HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2018, 2:09 AM
boxbot's Avatar
boxbot boxbot is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Delco., Pa.
Posts: 837
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2018, 2:49 AM
GtownFriend GtownFriend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Boulder CO
Posts: 457
Quote:
Originally Posted by City Wide View Post
I was looking over the plans for this so called equal justice building and noticed something interesting...
http://www.phila.gov/CityPlanning/pr...0626-small.pdf
I'd agree with you absolutely, except I notice that this is senior affordible housing. So that may be the reason for the seperation. Not sure if that's a good thing or not, but it may actually be viewed as positive from the senior's perspective?

In any case this is certainly going to liven up that huge surface parking lot!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2018, 3:14 AM
allovertown allovertown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 809
Quote:
Originally Posted by GtownFriend View Post
I'd agree with you absolutely, except I notice that this is senior affordible housing. So that may be the reason for the seperation. Not sure if that's a good thing or not, but it may actually be viewed as positive from the senior's perspective?

In any case this is certainly going to liven up that huge surface parking lot!
eh plenty of seniors live in nice buildings throughout philadelphia and don't seem to have an issue sharing entrances and amenities with younger people. But I agree this at least creates a plausible reason to separate things beyond just wanting to put poor people out of sight.

Overall this is a great project, so I'm going to assume that the amenities for both sections will be great and they just want separate spaces so they can organize senior activities and what not on the other side of the building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2018, 12:02 PM
eixample eixample is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 284
Considering this development is being pushed by legal aid organizations that are focused in part on equal rights and increased access for disadvantaged communities, this seems like the last place that would have a "poor door."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2018, 12:28 PM
El Duderino's Avatar
El Duderino El Duderino is offline
build awesome buildings
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 355
i’m also hoping nothing nefarious with regards to the dual lobbies; the senior unit lobby is more convenient to parking while the market rate is at the corner of 8th and Race, which is very much not parking friendly. Bad optics, but given the mission and the community engagement (and the likelihood of senior-specific programming), i’m going to assume this isn’t meant as de facto segregation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2018, 2:11 PM
City Wide City Wide is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Duderino View Post
i’m also hoping nothing nefarious with regards to the dual lobbies; the senior unit lobby is more convenient to parking while the market rate is at the corner of 8th and Race, which is very much not parking friendly. Bad optics, but given the mission and the community engagement (and the likelihood of senior-specific programming), i’m going to assume this isn’t meant as de facto segregation.
I don't see how having a complete and total separation based on income (I'm assuming that in the top floors they'll rent to anyone who can pay the price, including seniors) is anything except segregation. Even if the intent is to bunch the poorer seniors on a couple floors to better serve them, which in the real world is BS, the bottom line is that the two classes of people will be forced apart. Just think of the added construction costs, two lobbies, two elevators shafts, and so on. The owners have seemingly gone out of their way to create this division. They are building a form of a ghetto ------------and I think that trying to make something out of which class is slightly closer to the indoor parking (which will probably be rented out and will the 'poor' even be expected to own cars?) is a real stretch in trying to find a justification for this income based segregation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2018, 2:29 PM
boxbot's Avatar
boxbot boxbot is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Delco., Pa.
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally Posted by allovertown View Post
Overall this is a great project, so I'm going to assume that the amenities for both sections will be great and they just want separate spaces so they can organize senior activities and what not on the other side of the building.
The Separate but Equal Justice Center?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2018, 2:32 PM
El Duderino's Avatar
El Duderino El Duderino is offline
build awesome buildings
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by City Wide View Post
I don't see how having a complete and total separation based on income (I'm assuming that in the top floors they'll rent to anyone who can pay the price, including seniors) is anything except segregation. Even if the intent is to bunch the poorer seniors on a couple floors to better serve them, which in the real world is BS, the bottom line is that the two classes of people will be forced apart. Just think of the added construction costs, two lobbies, two elevators shafts, and so on. The owners have seemingly gone out of their way to create this division. They are building a form of a ghetto ------------and I think that trying to make something out of which class is slightly closer to the indoor parking (which will probably be rented out and will the 'poor' even be expected to own cars?) is a real stretch in trying to find a justification for this income based segregation.
I said I'm HOPEFUL, but I understand how it looks and specifically mentioned the extremely poor optics. And the parking I was referring to was the surface parking in the center of the lot - pick-ups, drop-offs, safe and convenient access for service vehicles for those who have special needs, etc. Believe me, when I saw your post, I immediately thought "what the hell are they doing?" since I didn't notice the separate lobbies for the different areas upon initial perusal. I do, however, completely understand the benefit of separate elevators dedicated to those who may have more pressing emergency needs; as you mentioned, building a separate elevator component for only a portion of the floors adds to the overall cost of the project, which I doubt they'd do just to keep out "the poorer seniors".

