Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 38

Thread: Strange demolition: bank repo townhouses and a holdout

  1. #1
    NIMBY asshatterer Plus Richmond Jake's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Jukin' City
    Posts
    16,380

    Strange demolition: bank repo townhouses and a holdout

    The following images are the result of an interesting story (at least to me). The structure left behind was one of four, attached townhouses. Three of the units, A, B, and D, were foreclosed. The bank wanted them demolished thinking the beachfront property was more valuable vacant. Hold on there, the owner of unit C wanted to keep his standing. The bank went ahead with the demolition of their three units, one on the west side and two on the east, and this is the result:







    Yes, that's drywall on the exterior sides. Note that portions of unit C still encroach onto the bank's properties. The owner wants to weather proof the unit and move in. But how does he do that without trespassing on the bank's properties?
    RJ is the KING of . The One

  2. #2
    Cyburbian TerraSapient's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Glass City
    Posts
    2,610
    RJ that is crazy. I would be pretty miffed. I wonder why the bank would feel it is more valuable in that condition? What could anyone do with such divided beach front property?

    Also - I cannot believe you can build right on the sand like that! That wouldn't fly in HI.
    Occupy Your Brain!

  3. #3
    Cyburbian Tarf's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Encinitas, CA
    Posts
    705
    @RJ:

    Will they even bother to weatherproof the house?

    And as if we needed more proof of how bad banks suck
    In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. (Douglas Adams)

  4. #4
    NIMBY asshatterer Plus Richmond Jake's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Jukin' City
    Posts
    16,380
    Quote Originally posted by TerraSapient View post
    RJ that is crazy. I would be pretty miffed. I wonder why the bank would feel it is more valuable in that condition? What could anyone do with such divided beach front property?

    Also - I cannot believe you can build right on the sand like that! That wouldn't fly in HI.
    In fact, we wanted all the units demolished due to their conditions--the years and weather have taken its toll. But alas, politics got involved (the owner is a friend of a commissioner). We hear the bank made a fair offer for the property that was rejected. Anything rebuild there would need its first habitable floor elevated an additional four feet because of floodplain/wave run-up issues.

    As far as building on the beach: welcome to the Redneck Riviera.

    tarf, one minor tropical depression and that building is gone.
    RJ is the KING of . The One

  5. #5
    Cyburbian dw914er's avatar
    Registered
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,105
    That's a crazy demo project

  6. #6
    Cyburbian mgk920's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Appleton, Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,166
    I agree, I'd just stall and give nature a chance to take care of that chopped condo.



    Mike

  7. #7
    NIMBY asshatterer Plus Richmond Jake's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Jukin' City
    Posts
    16,380
    Quote Originally posted by mgk920 View post
    I agree, I'd just stall and give nature a chance to take care of that chopped condo....
    The problem is, if we let these things remain, the next tropical cyclone will demolish them and toss debris causing damage to surrounding properties. As a footnote, we have a list. The first sign of a disturbance in the Gulf, we call of the demo contractors. The contractors love knocking stuff down and hauling away the remains. We place liens on the properties to recover our costs.
    RJ is the KING of . The One

  8. #8
    Cyburbia Administrator Dan's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 1996
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    14,514
    Blog entries
    3
    Moderator note:
    Moved from the Friday Afternoon Club.
    Growth for growth's sake is the ideology of the cancer cell. -- Edward Abbey

  9. #9
    Cyburbian DetroitPlanner's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Where the weak are killed and eaten.
    Posts
    6,100
    If I was the owner of the remaining unit I'd sell to the bank for a bazillion dollars so they could redevelop the property. With that money I'd just move to another foreclosed beachfront property. I'm sure that if only one out of four was not foreclosed in this development then there has to be more of these available for sale nearby.

    Never mind read RJ's retort! ugh...
    We hope for better things; it will arise from the ashes - Fr Gabriel Richard 1805

  10. #10
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Someplace between yesterday and tomorrow.
    Posts
    11,958
    Keep us posted on this one. I think it is tragic and fascinating that this is happening and can see it from multiple points of view.

