PHILADELPHIA | Lowrise/General Developments Thread

[Arch+Eng]

Originally Posted by blorkishdork

That makes three engineers!

I'm assuming we are all structural?

I'm Civil (with structural concentration) & Architectural (with Mechanical concentration).

[Cro Burnham]

when will people stop wasting time beating this dead horse? those houses arent going anywhere for DECADES and they are hardly the biggest issue faced by Philadelphia in terms of development, land use or neighborhood quality. They aren't going to be bulldozed, get over it.

. . . . coming from the guy who's beaten more dead horses than I've had hot meals. I love it!

Anyway, I miss alot of stuff, but I don't recall anyone have written that this was the biggest issue faced by Philadelphia in terms of development or that the houses were going to be bulldozed, so that's a bit of a straw man there.

I agree the dead horse-beating gets tedious, though I engage in quite a bit myself now and again. My bete noires are bland one liners like "this one is really moving along nicely now" and endless harping on how short 1919 Market is, how crappy 1900 Arch is, how the baseball stadium should be at 30th & Walnut, how no one is fixing such and such broken construction cam, how Inga sucks, how developers ought to be thinking about "balance" and "composition" in the skyline when they select sites for projects (eg, "I really wish XYZ development company was building this at that other corner [that they don't own] 10 blocks from they are actually building it - the project would really balance out the skyline better over there" ). And of course the repetitive bleating about dead horse beating.

But let's face it: without dead horse beating, and without dead horse beating about dead horse beating, there'd be virtually nothing new to read or post most days. Even in boom times, new projects come along at best every several weeks.

Bitching, dead horse beating, meta dead horse beating, pointless commentary, utterly baseless speculation, and really dumb questions and commentary fill most of the thread otherwise. We all do it. It's part of being a skyscraper geek.

[summersm343]

Housing Authority discusses Sharswood renewal project at Planning Commission

The Philadelphia Housing Authority plans to replace every unit of housing that will be lost in the demolition of the Blumberg project towers in North Philadelphia, a representative told the Planning Commission on Tuesday.

Michael Johns, an executive vice president at PHA and member of the city’s Civic Design Review Committee, gave a presentation about the Sharswood-Blumberg Neighborhood Transformation Plan at the Commission’s request. He said the plan—which involves the demolition of existing housing and acquisition more than 1,200 properties in the area bounded by 19th, 27th, Girard and Cecil B. Moore—is one of the biggest projects in the Authority’s history.

As of Saturday, Johns said, all the families living in the Blumberg towers have been relocated. PHA plans to tear down two of the existing towers and rehab a third tower for senior housing. In the first phase of construction, it plans to build 57 new affordable rental units and rehab 96 existing rental units for seniors. In later phases of development, the Authority plans to build 630 rental units, with 100 rented at market rate and 530 rented at reduced rates. It will also build 420 units for homeownership, with 100 sold at market rate and 320 sold below market rate.

PHA is also moving its headquarters to the neighborhood. Johns said that decision would support its planned development of commercial space along Ridge Avenue. Hundreds of PHA employees in the area will create a new demand for retail in the area. The Authority is also hoping to bring a supermarket to the neighborhood, which has lived without one for a number of years.

The Authority plans to develop public green space as well. And it is planning to reopen General John F. Reynolds elementary school, which closed in 2013, according to Johns. There will be an additional “social services component” to the project that Johns declined to identify.

Alan Greenberger, the deputy mayor for economic development, said that PHA should be prepared to give quarterly updates to the Planning Commission as the project develops. In response to a question from Greenberger, Johns said the project is expected to take 5-7 years to complete, but it can be done more quickly if PHA is able to partner with private developers.

The first phase of construction, involving 57 affordable rental units, is expected to cost $21 million, which amounts to more than $360,000 per unit. The first phase of construction is being funded with federal low-income housing tax credits, a $1.5 million grant from the city, and the Authority’s own funds. Alan Greenberger asked how PHA expected to entice private developers to build affordable housing as part of the project. Johns said that developers would be encouraged to take advantage of existing incentives, like inclusionary zoning bonuses, and that PHA was also likely to directly provide them with funding.

http://planphilly.com/articles/2015/...ing-commission

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by 1487

when will people stop wasting time beating this dead horse? those houses arent going anywhere for DECADES and they are hardly the biggest issue faced by Philadelphia in terms of development, land use or neighborhood quality. They aren't going to be bulldozed, get over it.

Well I guess some didn't realize there was an all seeing god in our midst that was able to definitively tell us what the future holds. If only they had known that you could simply tell us with certainty what will happen DECADES into the future.