Not having been to the community meetings or being part of the planning process, I have no specific insights, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the development groups that are spending tens of millions of dollars to better serve the communities that you are saying they are purposely segregating. Pennrose also has a history of developing mixed-income/affordable housing, so I am again going to hope that they have a better understanding of the needs and wants of the targeted community than I do. I totally understand and agree with the spirit of where you're coming from, I'm just a bit more optimistic as to the intentions of those making this design decision
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2018, 5:46 PM
Jawnadelphia's Avatar
Jawnadelphia Jawnadelphia is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Phila., PA
Posts: 2,135
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2018, 7:13 PM
allovertown allovertown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 809
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxbot View Post
The Separate but Equal Justice Center?
Maybe they'll call it the Melville Fuller Senior Complex.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2018, 9:24 PM
MichaelScottsOffice MichaelScottsOffice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 103
I was under the impression that in high rises that have senior housing they purposefully have separate elevators for staff and in case of emergencies they can move quicker through the building to ambulance or whatnot. Lower floors also make sense for seniors in case of emergencies or fires.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2018, 1:57 PM
City Wide City Wide is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelScottsOffice View Post
I was under the impression that in high rises that have senior housing they purposefully have separate elevators for staff and in case of emergencies they can move quicker through the building to ambulance or whatnot. Lower floors also make sense for seniors in case of emergencies or fires.
So then to be consistent with what you are saying, no seniors would be allowed to live on the upper floors if they could afford the market rate apartments because of the threat of fire and emergencies. Remember that the division between the haves and the have less is based only along economic lines, and there has been nothing said about the poor apartments being built for seniors with special physical needs.
On the plans the two elevator shafts are leading off separate lobbies, and there's no indication that the 'have more' elevators could even stop on the lower floors if they needed to, they are walled off. The division is not based on staffing needs, it's based on the well known fact that poor people smell funny and the 'have more' crowd just don't want to be put out by having to deal with that foul odor.
But the separation is complete; the 'rich' might never have any interaction with the 'poor' and I'm guessing that the poor won't be allowed to interact with the rich if they try to, and the design makes it clear that is the intent. I believe that is a wrong headed use of public funds and very bad policy.
Personally I don't think there's any way this segregation can be justified, and to happen in a project that has "equal justice" in it's name is laughable and despicable. Not only do I think this enforced segregation can't be justified I don't think it's good for the actual people who will end up living in this building. A variety of studies have tried to show the bad effects of various forms of segregation; it would probably benefit both 'classes' of tenants if both forms of apartments were mixed in with each other throughout the building. Its interesting to read how some people try to make sense of this segregation, as if developers and architects are somehow in a class of people who would never willingly be a part of such a terrible decision.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2018, 8:28 PM
mcgrath618's Avatar
mcgrath618 mcgrath618 is online now
Exhausted Drexel Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: University City, Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,591
This project will be reviewed by the CDR on August 7:
http://www.phila.gov/CityPlanning/pr...TE_reduced.pdf
I know the file was posted before but I'm reposting it on this page along with the announcement of the date of its review.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2018, 6:10 PM
PHLJD13 PHLJD13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 27
Not a major development. Nice "tl;dr" of the CDR submission packet.

https://philly.curbed.com/2018/8/3/1...rdable-housing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2018, 2:01 AM
City Wide City Wide is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,277
latest plan

It looks like there's been alittle improvement in these the new plans submitted for the CDR in as much as the separate by unequal lobbies are gone and now everyone will get to use the same door and lobby. But it looks like the 'affordable' floors will have their own set of elevators, in as much as the one bank of elevators only goes as high as the poor floors, although I'm sure the developer won't admit to that being how the elevators will be used.

