Philadelphia: Anything Goes (within reason)

[Flyers2001]

Originally Posted by josef

^ ha. Nice map, though honestly, I feel like we're getting a bunch of great infill projects that are actually part of the urban fabric and not just siloed off on the waterfront. I think that's more important for the city overall. But, shiny things are nice.

Nothing says we can not have both. Everyone knows the Philadelphia waterfront is one of the most under utilized attractions this city has/had to offer.

I believe things are headed in the right direction as far as realistic proposals, but I liked many of the previous proposals and I am not a fan of the 100ft limit.

[josef]

Originally Posted by Flyers2001

Nothing says we can not have both. Everyone knows the Philadelphia waterfront is one of the most under utilized attractions this city has/had to offer.

I believe things are headed in the right direction as far as realistic proposals, but I liked many of the previous proposals and I am not a fan of the 100ft limit.

Wellofcoursewecanhaveboth. I'm just saying for now, I'd rather infill than distant towers. There were some nice proposals though, I agree. Do you know the vacancy rate for waterfront square is? This article from 2012 says a bunch went to sheriff's sale.. Maybe the demand or whatever isn't quite there yet for a bunch of projects like this?

[philatonian]

Originally Posted by Flyers2001

I remember comparisons being thrown out to developing something along the lines of Vancouver's waterfront views back when Bridgeman's View was active.

The comparison I heard was Portland, but I remember hearing something like that. And I think Portland's South Waterfront is very similar to Vancouver overall: lots of tall narrow high-rise apartment buildings. I don't know how they're selling or renting, but Portland really redefined its skyline with the South Waterfront area. I always thought Philadelphia had the opportunity to do the same thing when all those proposals were being made for the Delaware River. Similarly to Portland's South Waterfront, it could have been its own, self sustained other Center City. Bridgeman's View would have been much taller than anything in Portland. Can you imagine something as tall as Liberty 1 along the river? Hotness!

Anyway. I'll save any further ramblings for Throwback Thursday. It's sad all we got was Sugarhouse sans hotel tower. But speaking of Vancouver, their high-rise boom went crazy in the last twenty years. From what I read, the city dramatically turned to vertical living because at a time, they had the worst traffic in North America, and it's still only second to L.A. They really tried to discourage suburban sprawl by encouraging high-rise development in the city. I don't know if it's worked, I've never been, but it certainly built up their skyline. The city looks wild, architecturally.

[philatonian]

Originally Posted by josef

^ ha. Nice map, though honestly, I feel like we're getting a bunch of great infill projects that are actually part of the urban fabric and not just siloed off on the waterfront. I think that's more important for the city overall. But, shiny things are nice.

I get that. We need infill. Although I think Philadelphia is significant enough to get infill and new, towering neighborhoods a la Portland and Vancouver. I just wish our development environment was as friendly as it is in other cities. I don't know what it is (maybe unions, NIMBYs, etc.?) that we didn't get the mad building boom other cities got in the last twenty years. Maybe it's for the best. I think a lot of cities overbuilt. Maybe we're doing it smart.

[josef]

Since this is only tangentially related to Philadelphia, I thought I'd put this here. I made a map of population gains and losses for South Jersey between 1990 and 2013. Someone made a similar map at the county level for North Jersey, and I wanted to see what I could do for down here. Awesomely enough, I found municipal level data.

http://southjerseyist.wordpress.com/...sey-1990-2013/