PHILADELPHIA | Lowrise/General Developments Thread

[kraggman]

Originally Posted by volguus zildrohar

Checked out the garage below Cira Green. Roof level isn't open yet.

Speaking of that, did't know PECO had this.



http://phsonline.org/gardening/peco-green-roof-tours

[PhilliesPhan]

I don't know if this has ever been posted here, but this is the draft transformation plan for the PHA-led transformation of Sharswood. It looks like the PHA's old development philosophy has changed, and that they are embracing new urbanism. This development looks walkable, dense, and urban. I actually have faith in the PHA after seeing this!

http://www.pha.phila.gov/media/15754..._plan-web1.pdf

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by PhilliesPhan

I don't know if this has ever been posted here, but this is the draft transformation plan for the PHA-led transformation of Sharswood. It looks like the PHA's old development philosophy has changed, and that they are embracing new urbanism. This development looks walkable, dense, and urban. I actually have faith in the PHA after seeing this!

http://www.pha.phila.gov/media/15754..._plan-web1.pdf

Amazing. THIS is the way it should be done. Now they need to take this strategy and go address the Richard Allen Homes on the other side of broad. Those suburban shitpiles need to go.

[summersm343]

Hub II - 3939 Chestnut - 7 floors - apartments/retail
Update from Naked Philly - seems to be completed



http://www.ocfrealty.com/naked-phill...-little-sister

[AbortedWalrus]

Originally Posted by PhilliesPhan

I don't know if this has ever been posted here, but this is the draft transformation plan for the PHA-led transformation of Sharswood. It looks like the PHA's old development philosophy has changed, and that they are embracing new urbanism. This development looks walkable, dense, and urban. I actually have faith in the PHA after seeing this!

http://www.pha.phila.gov/media/15754..._plan-web1.pdf

Would have been better if they hadn't eminent domained a bunch of property out from under owners that were occupying the units and taking care of them though.

Also, I still don't like any approach that concentrates poverty in a neighborhood, rather than trying to spread it out into a mixed income area. Are they going to be offering units at market rate in the development? Are they going to allow ownership of the buildings, or is this just going to be the same old rental sort of thing?

[Leviathant]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Amazing. THIS is the way it should be done. Now they need to take this strategy and go address the Richard Allen Homes on the other side of broad. Those suburban shitpiles need to go.

Do you mean the late-90s era owner-occupied Nehemiah homes - 3br duplexes with driveways, backyards, gardens, full-size basements & efficient appliances in West Poplar? Or the Richard Allen Homes along 10th & 11th streets?

[kraggman]

Take a look at this. If it's a repost please disregard.

https://www.philadelphiabuildings.or...se_streets.cfm

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by Leviathant

Do you mean the late-90s era owner-occupied Nehemiah homes - 3br duplexes with driveways, backyards, gardens, full-size basements & efficient appliances in West Poplar? Or the Richard Allen Homes along 10th & 11th streets?

The Allen Homes. The Nehemiah homes across the street were built to have the same look as Allen, but they are indeed in the private market and therefore are likely to be redeveloped as none of those twins are the highest and best use in the area anymore (unlike when they were originally built in the '90s). Cf. the Francisville cottages for a similar example.

As redevelopment swallows '90s-era HOPE IV projects, they're looking increasingly out of place. Not just Allen, but the ones around Ridge & Poplar, which are clearly nothing like what the site can handle.

[PhiLaw]

Looks like new office building in the pipeline for U-City - 41st and Market:

http://www.philly.com/philly/busines...tern_edge.html

[summersm343]

Residences at Twelve40 - 13th and South
Update from Naked Philly



http://www.ocfrealty.com/naked-phill...et-kabob-house

[Arch+Eng]

Originally Posted by AbortedWalrus

Would have been better if they hadn't eminent domained a bunch of property out from under owners that were occupying the units and taking care of them though.

Also, I still don't like any approach that concentrates poverty in a neighborhood, rather than trying to spread it out into a mixed income area. Are they going to be offering units at market rate in the development? Are they going to allow ownership of the buildings, or is this just going to be the same old rental sort of thing?

I don't like concentrated poverty either, but everyone here wants high density PHA projects. Yea, it will look nice and urban (for a little while until it goes into decay, people in PHA usually don't have the same respect for their properties as homeowners obviously), but the environment will be horrible. I wholeheartedly understand why they gave PHA residents spaced out suburban looking houses, and I don't mind it.

[1487]

Originally Posted by Arch+Eng

I don't like concentrated poverty either, but everyone here wants high density PHA projects. Yea, it will look nice and urban (for a little while until it goes into decay, people in PHA usually don't have the same respect for their properties as homeowners obviously), but the environment will be horrible. I wholeheartedly understand why they gave PHA residents spaced out suburban looking houses, and I don't mind it.

There is plenty of room for traditional urban development in north philly. Tearing down houses built in the 90s is hardly high on the priority list for this part of the city. Bigger fish to fry.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by 1487

There is plenty of room for traditional urban development in north philly. Tearing down houses built in the 90s is hardly high on the priority list for this part of the city. Bigger fish to fry.

This is definitely a "wish list" item. Arch+Eng reminds us that high density isn't a panacea. The high-rise warehousing of the poor didn't do anything positive for society. There has to be a "medium" density sweet spot between Cabrini Green-ish stuff and Richard Allen sprawl.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by 1487

There is plenty of room for traditional urban development in north philly. Tearing down houses built in the 90s is hardly high on the priority list for this part of the city. Bigger fish to fry.

