PHILADELPHIA | Lowrise/General Developments Thread

[PHLtoNYC]

Originally Posted by PurpleWhiteOut

Same here... I was really excited about this one when it was announced. I think the rendering led me to believe it was going to be white brick. The change in the first floor to that color brick makes it look dirty and it doesn't mesh AT ALL with the floors above. I think it's actually worse than the modular building at Spring Garden

A shame, a rare miss for Canno. It would have been better if the entire building were ribbed metal instead of the brick base. But I still think it looks okay overall, not a winner, but far from the worst new large building in the city.

I'll have to see these 2 buildings in person when I'm in town next. The first 2 floors of the modular building are fine, but the rest is awful.

Originally Posted by Jawnadelphia

^PurpleWhiteOut, agreed. Canno does really awesome work usually, not sure what happened with this one.

----------

Now over to Logan Square:


-Edgewater Apartments - the developer could've done so much more with this site. The site book-ends the Schuylkill River Trail and overlooks the Parkway - perhaps a tall, slender tower (condos) but this is what we got...

At least the brick and window guards look decent. It's squat and boring, but at not hideous.

A design like The Alexander would have been awesome in this highly visible location.

[thoughtcriminal]

Originally Posted by summersm343

There’s really no reason minimum wage can’t be raised to $15 an hour in PA.

Why only to $15? Why not $100?

[AnEmperorPenguin]

I like the "basic economic" argument against minimum wage here that would imply its existence would destroy the economy, when that clearly has not happened. Increasing it by ~10% a year doesn't cause any big (un)employment effects and I would expect most candidates are going to call for $15/hour since that's a popular number.

[thoughtcriminal]

Originally Posted by AnEmperorPenguin

I like the "basic economic" argument against minimum wage here that would imply its existence would destroy the economy, when that clearly has not happened.

I'm not saying it would destroy the entire economy. I'm saying it would cause hardship to some employers. But more to the point, I am saying that you can't legislate the value of a person's labor to his/her employer.

Originally Posted by AnEmperorPenguin

Increasing it by ~10% a year doesn't cause any big (un)employment effects and I would expect most candidates are going to call for $15/hour since that's an arbitrary, socially-engineered, not based in anything rational, number.

Fixed it for you.

[Mtphilly]

Originally Posted by PurpleWhiteOut

Same here... I was really excited about this one when it was announced. I think the rendering led me to believe it was going to be white brick. The change in the first floor to that color brick makes it look dirty and it doesn't mesh AT ALL with the floors above. I think it's actually worse than the modular building at Spring Garden

The modular building on Spring Garden actually looks decent to me in person. The one at 545 north broad being built looks absolutely hideous. I’m hoping there are at least some minor changes at the end to make it look presentable.

[UrbanRevival]

Originally Posted by thoughtcriminal

I'm not saying it would destroy the entire economy. I'm saying it would cause hardship to some employers. But more to the point, I am saying that you can't legislate the value of a person's labor to his/her employer.

...

Fixed it for you.

If you think the point of a minimum wage is to "legislate the value of labor, " then you're obviously missing something critical here.

It's called basic employee protections, wherein someone's work is not completely taken advantage of and is assigned some type of value with an economic floor, for which the private sector or the free market can literally never be entrusted to "police itself."

If you want to take the Libertarian point-of-view, have at it. But don't be disingenuous. You need to be consistent and say you don’t agree with any basic labor laws or protections whatsoever for employees.

[AnEmperorPenguin]

Originally Posted by thoughtcriminal

I'm not saying it would destroy the entire economy. I'm saying it would cause hardship to some employers. But more to the point, I am saying that you can't legislate the value of a person's labor to his/her employer.

Ok but we already know that a small minimum wage increase doesn't do that, you can even look at the NY PA border to see that employment didn't vary between 7.25 PA and 11.8 NY. There isn't some big tradeoff for a small increase

https://libertystreeteconomics.newyo...lvania-border/.