    Personally, it it were me, I would sit down with the bank, figure out what they plan to build, and be willing to sell my property but be compensated with one of the top notch units that may replace this. It would create a win-win.
    Not my monkey, not my circus. - Old Polish Proverb

  11. #11
    WoW! I wonder if the owner of the lone townhome left standing will see a handsome profit because presumably a developer will need all of the land to maximize profit potential on the site.

  12. #12
    Cyburbian WSU MUP Student's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Lowering the PCI in the Hills
    Posts
    5,465
    Before the foreclosures were these legally defined as "condominiums"? It would be interesting if they were and the condominium board/bylaws were still in effect because the foreclosed properties would only have included the airspace inside the actual units (at least that's how it is in Michigan) and the bank may have violated some of the regulations by demolition exterior portions of the development.

    Keep us posted indeed!
    "Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost." - 1980 Republican presidential candidate Ronald Reagan

  13. #13
    Cyburbian Cardinal's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    The Cheese State
    Posts
    9,893
    I am thinking along the same lines. All owners have an obligation to maintain the property in a weatherized, safe condition. As the owner of 3/4 units the bank may have had a majority of "votes", but that does not relieve them of their obligation. Good question for an attorney.
    Anyone want to adopt a dog?

  14. #14
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Wherever
    Posts
    1,177
    Is that building even up to code now? Seems like the owner may be at risk for having his home condemned. I'd think it would take a whole lot more than weather proofing the sides to reinforce the structure to what it once was.

  15. #15
    NIMBY asshatterer Plus Richmond Jake's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Jukin' City
    Posts
    16,380
    Quote Originally posted by WSU MUP Student View post
    Before the foreclosures were these legally defined as "condominiums"? It would be interesting if they were and the condominium board/bylaws were still in effect because the foreclosed properties would only have included the airspace inside the actual units (at least that's how it is in Michigan) and the bank may have violated some of the regulations by demolition exterior portions of the development.

    Keep us posted indeed!
    It was constructed and platted as a townhouse development. I would image there would have been some form of homeowner's association even though there is no common area.

    Quote Originally posted by Blide View post
    Is that building even up to code now? Seems like the owner may be at risk for having his home condemned. I'd think it would take a whole lot more than weather proofing the sides to reinforce the structure to what it once was.
    It does not meet the current building code. However, the owner was issued a building permit, based on engineered plans, to bring the building up to code. Interior modifications have already begun.
    RJ is the KING of . The One

  16. #16
    Cyburbian UrbaneSprawler's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    397
    I'm sure I'm thinking about this the wrong way but, if there was a development plan approved by the town for a townhouse, isn't the bank now under an obligation to complete the development plan on file? Did the bank apply for and receive approval from the town for a demo permit to remove the other units, assuming a demo permit is required?

    If a demo permit is required how does the town allow a demo of the units which would be directly opposite of what the development plan calls for? Doesn't this require approval of an abandonment of the development plan first to allow for the demo? If there was a formal abandonment of the development plan approved by the town in order to allow the demo, shouldn't that only occur upon approval of all owners of interest in the project, which would have required permission from the person who's trying to move in?

  17. #17
    Cyburbian Raf's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2007
    Location
    America's Happiest City
    Posts
    4,834
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post

    Personally, it it were me, I would sit down with the bank, figure out what they plan to build, and be willing to sell my property but be compensated with one of the top notch units that may replace this. It would create a win-win.
    In dealing with the giant mega money banks on various foreclosures, they could care less. All they want is to recoup their investment. Hence why REOs are low balled with a listing just to generate buzz, subsequent bidding war, and than the owner is left with the bag hanging when we (the city) tell them they have a whole lot of "stuff" to do because they didn't do their due diligence when it came to buying that partially built development or house.
    Men do dumb $hit... it is what they do to correct the problem that counts.

  18. #18
    Cyburbian estromberg's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Northern Illinois
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally posted by WSU MUP Student View post
    Before the foreclosures were these legally defined as "condominiums"? It would be interesting if they were and the condominium board/bylaws were still in effect because the foreclosed properties would only have included the airspace inside the actual units (at least that's how it is in Michigan) and the bank may have violated some of the regulations by demolition exterior portions of the development.

    Keep us posted indeed!
    The OP called them townhomes. Legally a little different from condos.

