[interchange42]

Is that fun? To me it's a chaotic mess, with no enduring or likeable characteristics, and my eyes get tired just looking at it. That said, I agree we need more fun, I just don't know if this is it.

All I know is that cities are made up of the contributions of thousands and thousands of people, but our buildings look like they are coming from an overbearing sameness at the moment, and that we need things that break from the orthodox, so for me, the Siam Discovery Store has lots of good things going for it that break from tired orthodoxy. I won't necessarily like every building that deviates from the norms, the same way that I do really like a lot of the buildings that stick to them… …so I don't expect to be pleased by every building out there, whether they follow norms or not, but I want more variety overall, and the fun that comes from that.

42

 

[Lenser]

While I'm not a fan of the first iteration of the podium, I do appreciate the comment that this city could use "more variety overall."

 

[UrbanAffair]

I agree with this sentiment, if not loving the example provided. ;-)

 

[xy3]

Too many existing buildings have staggered windows and random cutouts. 9 out of 10 times it looks cheap and ugly.

Breaking away from the orthodoxy would mean returning to embracing the golden ratio, whether it's Miesian, Beaux Arts, Industrial , Georgian etc.

I like that this tower will block a large portion of E Condos from view

 

[innsertnamehere]

Demolition is underway here.

 

[artyboy123]

Aug 19 update

 

[Northern Light]

Consistent w/the observations above:

What's odd here, none of the 'new build' permits show as filed, never mind granted.

 

[artyboy123]

Taken Aug 23 fyi the situation

 

[ProjectEnd]

Consistent w/the observations above:

View attachment 501192

What's odd here, none of the 'new build' permits show as filed, never mind granted.

Not necessary for commercial demolition, only residential. This land can sit empty for as long as Lifetime wants.

 

[Northern Light]

Not necessary for commercial demolition, only residential. This land can sit empty for as long as Lifetime wants.

Gotcha..........but why would you demolish a revenue-performing property and let it see idle without development plans advancing?

I'm unclear on what the business case is.

 

[AHK]

Gotcha..........but why would you demolish a revenue-performing property and let it see idle without development plans advancing?

I'm unclear on what the business case is.

Minimize property tax. If the building had already been basically depopulated as leases ended, given today's market for commercial space even on a short term basis, demolition could very well have been the most economically attractive alternative.

 

[Northern Light]

Minimize property tax. If the building had already been basically depopulated as leases ended, given today's market for commercial space even on a short term basis, demolition could very well have been the most economically attractive alternative.

Get that too; though I wonder about willfully vacating the place (non-renewing leases) if you're not ready to move forward w/development.

 

[ProjectEnd]

It's an older building which likely didn't have any investment in years, therefore, as @AHK indicates, Lifetime was just waiting out leases and will demo as soon as they can. It's only "income producing" if it's 'producing income'. Otherwise, it's just a drain.

 

[bricksandblocks]

Aren't property taxes assessed based on best and highest use? Demolishing wouldn't reduce taxes, AFAIK.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Aren't property taxes assessed based on best and highest use? Demolishing wouldn't reduce taxes, AFAIK.

My understanding is that is correct, but I think @UrbanAffair is our best source for a detailed answer there...