And I'd have to agree that you're missing the point, the government wants people to earn enough to afford housing and stuff, this isn't some philosophical estimation of value or an analysis of value created

I'd also ask why the state should even care businesses that will "suffer" significantly from paying people more then 7.25 an hour. Sounds like they're not doing very well anyway

[thoughtcriminal]

Originally Posted by UrbanRevival

If you want to take the Libertarian point-of-view, have at it. But don't be disingenuous. You need to be consistent and say you don’t agree with any basic labor laws or protections whatsoever for employees.

that's a false equivalence, and you know it. it's not the employer's job to protect their employees against poverty. people don't go into business to enrich their employees, they go into business to enrich themselves. smart employers will realize that they need to pay more to get better quality workers, but if they don't realize that, then they get what they get.

[TonyTone]

Just a thought I've been having, but can anyone answer why Philadelphia's areas near highways are usually the best, and highest priced.

Examples,

Allegheny Ave Towards I-95 becomes a solid neighborhood

Port Richmond towards 95 is a solid neighborhood

Lehigh Ave towards 95 is a solid neighborhood

676 Has some of the best real estate in the city on it and around it.

Majority of the neighborhoods in South Philly by 95 are solid areas.

Compared to other cities like our Brother city Wilmington, 95 destroyed the neighborhoods, and it's not any better in any sections it passes through.

Philly has it really good when it comes to highways.

[fairmounter]

Originally Posted by thoughtcriminal

that's a false equivalence, and you know it. it's not the employer's job to protect their employees against poverty. people don't go into business to enrich their employees, they go into business to enrich themselves. smart employers will realize that they need to pay more to get better quality workers, but if they don't realize that, then they get what they get.

Which is exactly why you need minimum wage laws. If you care about the welfare of people other than the business owners, then you need government to be the force pushing wages closer to socially optimal levels.

[Insoluble]

Originally Posted by TonyTone

676 Has some of the best real estate in the city on it and around it.

You're kidding, right? 676 seems like it's been a huge scar on center city for as long as I've lived here. Compared to any other sections of center city, the blocks adjacent to 676 tend to be much more run down and cluttered with surface parking lots. It's only really in the past 5 to 10 years that development pressure has finally started pushing for more development around Vine, but go a few blocks north or south of the highway and you'll still much nicer neighborhoods than the blocks immediately adjacent to it.

As for the neighborhoods around 95, hard to say, but those neighborhoods are also close to the river which counts for something.

[skyhigh07]

The 95 and 676 were mistakes. The 76 is surprisingly good urbanism as it didn’t really destroy or disrupt the city’s existing fabric.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by thoughtcriminal

that's a false equivalence, and you know it. it's not the employer's job to protect their employees against poverty. people don't go into business to enrich their employees, they go into business to enrich themselves. smart employers will realize that they need to pay more to get better quality workers, but if they don't realize that, then they get what they get.

Part of me believes all libertarians are just trolls; people can't honestly believe this shit, can they?

Of course people are only interested in enriching themselves... Thus minimum wage laws.

People are bristling at the idea that if a business can't afford to pay its employees more than 7.25 an hour, they shouldn't be in business, but that's absolutely true.

These pathetically low wage jobs create a situation where employees can't make a living so government programs need to pick up the slack, effectively subsidizing the business because they're not paying their employees enough. Worse, even though they're not making any money, these employees are still consumed with this low wage labor, so they're unavailable to do other things. So they can't provide child care for their children, or improve their skills so they can qualify for more highly compensated labor, etc. It's a trap that is bad for everyone except the employer, and it's not even like it's so great for the employer either.

Markets left to their own devices create all kinds of inefficiencies and negative consequences. Having laws and regulations to avoid such negative outcomes is necessary if you want a healthy economy and labor market. This is obvious stuff that is clearly beneficial to society at large and easily observable in data.

There is of course such a thing as over regulation, but that's not what a minimum wage is, a tried and tested regulation that improves nearly every situation in which it is introduced.

[PhilliesPhan]

Originally Posted by TonyTone

Just a thought I've been having, but can anyone answer why Philadelphia's areas near highways are usually the best, and highest priced.

Examples,

Allegheny Ave Towards I-95 becomes a solid neighborhood

Port Richmond towards 95 is a solid neighborhood

Lehigh Ave towards 95 is a solid neighborhood

676 Has some of the best real estate in the city on it and around it.

Majority of the neighborhoods in South Philly by 95 are solid areas.

