Originally Posted by SEFTA (Post 7799396)

It seems to me that they're attempting to manipulate the mix of development. Would it be safe to assume that student housing is free to develop on the commercial streets just not the smaller, mostly single family homes streets? That seems a fair mix if so, and not unusual. Assuming there are enough places where multi-family development can be done. It should not be a total blanket but a quilt of priorities.
Often these empty lots are owned by developers and waiting to expand them. Attempting to gut the neighborhood.
It's a battle being raged on every urban campus. The townies and the students. It's vital to come up with the right mix and making attempts to do so. I like to believe it's being done for the best interest of the community.

Originally Posted by jsbrook (Post 7799394)

You are seriously off the mark here. Certain portions of areas that were down-zoned are not problematic. And there was a certain amount of upzoning in some spots. That said, East of Ridge Ave, they took lots of RM-1 and turned it into RSA-5, reducing the number of potential dwellings by 2/3s right off the area Clarke and PHA say they want a commercial corridor. This is where the most vacancy is in this section, so it's where most of the new development can occur. And now it WON'T. You look at maps of the area, and 3/4 of the map is yellow - RSA-5, 2, 1, or some other ill-conceived single family designation that has no business being on a metropolitan map in today's age. It's impossible to build Single Family homes on lots that size, in that location, unless its subsidized PHA housing. Such government subsidized housing in unsustainable. Lots will simply sit empty. Watch.

If the concern was helping existing lower income people remain in some single-family homes in the area, there are much more intelligible solutions that don't have the consequences this will have. Such as adaptive reuse of existing single-family housing stock and tax relief for longstanding property owners in the area to mediate the rising cost of living there. Not blocking any higher density buildings. The only real way to tackle the affordable housing crisis is with increased density. This is very poor city planning under the guise of maintaining the "character" of neighborhoods. We will see many vacant grass lots remain so when they could have been developed. The economics no longer make sense. At best, if the demand is there, we might see some larger, more expensive single-family homes for occupation by college students or families, but these won't improve the lives or financial burdens of longtime residents either.

Originally Posted by SEFTA (Post 7799396)

It seems to me that they're attempting to manipulate the mix of development. Would it be safe to assume that student housing is free to develop on the commercial streets just not the smaller, mostly single family homes streets? That seems a fair mix if so, and not unusual. Assuming there are enough places where multi-family development can be done. It should not be a total blanket but a quilt of priorities.
Often these empty lots are owned by developers and waiting to expand them. Attempting to gut the neighborhood.
It's a battle being raged on every urban campus. The townies and the students. It's vital to come up with the right mix and making attempts to do so. I like to believe it's being done for the best interest of the community.

Originally Posted by 1487 (Post 7799459)

affordable housing wasn't mentioned and I see no way the changes would aid that. Don't even know why you went off on that tangent. Not sure what part of Philly you are talking about but the area west of Temple generally had decent size rowhouses so the suggestion that no on can build a modern single family house on existing lots makes no sense to me. If you can build a 10 units student building on these lots you sure as hell can build a single family house. It's happening in South Philly and other parts of North Philly- not sure what makes this area so different. Single family zoning shouldn't exist in the city today? Seriously? This isn't new york. Philadelphia still has a huge amount of single family housing relative to that and other large cities. That's one of it's attributes and likely one thing that has attracted younger people from other cities who want to experience home ownership. Crap student housing isn't quality multifamily housing. It's cheap, the owners could care less about the long term viability of the area and you end up with a transient population that generates a ton of trash who has zero commitment to the area. As I said, I would not want to be an existing resident in this area nor would I ever plan on buying a house in this area if this is the long term trajectory of the neighborhood.

Originally Posted by jsbrook (Post 7799488)

We should probably drop it. The conversation is going nowhere good. It will play out as it will play out.

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller (Post 7799538)

We definitely all should get together for a drink when the Four Seasons opens. Arguing endlessly is more difficult without anonymity.

Originally Posted by summersm343 (Post 7797710)

Agree 100%. This dude has got to go. This area North of Girard and South of Cecil B was starting to fill in with some nice, mixed-use multifamily development.

Darrell Clarke wanted to down-zone it because the more of his district that is gentrified, the less likely his future is as a city councilman making 6-figures a year with a pretty pension waiting for him after retirement.

It would be in the entire city's best interest if this clown was gone. I'm tired of my tax paying dollars supporting the paycheck of a moronic council-manic asshat who is almost single-handedly holding the city back.

I will 100% support and fund any petition and protest (or whatever else) needed to get Darrell Clarke out of office.

Originally Posted by City Wide (Post 7799949)

I'll order a well sugared and well taxed Coke!

Originally Posted by 1487 (Post 7799656)

if you say so. The facts of what was changed aren't debatable at all. Did you look at the actual new map? There was no mass downzoning and thus all the doom and gloom you talked about seems highly unlikely, especially when so much of the area is still zoned for multifamily. I don't understand why people can't handle even minor disagreements without it becoming some major explosion of emotion. It seems your issues with Clarke have you blowing these changes way out of proportion.

No one was debating the best way to develop affordable housing BTW. Not sure how that entered the discussion.

Originally Posted by Daario (Post 7800058)

Haha for once I agree with you here. People here keeping pointing the finger at boogeyman Darrel Clarke when this was entirely the PCPC's work as a part of the greater 2035 plan. CBM, Broad and Ridge weren't really touched. All this did was add consistency and reassurance of stability to a neighborhood that greatly fears the changes in the future.

If anything all the fear of Temple student housing development throughout North Central should be a serious sign to Temple to build more on-campus housing. Especially since application numbers and enrollment keep going up.

Originally Posted by City Wide (Post 7799949)

I'll order a well sugared and well taxed Coke!

Originally Posted by City Wide (Post 7799990)

Be careful for what you wish for; I remember a time not too long ago when Jannie Blackwell thought she would make a good council president. That really would be end of the world time.
Out with Clarke, but the same ship of fools that voted him into office will decide who's next. How about bring J. Street back to power!

Originally Posted by PhilliesPhan (Post 7800491)

I believe that there are plans for more on-campus housing in the Visualize Temple campus master plan; however, the time to build it is NOW and not later on. As a Temple student myself, I didn't even consider on-campus housing and will be moving to 19th and Berks later this month. Why? Aside from the short window of time that actually exists to try and snatch up a place, the prices are fucking INSANE! A room in Morgan Hall alone is $4800/semester ($5100 for the 2-person apartment option)! Why should I dish out $4800/semester when I would only have to spend about $1600/semester ($400/month for a room) plus utilities for a place that is less than a 10 minute walk from campus? With the reduced costs, students also get to live in a student-dominated neighborhood with an overwhelming sense of freedom. Walk down the 1900 block of Gratz Street on a weekend and see what I mean.

As long as Temple constrains the supply of on-campus housing while the demand for it remains astronomical, student housing will continue to dominate the neighborhood. This will only continue as Temple climbs in national rankings (my college, the Fox School of Business, is one of the main reasons for this). The only thing I hope comes out of the rezoning is more student housing being constructed in Hartranft and other areas east of the train station. There isn't as much student housing north and east of campus.

Originally Posted by cafeguy (Post 7799584)

Just an update on Liberty Square since I live right at the site. The Thompson street building has the garage excavated and 4 of the 5 stories built up.

They are now excavating along germantown for the garage under the second building.

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller (Post 7800781)

Wake me up when this is over.