Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In many cases it is the back taxes that put a stop to these projects. Adding the cost of the back taxes makes the project a bad investment and developers walk away. The city would rather watch these buildings fall to the ground while they try to find someone to pay the taxes on it. In the end you lose a landmark, a piece of history, and any hope putting the property back on the tax role.
I got in touch with a friend over at the downtown committee. According to her, they are anticipating construction to start on the Pike Block this summer. When the state decided to include the Historic rehab credit in the budget deferment package, centerstate ceo and the developer had to look at other sources to make up the equity gap. They settled on federal New Market Tax Credits for economic development, and I guess they have been successful? It sounded so in the email but not sure. Anyway, she said everything else for the project has been approved they are still planning on starting shortly.
Insistence that a buyer pay back taxes can be a problem, but not in the case of the Pike Block or Mitzpah Tower. Those buildings are already owned by the would-be developers. (In fact, if the city did insist that the Mitzpah developer front some of the back taxes before transferring the title, maybe it would have been a good way to screen out an undesirable candidate - with little investment of its own, the developer has had little incentive to move on the project.)
The local media has completely dropped the ball on reporting on the Hotel Syracuse. An Israeli bankruptcy court was to rule on the property and other assets of the developer in November; the Post-Standard hasn't made mention of it since then. Asleep at the switch, as usual.
To be honest with you I don't know how much has actually come out about that ruling. When I spoke with my friend at the downtown committee, she said she hadn't heard an update in quite come time herself. Whether or not the court has actually made a ruling or whether it's still pending is not clear I don't think.
I think that may be the Post Standards problem in reporting these things sometimes. They give a hard date and build up anticipation and excitment and then drop bombs later saying that things have been delayed. Given the quality of the writing and the editorial standards, I guess this shouldn't be too surprising
Given the supposedly good track record of the developer, I hope it happens. Those buildings are in a good location in Downtown and could give Warren Street the boost it needs.
I always thought that the Merchants Bank building would be interesting to redevelop. The large windows and high ceilings on the first floor make for great retail/restaurant space. Could be one of the premier retail locations downtown given time and further development along Salina and Warren (big ifs, but seems to be trending that way).
As has been said on here many times before, the momentum of development downtown in the current economic environment depends on increasing residential density and a "critical mass" of activity and retail. This project could help with that for sure, but will probably produce more expensive condominiums and "luxury" apartments. I think that going forward it is important to increase the supply of apartments that can be had for $800-$1000/month for a single and $1300-$1600/month for a two bedroom. Right now, prices in downtown are too high for many of the young people that would like to live there. I understand that to make the projects work, and earn any return at all, developers have had to rely on "luxury" apartments down there, but I think that it's critical to get more young people, and more people in general, downtown with some lower rental prices. This should happen naturally through increasing property values and increasing demand, with developers eventually being able to make more affordable residential space work financially, but it will take a very long time for this to happen at the current pace without some special action and attention.
Potentially good news; I'm surprised to see the Merchants Bank considered for a residential conversion, since I believe it used to be Class A office space. That's a little more rare around here - it's usually the B and C office space that is converted. With a glut of vacant Class A space, it's nice to see anything positive being done with it. The first floor would be perfect for a medium-sized grocery.
I'm not crazy about Joseph Hucko's work. On one hand, it's nice for a developer to renovate empty buildings in Syracuse. On the other hand, it's a shame we have to be satisfied with any development rather than demanding quality development. The community would benefit more in the long run if that developer produced a building that will enhance the neighborhood. That Jefferson-Clinton building is the epitome of cheap suburban-style architecture, with its huge setback on South Clinton and lack of ground-level retail space (or even doors). This isn't a developer who gives the impression that he has even a passing familiarity with urban design (or at least he doesn't want to spent the money to achieve such a goal).
Last edited by Cleveland Park; 03-24-2011 at 01:23 PM..
Reason: sloppy writing
This news about South Warren jogs my memory (better late than never, I hope).
The City Planning Commission is voting on Monday whether or not to allow demolition of an old art deco radio station building in the 400 block of Warren Street. The developer hopes to construct a surface parking lot in its place.
Regardless of any historical value of the building, this is currently an uninterrupted block of buildings directly across from the Galleries. Despite the fact that the city often commissions studies that warn of the negatives associated with demolishing buildings in the central business district and note that surface parking has no place in a downtown, this proposal is somehow on the table.
If anyone - local or not - wants to write in opposition to this proposal, that would be great. Allowing for demolition of part of a block - despite all we've allegedly learned about the de-densification of downtown over the past century - would really be a step in the wrong direction for the whole region, especially in light of plans for more development in the neighborhood.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