Why is it that you are so frequently unable to play well with others? Here's a quick primer on internet debate: point, counter-point, repeat as necessary. At no point in an internet debate has it become time for you to step in and tell everyone that your position is definitively correct and those debating with you are dummies.

This type of post is especially infuriating when your position is not nearly as strong as you think it is and plenty of legitimate counter-arguments exist.

You and others argue that a 20 year old house is not past it's useful life and could last for decades further. Sure. Agree. Of course it could. With proper maintenance it could technically last forever. There are plenty of houses in Philadelphia that are in use well after they were intended to. But for houses to last that long maintenance is required, so it's always just a question of whether or not the maintenance is worth it.

As these houses approach 20 years old they're going to require new roofs, new furnaces, new siding, etc. If these houses were located somewhere out in the suburbs these repairs, though costly, would be worth it. Because despite the expense, it would still be far less costly than building an entirely new house.

However, because these houses are located where they are, it changes the economics of such a situation. Doing any of these repairs means investing in a house that is using your land in a very inefficient way. This isn't the suburbs where zoning requires large amounts of open space and distance between your neighbors. Zoning allows houses here that could easily be twice as big.

There is development encroaching upon this neighborhood in every direction. I totally disagree that these houses won't be demolished for decades. Some, won't be demolished, some may stick around for a hundred years. But there is absolutely going to people who see a development opportunity here and least some of these homes will demolished in the not to distant future. Certainly a lot sooner than decades from now.

[1487]

Originally Posted by allovertown

Well I guess some didn't realize there was an all seeing god in our midst that was able to definitively tell us what the future holds. If only they had known that you could simply tell us with certainty what will happen DECADES into the future.

Why is it that you are so frequently unable to play well with others? Here's a quick primer on internet debate: point, counter-point, repeat as necessary. At no point in an internet debate has it become time for you to step in and tell everyone that your position is definitively correct and those debating with you are dummies.

This type of post is especially infuriating when your position is not nearly as strong as you think it is and plenty of legitimate counter-arguments exist.

You and others argue that a 20 year old house is not past it's useful life and could last for decades further. Sure. Agree. Of course it could. With proper maintenance it could technically last forever. There are plenty of houses in Philadelphia that are in use well after they were intended to. But for houses to last that long maintenance is required, so it's always just a question of whether or not the maintenance is worth it.

As these houses approach 20 years old they're going to require new roofs, new furnaces, new siding, etc. If these houses were located somewhere out in the suburbs these repairs, though costly, would be worth it. Because despite the expense, it would still be far less costly than building an entirely new house.

However, because these houses are located where they are, it changes the economics of such a situation. Doing any of these repairs means investing in a house that is using your land in a very inefficient way. This isn't the suburbs where zoning requires large amounts of open space and distance between your neighbors. Zoning allows houses here that could easily be twice as big.

There is development encroaching upon this neighborhood in every direction. I totally disagree that these houses won't be demolished for decades. Some, won't be demolished, some may stick around for a hundred years. But there is absolutely going to people who see a development opportunity here and least some of these homes will demolished in the not to distant future. Certainly a lot sooner than decades from now.

1. This isn't a pressing issues, far from it
2. The housing was built like that for a reason. Fewer units, less density, more open space, total opposite of tightly packed housing project. And there was and still is a TON of vacant land in North Philadelphia. In no way does this zone somehow limit development opportunities in North Philly
3. Vacant land adds ZERO density so the notion than in North Philly having lower density housing somehow imperils the urbanity of this part of the city is laughable. Makes me wonder if you folks actually drive through this part of the city. North Philadelphia is full of low density pockets- they just look a lot worst than this.
4. The materials used to support the house have nothing to do with the durability of the home. Assuming they are build on solid ground they could last hundreds of years as long as the roof is kept up. They are probably better built than most private housing that goes up because public agencies tend to have higher standards for materials since they aren't building houses for profits
5. I didn't claim to be all knowing, what I am claiming is that this has been beat to death already. It's time to move on. With all the problems facing North Philadelphia I don't understand all the concern about 15 year old housing. They are entire blocks that are completely empty just east of this are on the other side of the rail viaduct. There is PLENTY of space for typical urban development in this area.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by Leviathant

The majority of the crime in that area is actually taking place in the higher-density PHA housing. Where all the private owned low density housing is, the most crime we had for years was recovery of stolen vehicles. Then one day about four years ago, cops chased a car into one of the cul-de-sacs, and they stopped recovering stolen vehicles near us.

