PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread IX

[Baconboy007]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Thermostat maker Lux Products relocates from South Jersey to the Navy Yard

http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/...aker-relocates-from-south-jersey-to.html

Things are heating up! I'll see myself out...

[1487]

Originally Posted by apetrella802

I have seen studies that concluded that Philadelphia's transportation infrastructure(trolleys, subways, trains, roads) as it exists today could support a population of 3,000,000.

I would definitely not put money on that, especially on the transportation front. The city's roads and transit infrastructure (especially trolleys and regional rail) are pretty stressed. There is definitely enough vacant land to easily accomodate another 500k people or so without even making serious zoning changes. Much or north and east Philly is basically empty.

[relnahe]

Originally Posted by 1487

.....east Philly is basically empty.

I would hope so considering it is water and/or Jersey.

[mmikeyphilly]

Originally Posted by apetrella802

I have seen studies that concluded that Philadelphia's transportation infrastructure(trolleys, subways, trains, roads) as it exists today could support a population of 3,000,000.

I got this in an E-mail. I thought I would share. It's rankings of cities for walkability, bicycling, etc.
Enjoy!
http://www.walkscore.com/cities-and-neighborhoods/

[Baconboy007]

Originally Posted by mmikeyphilly

I got this in an E-mail. I thought I would share. It's rankings of cities for walkability, bicycling, etc.
Enjoy!
http://www.walkscore.com/cities-and-neighborhoods/

It's pretty amazing that you can walk on water in those other cities, really who drew these maps. I never thought of DC as transit friendly but I guess that's cause I always had to drive into DC, it's a drag trying to get there from Northern Virginia.

[br323206]

Originally Posted by 1487

I would definitely not put money on that, especially on the transportation front. The city's roads and transit infrastructure (especially trolleys and regional rail) are pretty stressed. There is definitely enough vacant land to easily accomodate another 500k people or so without even making serious zoning changes. Much or north and east Philly is basically empty.

Despite all the development going on there is still lots of room for more density in Greater Center City/University City which means lots more residents could walk to work. Tons of room for development around Temple, which would also be mainly walkers. Also about anywhere between the Stadiums and Dauphin Street is bikeable to City Hall in 20 minutes or less.

Also, the double decker rail cars will help with regional rail crowding big time.

[Larry King]

Originally Posted by br323206

Despite all the development going on there is still lots of room for more density in Greater Center City/University City which means lots more residents could walk to work. Tons of room for development around Temple, which would also be mainly walkers. Also about anywhere between the Stadiums and Dauphin Street is bikeable to City Hall in 20 minutes or less.

Also, the double decker rail cars will help with regional rail crowding big time.

Here's to hitting 2 million by 2035!

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by br323206

Despite all the development going on there is still lots of room for more density in Greater Center City/University City which means lots more residents could walk to work. Tons of room for development around Temple, which would also be mainly walkers. Also about anywhere between the Stadiums and Dauphin Street is bikeable to City Hall in 20 minutes or less.

Yep. What we will need is adequate work for them to walk to. And reasonably decent schools to send kids to. The limiting factor for growth in Philly is not available land and is no longer lack of desire to live in the city. Anecdotally, I have plenty of wealthy friends buying million plus townhomes, raising kids in the city, and sending them to private school. And plenty of less wealthy friends who would prefer to stay in the city but can't afford a place with the space they want and feel they would be short-changing their kids educationally. To sustain our upward trajectory and shore up the key mid-thirties to mid-fifties demographic, we will need to retain and attract businesses and address the schools. Regardless, I see a continuing influx of young adults, empty nesters and retirees.

[Outta here]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Yep. What we will need is adequate work for them to walk to. And reasonably decent schools to send kids to. The limiting factor for growth in Philly is not available land and is no longer lack of desire to live in the city. Anecdotally, I have plenty of wealthy friends buying million plus townhomes, raising kids in the city, and sending them to private school. And plenty of less wealthy friends who would prefer to stay in the city but can't afford a place with the space they want and feel they would be short-changing their kids educationally. To sustain our upward trajectory and shore up the key mid-thirties to mid-fifties demographic, we will need to retain and attract businesses and address the schools. Regardless, I see a continuing influx of young adults, empty nesters and retirees.

Amen to that brother , amen to that !

[iheartphilly]

Interesting video on Youtube on Comcast Center.

Wish some of us was connected to get this personal tour.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHSh2-Zjxx4

[McBane]

When talking about our transit infrastructure, you're both right. Yes, our systems are stressed. There aren't enough buses, trains are crowded, and they don't run often enough. But those are easy fixes (double decker trains are one example). It's not like we need to build entire new lines. In that regards, our transit system is wholly adequate to accommodate future growth. Another championship parade? Ummm....well at least none are on the horizon.

