PHILADELPHIA | 4601 Market Street | 220 FT | 18 FLOORS

[Urbanthusiat]

Originally Posted by Gatorade_Jim

Mandatory affordable housing just increases rental prices for the rest of us unless the government subsidizes it to offset the cost. I'll have to look into the zoning overlay to see if the government does. It's not as though the cost of construction goes down. It's just split over fewer units. Philly is already doing much better than our peer east coast cities on housing cost. But sure, delay new units coming to market.

As a wholesale policy I definitely agree… however I’m not sure I agree in the case where the city sells the land to a developer with the restriction that affordable units must be built on site in future development. Land sellers are within their right to place restrictive covenants and in this case it would only apply to this property, not across the board. This doesn’t affect supply/rents because the purchaser will have taken into account the restriction and taken value out of land proceeds instead. Very common for the government to require affordable housing on public dispositions. It will depend on the wording of the contract and may come down to a lawsuit because the developer clearly didn’t think they had to abide by it. Would have to know the exact language.

[mcgrath618]

Originally Posted by kool-ski

As some have speculated on here, Jamie Gauthier has interfered and now delayed this project! Sigh


https://www.instagram.com/p/CpQhPoBv...d=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

Get her out! Jabari Jones, her challenger in the upcoming primary, has literally campaigned on this issue!
https://www.inquirer.com/politics/el...-20230124.html
https://www.jabariforcouncil.com/cloud-solutions

[PHLtoNYC]

Originally Posted by mcgrath618

Get her out! Jabari Jones, her challenger in the upcoming primary, has literally campaigned on this issue!
https://www.inquirer.com/politics/el...-20230124.html
https://www.jabariforcouncil.com/cloud-solutions

He seems like a educated, motivated and centered young man. I wish him luck!

I originally had hopes for Jamie Gauthier, but she is just a continuation of the Philadelphia political machine. In short, a disappointment.

[Jayfar]

4601 Market St is now on the April 4 CDR agenda, after having been pulled last month. There don’t appear to be any changes to the submission: https://www.phila.gov/media/20230321...2023-CDR_2.pdf

Agenda and Zoom meeting instructions: https://www.phila.gov/media/20230321...04.2023_v2.pdf
4601 Market Street
Zoned: CMX-3
Gross Square Footage: 839,150 total square feet
1,240 dwelling units
6,550 square feet of retail space
Uses: Residential mixed-use
Parking: 384 vehicular parking spaces
Developer: IS3 Haverford LLC, IS3 Market LLC,
IS3 Team LLC
Architect: Bernardon
Attorney: Devon Beverly, Ballard Spahr LLP

[mja]

Originally Posted by PHLtoNYC

He seems like a educated, motivated and centered young man. I wish him luck!

I originally had hopes for Jamie Gauthier, but she is just a continuation of the Philadelphia political machine. In short, a disappointment.

I don't know why anyone expects capital-P progressives to be development-friendly, nor do I understand conflating that with being part of the machine. It's an entirely different thing. Everything is filtered through a social justice lens (I mean that completely neutrally) and anything that smacks of continuing systematic inequities - say the possible displacement of the existing community - is to be fought or at least engaged with in order to better achieve progressive goals.

To be clear, I fundamentally disagree with the idea that development is bad, or else I wouldn't be here, but it just strikes me as strange that people are surprised that Gauthier's actions are hewing close to her politics.

[TempleGuy1000]

Originally Posted by mja

I don't know why anyone expects capital-P progressives to be development-friendly, nor do I understand conflating that with being part of the machine. It's an entirely different thing. Everything is filtered through a social justice lens (I mean that completely neutrally) and anything that smacks of continuing systematic inequities - say the possible displacement of the existing community - is to be fought or at least engaged with in order to better achieve progressive goals.

To be clear, I fundamentally disagree with the idea that development is bad, or else I wouldn't be here, but it just strikes me as strange that people are surprised that Gauthier's actions are hewing close to her politics.

But Gauthier had wider support than just self-avowed social justice warriors. People thought she was going to do the opposite of Blackwell who was known for doing things like this. It just turned out to be the complete opposition.

[mja]

Originally Posted by TempleGuy1000

But Gauthier had wider support than just self-avowed social justice warriors. People thought she was going to do the opposite of Blackwell who was known for doing things like this. It just turned out to be the complete opposition.

That’s because it’s not a binary.

[Frontst17]

Originally Posted by mja

That’s because it’s not a binary.

The mysterious grey area no one on this forum seems aware of

[TempleGuy1000]

Originally Posted by mja

That’s because it’s not a binary.

Originally Posted by Frontst17

The mysterious grey area no one on this forum seems aware of

I'm not really sure what these responses mean exactly. Blackwell vs. Gauthier was a binary decision. Gauthier being a full-blown NIMBY and rebuking development and progress is pretty black and white too.