The biggest problem we had was with homeless addicts hanging out in the park, which had admittedly been neglected. I'd help clean it up two or three times a month, but didn't dedicate more time to it. One of the newer neighbors, who looks out his front door into the park, took it upon himself to cut back the bushes, nag the homeless shelter, and start holding community events in the park. Last year, because of his efforts, where I used to pick up beer cans and smack baggies, I was picking up mostly candy wrappers. It's actually a really pleasant neighborhood.

We would get packages left on our porch - never had one stolen in six years. I regularly left my car unlocked, or left our front and back doors open during the nicer weather. The neighbors look out for each other, and all know each other's names. There was one family, which I refer to as the cursing toddler family, who communicate by yelling at each other, and in that way they're a bit of a nuisance. But as far as violent crime goes? Not in Nehemiah.

I work in old city, and walked to work, covering pretty much the whole grid between 12th & Poplar and 2nd & Market, morning and evening. And sometimes late at night. Yeah, at first, it seemed forbidding. One time, a young man on the other side of the street even called me a cracker while speaking loudly to his friend. Oh no! I survived. But no one's ever bothered me, and in fact, I took to greeting everyone I walked past in the morning with "Good morning," and it was amazing to see people's stern faces melt away into a friendly reply. (The catcalling my wife got walking down Broad Street is another matter, and a larger problem in the city in general.)

None of that has anything to do with the notion that these houses built in 1997 are at the end of their life cycle. I don't think I'm being inflammatory when I say that's a statement made out of actual ignorance about the construction of those structures.

This is seriously very interesting, and it's great to get your facts from the ground. Obviously, you would know the neighborhood better than those of us who haven't lived there. Do the houses and and the neighborhood function in a basic way? Sounds like it from what you say, and that's great.

But that does not diminish the fact that these PHA projects waste land and have a suburban aesthetic that is terribly inappropriate for the center of the city. Some will say that is a "subjective statement", but really it's not.

That the higher density high rise projects have more crime is irrelevant. No one is saying that higher density is always better under any circumstances. Concentrated poverty in fortress like labyrinthine compressed concrete tower blocks has been proven over many decades not to work. We all know that. But in general, in the inner city, the denser, busier neighborhoods are safer than the isolated, empty very quiet neighborhoods. No point really in arguing that.

Given that nature abhors a vacuum, as Allovertown suggests, it is not unreasonable to imagine that there will be development pressure in the not so distant future to redevelop much of this ridiculously underutilized land just blocks from employment centers and transit.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by 1487

In no way does this zone somehow limit development opportunities in North Philly

Of course it does. Immovable empty zones impede or seriously delay the process of development.

This is abundantly evident throughout the city and has been for eons: where the City or some other large slow-moving institution controls large swaths of underutilized land, development just stops there.

If the property in question is extensive enough, then development will not generally leapfrog to the next developable area because people seek connectivity and prefer not to have to walk through unattractive dead zones to get to the next active neighborhood.

So, yes, giant swaths of basically empty, unattractive land, like the extensive City-controlled areas between Girard and Spring Garden east of Broad and west of 5th, act as a serious barrier to redevelopment.

That is why, around on either side, new development is occurring at a fast pace, but between 13th St and, say, 5th Street, the area north of Girard is still pretty desolate and undeveloped and probably will remain so for a while.

It is only now getting a little attention because of development spilling west from West Kensington/Fishtown or east from Temple. But had the city done a better job of not turning the area between Spring Garden and Girard into a publicly controlled wasteland, development would have been pushing up from the south probably quite a bit earlier. As it is now, we have a giant, government-made development doughnut hole there. And it will be hard to fill in given the levels of inertia engendered by the City agencies that created it.

It is beyond obvious that in many ways that are clear-as-day, this zone does limit development opportunities in North Philly.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by 1487

1. This isn't a pressing issues, far from it
2. The housing was built like that for a reason. Fewer units, less density, more open space, total opposite of tightly packed housing project. And there was and still is a TON of vacant land in North Philadelphia. In no way does this zone somehow limit development opportunities in North Philly
3. Vacant land adds ZERO density so the notion than in North Philly having lower density housing somehow imperils the urbanity of this part of the city is laughable. Makes me wonder if you folks actually drive through this part of the city. North Philadelphia is full of low density pockets- they just look a lot worst than this.
4. The materials used to support the house have nothing to do with the durability of the home. Assuming they are build on solid ground they could last hundreds of years as long as the roof is kept up. They are probably better built than most private housing that goes up because public agencies tend to have higher standards for materials since they aren't building houses for profits
5. I didn't claim to be all knowing, what I am claiming is that this has been beat to death already. It's time to move on. With all the problems facing North Philadelphia I don't understand all the concern about 15 year old housing. They are entire blocks that are completely empty just east of this are on the other side of the rail viaduct. There is PLENTY of space for typical urban development in this area.