Compared to other cities like our Brother city Wilmington, 95 destroyed the neighborhoods, and it's not any better in any sections it passes through.

Philly has it really good when it comes to highways.

I have two theories behind this:

1.) 95 and 676 each feel as if they were built at the "edges" of neighborhoods. Highways in other cities run through the hearts of certain neighborhoods, destroying many important buildings and intersections. Although 676 and especially 95 were mistakes that should have never came to fruition, large sections of neighborhoods were spared from obliteration.

2.) The worst of the planned highways were never built:



IMO, Philadelphia would be in MUCH worse shape if any of never-built planned highways on this list had been built. The 309 Expressway, 52nd Street Expressway, Girard Avenue Expressway, and I-695 highway would have all been an impediment to the city's rebirth and renewal.

[McBane]

The explosion of NoLibs and Fishtown has nothing to do with being along 95. Those neighborhoods grew as a result of increased demand and expense of Old City. It was more of a natural growth. If anything, the presence of the El helped, not 95.

And 676 had no positive impact on the neighborhoods it touches. If anything, it's a negative impact. Look at how CC meets its northern border (Vine Street) vs how it meets its southern border (South Street). The former is more of a hard stop whereas the latter is very a blurry border.

[reparcsyks]

Originally Posted by skyhigh07

The 95 and 676 were mistakes. The 76 is surprisingly good urbanism as it didn’t really destroy or disrupt the city’s existing fabric.

Are you originally from California?

[DeltaNerd]

Originally Posted by TonyTone

Just a thought I've been having, but can anyone answer why Philadelphia's areas near highways are usually the best, and highest priced.

Examples,

Allegheny Ave Towards I-95 becomes a solid neighborhood

Port Richmond towards 95 is a solid neighborhood

Lehigh Ave towards 95 is a solid neighborhood

676 Has some of the best real estate in the city on it and around it.

Majority of the neighborhoods in South Philly by 95 are solid areas.

Compared to other cities like our Brother city Wilmington, 95 destroyed the neighborhoods, and it's not any better in any sections it passes through.

Philly has it really good when it comes to highways.

I'm on the side of less highways the better. I would say 676 is better off capped along with i95 getting capped.

Personally I think 676 slowed the growth of Chinatown and Callowhill

I will agree with other users that the MFL aided in the growth of those neighborhoods along with restoring the 15 trolley.

Born and raised in Juniata, I was just born when the trolley 56 was "suspended". I think Septa and people like me advocated for the trolley to come back we can see similar growth like Fishtown and NoLibs. Same with the 60 trolley coming back for Allegheny Ave. Thank goodness no highway was running through those neighborhoods.

The highways are very important for the shipping and industry we still have in the area but we do not need more expansions

[PHLtoNYC]

I noticed netting covering the Painted Bride building on Vine Street. Has that been there? Any updates on if the building will stay or go?

[PurpleWhiteOut]

Originally Posted by PHLtoNYC

I noticed netting covering the Painted Bride building on Vine Street. Has that been there? Any updates on if the building will stay or go?

Unfortunately the last I remember is this is back in legal limbo due to a victory on the NIMBY side

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by allovertown

Part of me believes all libertarians are just trolls; people can't honestly believe this shit, can they?

Correct on all accounts.

I'm not paying attention (to him) anymore.

Don't let anyone gas light you (us). The greatest growth in affluence in this country was the post-war period when there was a massive amount of government spending (much of it on infrastructure) combined with high (relative) individual wages and structural support for upgrades in (individual) education and applied training.

We have the data that shows us this just like we have the data that shows minimum wage increases do not adversely affect overall employment and/or job creation.

Trickle down has been a massive failure. Add globalization to trickle down and what we are seeing is the most unequal wealth distribution we've seen in all of modern history, at least in the west.

On top of that, many industries have become monopolies through consolidation so let's not act like if you work in X,Y industry (let's name them...airlines, entertainment, social media, agriculture, etc) the "market" is completely distorted because competition has been eliminated.

If you're an airline pilot, how are your wages determined? Oh right, in the US at least, you work for either American, Delta, United, Southwest, or Alaska. Imagine having a craft and only 5 potential employers. Of course they arbitrage their pay rates. What's that "market" called?