  19. #19
    Cyburbian JimPlans's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Gone to a better place (in my mind)
    Posts
    407
    I keep coming back to this thread and looking at that picture. Somehow I can't wrap my mind around it. We have lots of row houses and townhouses in Maryland, and sometimes one is torn down, leaving a gap, but in those cases each row house has its own side walls. In other words, each row house is an individual freestanding building with zero lot lines. I don't get how these were built without fire walls if each was an individual structure. Good ole' FLA building codes, I guess.

    I suppose he could gut the inside, build exteror walls within the building's exterior framework, and call it a day, but why? Why not just have the bank tear down this "structure" (such as it is) and not have to factor demolition into the cost of the future land sale? Seems like he would be ahead of the game. Now he's just the a**h**e who has to be bought off before any future taxpaying development can occur, driving away investment.

    I just don't get it.

  20. #20
    NIMBY asshatterer Plus Richmond Jake's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Jukin' City
    Posts
    16,380
    Quote Originally posted by JimPlans View post
    .... I don't get how these were built without fire walls if each was an individual structure. Good ole' FLA building codes, I guess.....
    They were double wall constructed. The drywall you see in the pictures is left from the units that were demolished. You can still see where the stairs to the second floors were located.
    RJ is the KING of . The One

  21. #21
    Cyburbian Tarf's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Encinitas, CA
    Posts
    705
    Quote Originally posted by JimPlans View post
    I just don't get it.

    It's a house on the beach, and the housing market right now is crap. Would the owner not stand to get a lot more money once the housing market recovers? (Assuming something is done about the appearance, etc., of course.)
    In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. (Douglas Adams)

  22. #22
    Cyburbian ColoGI's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Colo Front Range
    Posts
    2,353
    Holdouts are my favorite urban development. Just about everything about humanity rolled into one.

  23. #23
    NIMBY asshatterer Plus Richmond Jake's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Jukin' City
    Posts
    16,380
    Quote Originally posted by Dan View post
    Moderator note:
    Moved from the Friday Afternoon Club.
    Off-topic:
    Dan, thanks for breaking this one off. I didn't realize how much traction these images would garner.
    RJ is the KING of . The One

  24. #24
    Quote Originally posted by UrbaneSprawler View post
    I'm sure I'm thinking about this the wrong way but, if there was a development plan approved by the town for a townhouse, isn't the bank now under an obligation to complete the development plan on file? Did the bank apply for and receive approval from the town for a demo permit to remove the other units, assuming a demo permit is required?

    If a demo permit is required how does the town allow a demo of the units which would be directly opposite of what the development plan calls for? Doesn't this require approval of an abandonment of the development plan first to allow for the demo? If there was a formal abandonment of the development plan approved by the town in order to allow the demo, shouldn't that only occur upon approval of all owners of interest in the project, which would have required permission from the person who's trying to move in?
    First time poster, besides my introductory post. This is quite interesting but my thinking is similar to that above. We wouldn't issue a demolition permit if it would create nonconformity relative to zoning and building code. But, you can't account for politics and other types of dealmaking.

  25. #25
    NIMBY asshatterer Plus Richmond Jake's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Jukin' City
    Posts
    16,380
    ZG and I went to lunch today at a nearby restaurant. The property owner is rebuilding. How he resolved the trespass issue is beyond me.





    Image loading got screwed up. I've got another ya'll should see.

    Image loading does not work...except for these two. And I duplicated them in the gallery.

    What are ya gonna do?

    EDIT: I hope this works.




    EDIT 2: Except Pelican can't sell the two adjacent parcels because they're worth nothing!!!
    Last edited by Richmond Jake; 03 Dec 2011 at 5:14 PM. Reason: added image and real estate issue

+ Reply to thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 11
    Last post: 23 Apr 2007, 5:15 PM
  2. China property owner: holdout
    Land Use and Zoning
    Replies: 1
    Last post: 24 Mar 2007, 8:28 PM
  3. New townhouses in Oak Park, IL (no 56K)
    Design, Space, and Place
    Replies: 30
    Last post: 06 Jan 2006, 9:18 AM
  4. REPO MAN & GEDUNKER!
    Fantasy Football
    Replies: 5
    Last post: 14 Jul 2004, 3:56 PM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last post: 24 Aug 2001, 1:49 PM