Now if you are saying that Gauthier's politics as a candidate weren't binary and she just pandered to different groups to secure votes, than sure. But as a councilwoman, you can wholly predict her position on most things. There isn't very much gray area with the new age "progressives" (I put it in quotes because they're actually regressive politicians)

[mja]

Originally Posted by TempleGuy1000

I'm not really sure what these responses mean exactly. Blackwell vs. Gauthier was a binary decision. Gauthier being a full-blown NIMBY and rebuking development and progress is pretty black and white too.

Now if you are saying that Gauthier's politics as a candidate weren't binary and she just pandered to different groups to secure votes, than sure. But as a councilwoman, you can wholly predict her position on most things. There isn't very much gray area with the new age "progressives" (I put it in quotes because they're actually regressive politicians)

No, it means that it's not binary. It's not an either/or. Pro-development vs. anti-development, urban vs. anti-urban, pro-business vs. anti-business, etc., etc., etc. There aren't two distinct camps with completely distinct viewpoints, or worse, one noble camp out for the betterment of the city and another that's corrupt to its core. It's all far more complicated than that. There are multiple camps with sometimes overlapping and sometimes diametrically opposite points of view. Sorry if I'm sounding pedantic, but people seem to keep falling into this trap that because this or that councilperson isn't as pro-development as the members of this particular(ly pro-development) forum, that can only mean they are a corrupt machine politician.

If you thought Gauthier was going to be a laissez-faire pro-business / development councilperson, then you simply weren't paying attention. She's a progressive candidate with a focus on social justice and a secondary focus on good government, and that's going to drive her policy. I don't know how much time you spend with the progressive crowd, but generally developers rate somewhere around bankers, which is to say not particularly high, and gentrification (by which they mean most development in any predominantly middle or working class neighborhood that they fear could raise the median rent and/or change the character of the neighborhood) is a four-letter word. Gauthier's tenure on council has been completely unsurprising to me; she is as advertised, for better and for worse.

And yet, she's still very different than Blackwell. Blackwell was an unapologetic machine politician to her core with all of the negative connotations that entails, but she still advocated for what she deemed to be her specific community's best interest. Being from the Civil Rights era, she was overwhelmingly concerned with very narrow political objectives, namely building and maintaining black political power in the city and in the Democratic machine.

Gauthier's and Blackwell's positions on a given issue may align, but quite possibly for very different reasons and with very different objectives in mind. Blackwell would want her cut here, along with her community's cut. Gauthier is going to be more focused on pressuring the developer to make changes to carve out more affordable housing, etc. with the aim of achieving some small degree of social justice. Dismissing these contrary positions as corruption or conflating them with each other is reductive and unhelpful; we all have to try to either get on the same page or at the very least assume good intentions, and we can't do that when we purposefully misunderstand what those who disagree with us are saying.

[TempleGuy1000]

Originally Posted by mja

No, it means that it's not binary. It's not an either/or. Pro-development vs. anti-development, urban vs. anti-urban, pro-business vs. anti-business, etc., etc., etc. There aren't two distinct camps with completely distinct viewpoints, or worse, one noble camp out for the betterment of the city and another that's corrupt to its core. It's all far more complicated than that. There are multiple camps with sometimes overlapping and sometimes diametrically opposite points of view. Sorry if I'm sounding pedantic, but people seem to keep falling into this trap that because this or that councilperson isn't as pro-development as the members of this particular(ly pro-development) forum, that can only mean they are a corrupt machine politician.

If you thought Gauthier was going to be a laissez-faire pro-business / development councilperson, then you simply weren't paying attention. She's a progressive candidate with a focus on social justice and a secondary focus on good government, and that's going to drive her policy. I don't know how much time you spend with the progressive crowd, but generally developers rate somewhere around bankers, which is to say not particularly high, and gentrification (by which they mean most development in any predominantly middle or working class neighborhood that they fear could raise the median rent and/or change the character of the neighborhood) is a four-letter word. Gauthier's tenure on council has been completely unsurprising to me; she is as advertised, for better and for worse.

And yet, she's still very different than Blackwell. Blackwell was an unapologetic machine politician to her core with all of the negative connotations that entails, but she still advocated for what she deemed to be her specific community's best interest. Being from the Civil Rights era, she was overwhelmingly concerned with very narrow political objectives, namely building and maintaining black political power in the city and in the Democratic machine.

Gauthier's and Blackwell's positions on a given issue may align, but quite possibly for very different reasons and with very different objectives in mind. Blackwell would want her cut here, along with her community's cut. Gauthier is going to be more focused on pressuring the developer to make changes to carve out more affordable housing, etc. with the aim of achieving some small degree of social justice. Dismissing these contrary positions as corruption or conflating them with each other is reductive and unhelpful; we all have to try to either get on the same page or at the very least assume good intentions, and we can't do that when we purposefully misunderstand what those who disagree with us are saying.

Oh I couldn't disagree with this more. Gauthier is the physical embodiment of the Democratic Machine of 2023. Why do you think all the national fat cat organizations love her and Gym?

Gauthier is an unapologetic machine politician to her core with all of the negative connotations that entails, but she still advocated for what she deemed to be her specific community's best interest. Being from the SJW era, she was overwhelmingly concerned with very narrow political objectives, namely building and maintaining the status quo political power in the city and in the Democratic machine.