Did you even read what I wrote? I never said this was a pressing issue, I never said there aren't other parts of North Philly that also have inappropriate density. And I certainly didn't say that these homes couldn't last if they were maintained. In fact I said they could last a century if someone was intent on preserving them.

I simply pointed out, that this land is more valuable than even the vacant lots just a few blocks to the east. This land is surrounded by development in Francisville, development at Temple, the Divine Loraine Development, etc. It's right next to broad street and adjacent to two subway stops!

I'm not saying these houses NEED to go. I'm saying they likely will go, at least some of them, due to market forces.

Time will tell what will happen. Maybe you're right and none of these houses are redeveloped for DECADES. I'm sorry though, if I'm forced to bet, I'm easily placing the wager that at least some of these buildings are gone by 2035. You're free to disagree... just try to be less annoying about it.

[Arch+Eng]

Originally Posted by Arch+Eng

Guys let's please not get back on this subject. We just talked about it a week or two ago. We answered his question. Lets move on.

If only you guys listened to me...

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by Arch+Eng

If only you guys listened to me...

Umm, what topic did we get off topic about? Is this debate (pointless as it is) somehow crowding out the exchange of critical exciting new info we all want to know about?

The admonishment to get back on topic is also kind of off topic if the admonisher has nothing new "on topic", whatever that means, to add. I mean, like photos of progress on a project or new information about a project. Without that there is in fact no "topic" to be "on" really, especially given this is the "general development" thread.

And that's when the freestyle debating happens. No biggie, though. I mean why is this "topic" fixation such an obsession? Take yourselves less seriously.

But if you have any new info or pics to get us back on topic that would be fabulous.

[Cro Burnham]

In the spirit of being "on topic" and extending an olive branch to the embattled 1487 who asked about this a few pages ago, here are some images of the National, for which demo and excavation appears to have started in earnest:

http://www.bartonpartners.com/wp-con...1-1024x689.jpg

http://hiddencityphila.org/wp-conten....752.360.c.jpg

http://planphilly.com/uploads/media_....752.487.s.jpg

http://www.bartonpartners.com/wp-con...0_2_14WEB_.jpg

Now let's stay on topic: only comments about the National are acceptable now until someone else has on-topic info about another project. Seriously. And no more beating of dead horses.

[Leviathant]

I'm sorry Arch+Eng!

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

This is seriously very interesting, and it's great to get your facts from the ground. Obviously, you would know the neighborhood better than those of us who haven't lived there. Do the houses and and the neighborhood function in a basic way? Sounds like it from what you say, and that's great.

By function in a basic way, do you mean: Shoveling each other's snow. Getting permits to throw block parties. Cleaning up the park at least quarterly. Rallying together to prevent the installation of a liquor store and a gun shop nearby. Going to each other's kids' graduation and birthday parties. Picking garbage up off the sidewalks. Coming together to grieve in the street when finding out that one of the older women in the neighborhood passed away. Organizing meetings with council members when questions about taxes came up, or when, a few years ago, it turned out that we were all technically on commercially zoned land.

If so, then yes. It was much more interactive and communal than where I've lived in the suburbs and exurbs, for sure.

And yes, many of the houses in that neighborhood have already replaced their roofs. I've seen a few change out their AC coils in the back - our AC was blowing hot a few years ago, and I found that by replacing the motor & blade, we got it back to optimal with minimal investment. You don't always have to scrap everything and start over, even though a salesman with an agenda may try to convince you of that

But that does not diminish the fact that these PHA projects waste land and have a suburban aesthetic that is terribly inappropriate for the center of the city. Some will say that is a "subjective statement", but really it's not.

Nah, it's still subjective. I'm unabashedly a recovering suburbanite. I really liked that I lived on a street that looked like that - wide streets, ample parking, friendly neighbors outside watering their gardens - living in a neighborhood like that, and yet could walk to Girard Station, or hop on the 23 bus, or just walk to Honey's Sit n' Eat on the weekend, for example. Aesthetically speaking, your statement is subjective. I'll grant you that having two car parking and lots of on-street parking (without meters or limits) isn't terribly urban.