So, certainly better then what was proposed before, but still a very clear cut case of segregation based on income. If you are getting assistance in paying for your housing costs you'll live on the lower floors. But you'll get to look at the rich folk as they pass through the lobby. Any reason to think that the quality on the construction won't be the same on the upper and lower floors.

Equal justice for all, but unequal housing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2018, 2:05 AM
GtownFriend GtownFriend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Boulder CO
Posts: 457
Quote:
Originally Posted by City Wide View Post
So, certainly better then what was proposed before, but still a very clear cut case of segregation based on income.
As some one has said, it is more likely a factor of age than income. Elderly often move more slowly than younger folk. While the income explanation is possible (and may well be true in other cases), I think here it's more likely a functional decission to benefit the elderly residents.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2018, 11:44 AM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Bala Cynwyd
Posts: 3,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by City Wide View Post
It looks like there's been alittle improvement in these the new plans submitted for the CDR in as much as the separate by unequal lobbies are gone and now everyone will get to use the same door and lobby. But it looks like the 'affordable' floors will have their own set of elevators, in as much as the one bank of elevators only goes as high as the poor floors, although I'm sure the developer won't admit to that being how the elevators will be used.

So, certainly better then what was proposed before, but still a very clear cut case of segregation based on income. If you are getting assistance in paying for your housing costs you'll live on the lower floors. But you'll get to look at the rich folk as they pass through the lobby. Any reason to think that the quality on the construction won't be the same on the upper and lower floors.

Equal justice for all, but unequal housing.
You all seriously need to something better to complain about than separate sets of elevators. It's not unusual for lower and upper floors of buildings to have their own elevator bank, and it probably makes even more sense when the lower floors are for seniors. This is a good project, and it will serve many groups and demographics well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2018, 6:23 PM
City Wide City Wide is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbrook View Post
You all seriously need to something better to complain about than separate sets of elevators. It's not unusual for lower and upper floors of buildings to have their own elevator bank, and it probably makes even more sense when the lower floors are for seniors. This is a good project, and it will serve many groups and demographics well.

Show me one 12 story all residential building with separate banks of elevators for the lower floors. I'm waiting.

Guess what, its not the elevators themselves I give a damn about, but this is the first project in the City, that I know about, that is building in right from the design onward, some type of enforced segregation, be it based on age or race or income or sex or whatever. The elevators are just a symptom of a larger issue. There are projects that limit it's residents to being above a certain age, or below a certain income and I don't like those either. And if I understand this project it is being financed through accessing certain tax breaks and programs, meaning to some degree we are all paying for it. It can be a generally a good project, good in several ways, and still have major problems.

I'll admit to being particularly aware of age related issues as I have aged into that class called senior, but I will continue to believe that I benefit from being around groups of different ages (and incomes, and religions, etc.) and likewise I have something to offer my neighbors who are much younger then I. It takes a village and all that shit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2018, 7:17 PM
Marcos Marcos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 236
Where do you draw the line?

Is Del Friscos ‘building in income discrimination’ when it charges $70 for an aged rib eye knowing that I can only afford a $4 Big Mac?

Can’t anyone with enough scratch eat at Del Friscos, or ride the better set of elevators here?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2018, 9:53 PM
boxbot's Avatar
boxbot boxbot is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Delco., Pa.
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbrook View Post
You all seriously need to something better to complain about than separate sets of elevators.
You know what forum you're on, right?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:14 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.