And to say her "secondary focus is on good government" is hilarious to me when the city services have spiraled into the toilet and the city can't complete even the most basic tasks anymore. Just like 5200 Warrington, she will play the corrupt game, and nothing positive will come about from it.

[Justin7]

Originally Posted by mja

I don't know how much time you spend with the progressive crowd, but generally developers rate somewhere around bankers, which is to say not particularly high, and gentrification (by which they mean most development in any predominantly middle or working class neighborhood that they fear could raise the median rent and/or change the character of the neighborhood) is a four-letter word.

Your post about either/or black/white thinking boils down progressives to a homogeneous group.

[mja]

Originally Posted by Justin7

Your post about either/or black/white thinking boils down progressives to a homogeneous group.

Nah, I put the word generally in there for a reason. My general experience with self-described progressives on this issue is that they tend to consider most development suspect, and I interact with almost exclusively that group of people every day. There are, of course, others among that group with differing opinions but generally speaking gentrification and displacement are key concerns tied to development for many or most of them, whereas for most of the people on this board those are generally less pressing concerns, especially when contrasted with things like design, density, etc.

[Jayfar]

A community meeting was held this past Monday, attended by Iron Stone representatives via Zoom. Apparently it was a hybrid in-person and Zoom meeting. Councilmember Gauthier issued a statement following the meeting, expressing her dissatisfaction with their mode of participation: https://phlcouncil.com/statement-fro...mmunity-input/

STATEMENT FROM COUNCILMEMBER JAMIE GAUTHIER ON IRON STONE’S CONTINUED ATTEMPTS TO EVADE COMMUNITY INPUT

March 28, 2023
PHILADELPHIA — Today, Councilmember Jamie R. Gauthier (3rd District) released the following statement in response to Iron Stone’s continued attempts to evade community input regarding 4601 Market Street:

“More than 100 neighbors showed up to Iron Stone’s public meeting last night to express their support for affordable housing at 4601 Market. However, Iron Stone refused to show up in person, and as a result, most neighbors left the meeting with their questions unanswered. The architect and developers — who attended on Zoom — could not hear anything said in-person. Iron Stone also ignored the vast majority of written questions and questions asked by neighbors attending virtually.

“It is my belief that Iron Stone attended on Zoom to avoid having to face community demands and concerns. Neighbors deserve to have their questions answered and concerns addressed. I join the community in calling on Iron Stone to host another, fully in-person, public meeting. Iron Stone and their representatives must also come prepared to answer the commonsense questions they refused to address last night and give every neighbor who shows up a chance to voice their thoughts.

“To Iron Stone directly, know that we will not let you break your promise to steward 4601 Market Street into a community-oriented future. Your continued attempts to silence us are shameful and we demand you come to the table in good faith!”

# # #

[mcgrath618]

It’s well known that I don’t love Gauthier, but that does seem like a scummy move from Iron Stone.

[Jayfar]

Originally Posted by mcgrath618

It’s well known that I don’t love Gauthier, but that does seem like a scummy move from Iron Stone.

I think it’s more of a mis-match in expectations of how public meetings are held post-Covid. It seems like this attempt to hold a hybrid in-person/virtual meeting was not well thought out or executed.

Zoom meetings work best for me personally, but not everyone is comfortable with that mode of engagement. For maximum inclusiveness, it makes sense to develop viable means of holding hybrid in-person/virtual meetings. Of course that entails additional burdens in terms needing properly equipped meeting facilities — something that cost-wise may not be practical for some RCOs of limited means.

[Urbanthusiat]

Originally Posted by Jayfar

I think it’s more of a mis-match in expectations of how public meetings are held post-Covid. It seems like this attempt to hold a hybrid in-person/virtual meeting was not well thought out or executed.

Zoom meetings work best for me personally, but not everyone is comfortable with that mode of engagement. For maximum inclusiveness, it makes sense to develop viable means of holding hybrid in-person/virtual meetings. Of course that entails additional burdens in terms needing properly equipped meeting facilities — something that cost-wise may not be practical for some RCOs of limited means.

Zoom meetings made sense during the pandemic, but now they should be supplemental. Have a microphone for the developer, and a stand/mic for whoever is up asking a question. Then make it so people can log in and listen or maybe even ask questions through zoom. But the developer should definitely be there in person today with there being no public health emergency anymore. It's a base level of respect that really ought to be given, and it seems they basically didn't have a community meeting. So I'm gonna have to side with Gauthier on this one. If you want to go and be deflective and mostly ignore the community and do what you want anyway because it's within your rights, fine, but just be upfront about it, don't do this and then pretend you listened to the community.

[mcgrath618]

Revised CDR Submission

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by mcgrath618

Revised CDR Submission

The Q&A section of the presentation is interesting. A lot of the issues raised are not real issues related to the development or at least are not things that are directly related to design. It seems that there was much more opposition from Gauthier than from the community.

[PurpleWhiteOut]

One piece of feedback I agree with is that retail or SOME kind of activation on Market should happen. They're saying it's possible later, but that's not exactly encouraging. It looks like it'll feel like its back is against it.