Last thing, and I'll promise to disappear again for a while. You can't say something like this:

That the higher density high rise projects have more crime is irrelevant.

When I was directly responding to this previous statement.

Additionally, one of the ways to prevent crime is through increased density and street activity. These nightmarishly badly designed 90s public housing developments do exactly the opposite.

When you said that increased density and street activity prevents crime, and that where I lived was the opposite of increased density and street activity, it was so counter to my personal experience in this specific instance that I had to weigh in. As I've witnessed it, the shootings and the fights are happening on the streets with increased density and street activity. I don't think I'm arguing anything, so much as correcting your assumptions about this particular area.

Given that nature abhors a vacuum, as Allovertown suggests, it is not unreasonable to imagine that there will be development pressure in the not so distant future to redevelop much of this ridiculously underutilized land just blocks from employment centers and transit.

I look forward to the mid-rise behind the Divine Lorraine, and all the pressure it brings. I hope that when my friends sell the house we sold them, they sell it for twice what we sold it for.

[Leviathant]

Word. I'm going to go walk past the National now and get my head back in the right place!

[summersm343]

Holy shit guys... come on. What an unnecessary conversation. Let's stay on topic so I don't have to start deleting comments.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

In the spirit of being "on topic" and extending an olive branch to the embattled 1487 who asked about this a few pages ago, here are some images of the National, for which demo and excavation appears to have started in earnest:

http://www.bartonpartners.com/wp-con...1-1024x689.jpg

http://hiddencityphila.org/wp-conten....752.360.c.jpg

http://planphilly.com/uploads/media_....752.487.s.jpg

http://www.bartonpartners.com/wp-con...0_2_14WEB_.jpg

Now let's stay on topic: only comments about the National are acceptable now until someone else has on-topic info about another project. Seriously. And no more beating of dead horses.

What an amazing development. I had no idea they were turning the parking lot next door into a pocket park. I LOVE THIS! Perfect development for Old City. Now just to get the parking lot across Elfreth's Alley developed

[Cro Burnham]

deleted by me so summersm didn't have to.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by summersm343

What an amazing development. I had no idea they were turning the parking lot next door into a pocket park. I LOVE THIS! Perfect development for Old City. Now just to get the parking lot across Elfreth's Alley developed

I find Barton and Associates' work to be generally awful, but in this case I like it.

I'm so happy OCCA is gone. So much stuff going on in OC now without them, most of it reasonably decent other than a few garage doors on the street which really ought to be categorically prohibited anywhere in Center City for individual homes.

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by 1487

1. This isn't a pressing issues, far from it
2. The housing was built like that for a reason. Fewer units, less density, more open space, total opposite of tightly packed housing project. And there was and still is a TON of vacant land in North Philadelphia. In no way does this zone somehow limit development opportunities in North Philly
3. Vacant land adds ZERO density so the notion than in North Philly having lower density housing somehow imperils the urbanity of this part of the city is laughable. Makes me wonder if you folks actually drive through this part of the city. North Philadelphia is full of low density pockets- they just look a lot worst than this.
4. The materials used to support the house have nothing to do with the durability of the home. Assuming they are build on solid ground they could last hundreds of years as long as the roof is kept up. They are probably better built than most private housing that goes up because public agencies tend to have higher standards for materials since they aren't building houses for profits
5. I didn't claim to be all knowing, what I am claiming is that this has been beat to death already. It's time to move on. With all the problems facing North Philadelphia I don't understand all the concern about 15 year old housing. They are entire blocks that are completely empty just east of this are on the other side of the rail viaduct. There is PLENTY of space for typical urban development in this area.

Not to pile on, but pretty much everything you write here flies in the face of what's come to be determined as smart, thoughtful urban planning. Before continuing to post stuff that's been proven wrong, I'd recommend taking some time to read Jane Jacobs' "Life and Death of American Cities."

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by summersm343

What an amazing development. I had no idea they were turning the parking lot next door into a pocket park. I LOVE THIS! Perfect development for Old City. Now just to get the parking lot across Elfreth's Alley developed

Yea this looks great. I'm really impressed with how they were able to incorporate so much density while also respecting Elfreth's Alley. Love the building, love the reuse of the facade, love the small park. It was always sort of depressing that such a big tourist site had such an ugly entrance. This looks perfect.

Although I'd have to disagree with developing the lot across the alley. The newest building on Elfreth's Alley is roughly 200 years old, I think more green space would be more appropriate than trying to put a new building there.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

http://www.bartonpartners.com/wp-con...1-1024x689.jpg

Very nice!