing stock and lowers rents, but you do you.

You have no actual counterargument so you have to make up a position I never took (on utilities of all things).

Please tell us how we can address disinvestment in neighborhoods. Or does your performative online outrage stop short of actual ideas for resolving issues?


Proper-Code7794 t1_j1nc71m wrote

Developing on a waterfront is more expensive than developing in other places. And then add an additional zoning overlay with restrictions makes it even more expensive.


isowater t1_j1nj9mb wrote

They realized it would be regularly flooded in a few decades


GroundbreakingArt248 t1_j1np5zv wrote

The collective wisdom of this sub sets a pretty low standard.

If your argument were true we’d be seeing a decrease in rental costs as more units become available but the exact opposite has been happening. You might be able to make the argument that the new units are helping slow the pace of rent increases but that’s an entirely different animal.

Here in the 3rd District our councilwoman has introduced zoning bills that require all projects in a very large area that are over a certain size to include a percentage of affordable housing onsite. Philadelphia has the largest poverty rate of any large us city. When you building new top of the market housing and transplants move in all it does is incentivize the destruction of old housing stock to build more top of the market housing. Poor people are being pushed further and further away from the urban core and some cases out of the city. What we’re severely lacking is the construction of new housing for the poor and lower middle class.


Devin1405 t1_j1nr24p wrote

Well, hopefully some cool things came of the archaeological work!


VMON215 t1_j1ow7ds wrote

This is an interest rate/economic play. This is not unfamiliar to those of us who've been around for a while. I'd be curious to see what the source of funding is for this project.


ThaddyG t1_j1q83dr wrote

Inclusionary Zoning is the type of policy you're talking about in parts of the 3rd (and 7th) districts and it's been around in those parts of Philly a few years now. Last year they voted to amend the law and it went into effect this past summer, basically turning what was an optional program that developers wanting to build in the IZ zones (parts of the districts, not the whole district) could just pay into the Housing Trust to avoid. IZ is definitely well-intentioned when it's implemented but may not necessarily help all that much, according to what I've read about it. I did a policy memo project for a class at Temple on the IZ law here in Philly, I've read a few articles about the effects of IZ on affordable housing creation in other cities and the general consensus is that it doesn't usually result in the creation of more affordable units unless the conditions are just right for the developers.


thefrozendivide t1_j1qbsr7 wrote

While the have kids move to the burbs part is true (and the smart move unless you've got private school money) , there are still plenty of us without kids waiting on the sidelines for sellers to get their heads out of their asses with jokingly sky-high, overinflated asking prices. It's absurd, and sad really, touring some of these places where people have done zero work to a house they bought in 2018 and are asking 70-100% (or more!) than their purchase price.


outerspace29 t1_j1qqyvn wrote

Not sure about your situation, but when I was searching, a big part of sellers' ability to command those prices was due to how much of the city people consider a "no-go" zone. Having vast swaths of North Philly immediately out of the running for people looking to buy a house just creates more competition in the "nice" neighborhoods.


ColdJay64 t1_j1qz1qu wrote

Interesting attempt at trying to twist high demand into still saying something negative about Philly, but that’s really not at all how real estate works. A city having less good areas relative to bad ones doesn’t make the good ones more expensive as a result, it brings the prices of a whole city down. If Philly had more good areas, the “nice” ones would just be even more expensive.

In reality, the nice areas are just expensive because Philly offers a lot that people find desirable.


outerspace29 t1_j1s7a0k wrote

Yawn. This taking offense over any criticism of the city is a tired gimmick. It's also, frankly, a disgusting position to push so relentlessly; the people hardest hit by crime here tend to be low income people of color. Or is that okay with you, and not worth talking about, because it's "targeted" and oh look a new retail store opened in center city.


ColdJay64 t1_j1sapx4 wrote

Sorry if I came in too hot. But - don’t refer to a large swath of the city as a “No-go zone” and then try to demonize my saying that the city can be a good place to live. You’re reaching. If your criticism was valid, I wouldn’t have responded - but it didn’t even make sense. Philly’s issues are the reason it remains relatively affordable for its size, but they definitely don’t drive UP the prices.


outerspace29 t1_j1sdsgw wrote

Yeah you probably would have responded either way because you seem to seek out any and every criticism of Philadelphia on this sub to rail against, all while lobbying to censor crime posts because I guess public safety can't possibly be a concern to anyone (see my previous post about targets of crime, which you conveniently ignored).

I guess it's a coincidence that you push a narrative so hard on here while you're trying to rent out property you own in Center City lmao.

No arguing with a propagandist so I'm done here.


ColdJay64 t1_j1siyrk wrote

I share nothing but truth, while conveniently this conversation is taking place in response to a falsity you stated. If there’s any “propaganda” I’ve shared, please let me know.

And yes, when I found a house I liked in another part of Philly I rented out my condo… is something wrong with that? You think that dictates what I post?

Lastly, I’ve said we should implement the Chicago sub’s rules on crime content, and maintain that position.

Have a nice evening!