True. But where Richard Allen sits is an up and coming area that is or will be soon attractive to developers. Further, its low density means that the neighborhood could support double or even triple the amount of people living there now. If it were up to me, I would raze the homes to the ground and then rebuild the neighborhood from scratch with a mixture of rowhomes and midrise buildings. Everyone living there now would be resettled within the new development and all the extra units would be sold at market rate value. The end result is a new, mixed income neighborhood that doesn't displace anyone. It would also fully realize the connection of Temple U to CC.

[Leviathant]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

The Nehemiah homes across the street were built to have the same look as Allen, but they are indeed in the private market and therefore are likely to be redeveloped as none of those twins are the highest and best use in the area anymore (unlike when they were originally built in the '90s).

That's an interesting perspective. As a former resident of one of those twins, I felt like I had stumbled upon one of Philadelphia's better kept secrets. Yes, they are private market, no, they are very unlikely to be redeveloped. There's actually a little HOA that comes with the deed, and while I swore I'd never move into a neighborhood with an HOA, all this one basically said was that the property had to be owner-occupied, and that you can't put a satellite dish on the roof. There are a couple of other minor stipulations, which might bother someone who thinks those houses aren't the highest or best use in the area.

If my wife and I hadn't snagged a really interesting property in Old City, we probably would have stayed in West Poplar a long time, and sold to a family when we moved. With the recent development around and including the Divine Lorraine, it was probably just about the worst time for us to sell, but then we can't get all the good deals :b

[Leviathant]

Originally Posted by McBane

True. But where Richard Allen sits is an up and coming area that is or will be soon attractive to developers. Further, its low density means that the neighborhood could support double or even triple the amount of people living there now. If it were up to me, I would raze the homes to the ground and then rebuild the neighborhood from scratch with a mixture of rowhomes and midrise buildings. Everyone living there now would be resettled within the new development and all the extra units would be sold at market rate value. The end result is a new, mixed income neighborhood that doesn't displace anyone. It would also fully realize the connection of Temple U to CC.

...which is almost exactly the opposite of what happened with Nehemiah. High density public housing was razed and low density, affordable housing installed, and people who were renting in the high density projects were given the opportunity to own property in the low density neighborhood. From what I read, the hope was that this nicer setting would radiate goodness to the area around it - however, the benefits seemed to only exist within that development. Seemed. People who grew up in the worst projects in Philadelphia were able to raise their kids in a safer, more stable environment, and my neighbors kids were college grads.

To take the rest of the nearby Richard Allen homes and push them towards higher density again seems, to me, like a step in the wrong direction.

[AbortedWalrus]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

This is definitely a "wish list" item. Arch+Eng reminds us that high density isn't a panacea. The high-rise warehousing of the poor didn't do anything positive for society. There has to be a "medium" density sweet spot between Cabrini Green-ish stuff and Richard Allen sprawl.

The density of the neighborhood isn't the issue. The density of poverty is. The ideal is a mixed income neighborhood. If you concentrate poverty all in the same location you concentrate all of the problems of poverty in one location, and then they just feed off of each other. If you have a dozen households on a block which have a member with drug problems, for example, you're going to get open air dealing on that block. If it's two or three people, and it's a mixed income neighborhood, you're probably not going to see it. You'll get police called, etc. If you get people who are home owners or otherwise invested in the neighborhood, not just there because PHA put them there, you get people who want to clean up the block.

Obviously simplistic examples, but the general idea is sound. Mixed income neighborhoods make public housing work better. Concentrating poverty in an area is going to have a very similar effect that project towers did. You can't throw all of societies problems in a single area and not expect them to get magnified. On top of that, living in a mixed income area can give low income people opportunities they may not otherwise have had in terms of amenities or even job opportunities.

PHA should go for dense urban development, but they shouldn't all be in the exact same spot, or if they are they should be mixed income development because it's better for the low income residents and the fabric of the neighborhood that way.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by Leviathant

To take the rest of the nearby Richard Allen homes and push them towards higher density again seems, to me, like a step in the wrong direction.

But to distinguish: under my "plan", Richard Allen would become more dense, but mixed income. Density isn't necessarily bad. It's when you concentrate poverty where the social issues come into play. Right now Richard Allen is low density but 100% low income. I'd rather it be high density but mixed income. The neighborhood's location in between Temple and CC makes it appealing to developers who can attract urban professionals who are increasingly priced out of Center City.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by AbortedWalrus

The density of the neighborhood isn't the issue. The density of poverty is. The ideal is a mixed income neighborhood. If you concentrate poverty all in the same location you concentrate all of the problems of poverty in one location, and then they just feed off of each other. If you have a dozen households on a block which have a member with drug problems, for example, you're going to get open air dealing on that block. If it's two or three people, and it's a mixed income neighborhood, you're probably not going to see it. You'll get police called, etc. If you get people who are home owners or otherwise invested in the neighborhood, not just there because PHA put them there, you get people who want to clean up the block.

Obviously simplistic examples, but the general idea is sound. Mixed income neighborhoods make public housing work better. Concentrating poverty in an area is going to have a very similar effect that project towers did. You can't throw all of societies problems in a single area and not expect them to get magnified. On top of that, living in a mixed income area can give low income people opportunities they may not otherwise have had in terms of amenities or even job opportunities.

PHA should go for dense urban development, but they shouldn't all be in the exact same spot, or if they are they should be mixed income development because it's better for the low income residents and the fabric of the neighborhood that way.

Good point (and really an elaboration of mine). It raises the issue of whether PHA should be a developer and landlord at all. To effect what you suggest, it seems that some sort of housing voucher & PHA as placement agency combo would do a better job of ensuring homes for the poor and reducing concentration of poverty.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by McBane

Density isn't necessarily bad. It's when you concentrate poverty where the social issues come into play. Right now Richard Allen is low density but 100% low income.

Exactly. Low density merely dilutes "cask strength" poverty. That may make it more "palatable," but doesn't really change the identity of a neighborhood.