Quote:
The low-density inner city thing was the latest amazing novel advance in public housing right about the time suburban people and developers began to embrace density and transit oriented design. Now we just have to wait another 15 years for PHA to catch on. How sad and foolish. |
Quote:
|
Even if you have detached housing there is nothing suburban about the transit connections and distance from center city. The bus runs right through that area. North philly has lot of open space. The idea that a few low density housing developments in that area will have any substantial impact on the urban character of north philly is a joke. Unlike some other east coast cities Philadelphia has a host of semi-detached and detached housing in the middle of what are essentially urban neighborhoods that are completely walkable and served by public transit.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Just seeking clarification on your comment so I can better understand your point. |
Quote:
Otherwise, he's just a terribly informed iconoclast, which is far less interesting. |
Quote:
Also technically speaking the Allen Hole is semi-attached. That said, the redevelopment was done in the early '90s and is very much a product of the urban thinking of its time. Unlike Clarke and PHA's Sharswood plan, which is clearly a generation out of date. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The problem with the Allen Hole is that a hundred years ago it was rowhomes. Then they were razed and replaced with first-generation (1930s) public housing, which actually lasted a generation until nationwide changes in public housing policy in the 1960s pretty much made the whole place go to shit. Then they were flattened (except for one block) and rebuilt in their current condition around the city's early 90s' nadir. There's a whole chapter about it in Fixing Broken Cities. It would be nice if, in the next replacement cycle, the PHA elected to reproduce and MLK-style redevelopment on this site. But that would probably require recreating the circumstance that led to the MLK projects being replaced with rowhomes (i.e. everything around the project was gentrifying) in the first place. In any event, the Allen Hole can't be that high on the PHA's replacement list. The Poplar homes, by contrast, can be reurbanized by market processes. |
Quote:
It is absurd and ironic, for example, that at the Hawthorne low income housing (not bad looking row house replicas), a block from the Broad Street line and 50 bus lines, half of each block is wasted with a freeway-width "back alley" for parking and lawns. Meanwhile, 100 yards away, new (and existing) market rate housing selling for $500K+ is packed together with no lawns or vast rear parking right of ways. This striking juxtaposition highlights the stupidity the PHA planners: blatantly waste a valuable and precious resource (i.e, land in close proximity the CBD) for parking and BBQ grills, while people making a few hundred thousand a year are willing to fork over $600K for a house with no parking and a 14'x5' enclosed concrete yard a half a block away. At the same time we frequently hear the somewhat valid claim that not enough resources are allocated to low income housing . . . as if the housing agency is not wasting its most valuable resource for parking and BBQs that even the richest folks nearby can't afford with their beautiful, new (but land use efficient) townhouses. When the advent of the 21st century eventually dawns on the brilliant minds at work at PHA sometime in the next couple decades, one of them will look up brightly and say: "Hey, wow, cool IDEA: we can sell our valuable land near the CBD for a mint and use all that money to build lots more housing for many more needy people lacking adequate housing somewhere else in the city where the land is less valuable! WoW!" Then, a colleague will say: "Um, so are you going to ask our existing impoverished tenants to sacrifice their three car parking driveways and BBQ party lawns just so we can build more and more cost efficient low income housing options elsewhere for everyone else who needs a hand?" ". . . oh, yeah. Um, I guess not". |
Let me be clear, I am not suggesting, as a few of you might like to believe, that low income housing should not be on valuable land. It should be, up to a point at least.
But valuable centrally located land should be wasted on parking and suburban back yards that the rich people across the street don't have and can't even afford. It's an idiotic use of land near transit and the CBD. PHA should leave the houses where they are, but sell those huge mid-block parking rights of way and rear lawns in Hawthorne (and elsewhere) NOW, and use the money to build denser new housing for poor people on less central empty land all across the inner city. That way, we can increase the density around Center City, take better advantage of its transit access, and have more money to fill in and densify parts of the inner city that need more people and development. But you would have to ask PHA tenants to give up three car parking and expansive back lawns - and this is where any innovative thinking will come screeching to a halt. No politician would be caught dead risking being attacked for depriving the poor of necessities like three car parking and nice downtown back lawns. This is why the low-density "solution" of the 90s was so stupid and lacking in vision: once you give away these amenities, it's very hard to take them back. Anyone with vision would have realized that the way they designed the land use would hamstring any new innovation for that property long into the future. It's sad. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
That's fine for them, I guess, personally. But the mistakes, from a policy perspective, are: a) the delusion that installing the superficial physical trappings of the burbs will somehow help transform the dysfunction of impoverished inner city neighborhoods into a communities emulating idyllic suburban middle class mores; b) the tract housing they developed is ugly and produces starkly underpopulated, still-impoverished low-density neighborhoods. The emptiness does nothing to alleviate crime, and the lack of density means it is more challenging to cost effectively establish needed retail/commercial and social service amenities; c) it wastes the opportunity of ample public transit to serve dense populations; and d) did I mention it is hideous (oh, I did) and totally incongruous in appearance with the adjacent relatively dense neighborhoods. Dumb dumb dumb dumb. So infuriatingly dumb. Just looking at that photo makes me want to hit somebody. :gaah: |
Supermarket Plus Apartments for 1300 Fairmount Avenue
Article from Naked Philly http://www.ocfrealty.com/naked-phill...irmount-avenue |
Construction permit on file
the city's map shows that a zoning/use permit was filed for the project on January 21st, but there's nothing more recent. Anyone have insights on the status of this one? We've got a crap ton of great stuff in the pipeline right now, but this one sits up there near the top for me (along with East Market) for its potential is a gamechanger.
|
Quote:
|
From Center City District Report:
1300 FAIRMOUNT DEVELOPER: RAL Development Services, LLC LOCATION: 1300 Fairmount Avenue SIZE: 783,760 sf RESIDENTIAL UNITS: 486 START DATE: Summer 2016 COMPLETION DATE: 2018 STATUS: Announced INVESTMENT: Approximately $200 Million DESCRIPTION: New York City-based RAL Development Services, LLC is developing an assemblage of vacant lots at 13th Street and Fairmount Avenue adjacent to the Divine Lorraine Hotel. The project includes a retail and structured-parking podium supporting a residential rental apartment building with up to 486 apartments. The parking will support both the retail and residential components. Additionally the project includes an enhanced public streetscape with an approximately 6,000-sf public plaza with fixed seating, landscaping and bicycle parking. RAL is seeking a $15 million grant from the Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program (RACP). http://www.centercityphila.org/docs/...pments2016.pdf |
let's hope that info is real.
|
Has anyone heard anything on this lately?
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 6:33 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.