As to our population growth, it's great that we're growing, but keep things in perspective. Phoenix, Houston, San Antonio, etc. are growing at much faster rates. But that to me doesn't really matter. "Quality" is far more important than "quantity." If we lost 500k high school dropouts on welfare and replaced them with 100k well educated high earners, that would be a net plus for the city. Boston and Seattle are two smaller, yet highly educated and relatively wealthy cities. Of course, we don't want to be shrinking either, so the news that we're growing is great. But what I want to know is who's coming and who's leaving.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by McBane

When talking about our transit infrastructure, you're both right. Yes, our systems are stressed. There aren't enough buses, trains are crowded, and they don't run often enough. But those are easy fixes (double decker trains are one example). It's not like we need to build entire new lines. In that regards, our transit system is wholly adequate to accommodate future growth. Another championship parade? Ummm....well at least none are on the horizon.

As to our population growth, it's great that we're growing, but keep things in perspective. Phoenix, Houston, San Antonio, etc. are growing at much faster rates. But that to me doesn't really matter. "Quality" is far more important than "quantity." If we lost 500k high school dropouts on welfare and replaced them with 100k well educated high earners, that would be a net plus for the city. Boston and Seattle are two smaller, yet highly educated and relatively wealthy cities. Of course, we don't want to be shrinking either, so the news that we're growing is great. But what I want to know is who's coming and who's leaving.

Take a look at the core of Philadelphia and how much construction is ongoing. That should tell you right there who is coming and who is leaving.

[1487]

Originally Posted by McBane

When talking about our transit infrastructure, you're both right. Yes, our systems are stressed. There aren't enough buses, trains are crowded, and they don't run often enough. But those are easy fixes (double decker trains are one example). It's not like we need to build entire new lines. In that regards, our transit system is wholly adequate to accommodate future growth. Another championship parade? Ummm....well at least none are on the horizon.

As to our population growth, it's great that we're growing, but keep things in perspective. Phoenix, Houston, San Antonio, etc. are growing at much faster rates. But that to me doesn't really matter. "Quality" is far more important than "quantity." If we lost 500k high school dropouts on welfare and replaced them with 100k well educated high earners, that would be a net plus for the city. Boston and Seattle are two smaller, yet highly educated and relatively wealthy cities. Of course, we don't want to be shrinking either, so the news that we're growing is great. But what I want to know is who's coming and who's leaving.

phoenix's growth slowed during recession. if it had continued to grow at same pace it would have more people than Philly. It actually lost population during the downturn if Im not mistaken. Also you cant compare cities on or near the border to Philly. Obviously most sunbelt cities are benefitting from immigration from the south.

I dont think the population growth is due to more dropouts. The fastest growing areas are in and around CC. hard to afford to live there as a drop out.

[Outta here]

Originally Posted by philatonian

If Philadelphia ever finds itself with the demand for another Liberty Place caliber complex, 8th and Market is situated perfectly for a two-tower project integrated with the old Gimbel's building. I'd love to see one of our "city's tallest" east of Broad.

Just catching up on some old home work . How about something like the twin Imperial Towers in
Mumbai India . Both are 690' to the roof and 833' to the top of the spire . Dog leg those babies in
between Walnut & Market . I'll bet there is someone posting on here that could draw up a model
to show what that would look like ....... hint , hint .

[philatonian]

Originally Posted by Outta here

Just catching up on some old home work . How about something like the twin Imperial Towers in
Mumbai India . Both are 690' to the roof and 833' to the top of the spire . Dog leg those babies in
between Walnut & Market . I'll bet there is someone posting on here that could draw up a model
to show what that would look like ....... hint , hint .

I'm not crazy about the design, but I'd dig the height at 8th and Market. I don't think the owner (Goldenberg?) is going to give up the lot for anything short of ridiculous, so whatever ends up being developed there is going to be a big deal. So 833' feet could happen.

[the_curious_urbanist]

By the next census if we don't see at least 10% increase in the city we ought to challenge the census. Philly can realistically surpass Houston and Chicago and be over 2.5 million people. From all the construction in this city it feels like Philly must be growing faster than any non-sunbelt city.

[Philly-Drew]

Originally Posted by McBane

As to our population growth, it's great that we're growing, but keep things in perspective. Phoenix, Houston, San Antonio, etc. are growing at much faster rates. But that to me doesn't really matter. "Quality" is far more important than "quantity." If we lost 500k high school dropouts on welfare and replaced them with 100k well educated high earners, that would be a net plus for the city. Boston and Seattle are two smaller, yet highly educated and relatively wealthy cities. Of course, we don't want to be shrinking either, so the news that we're growing is great. But what I want to know is who's coming and who's leaving.

Actually I'm pretty sure Phoenix' population has been quite stagnant as of the recession, and Houston has annexed it's way to over 600 sq miles. Neither are an apples to apples comparison to Philadelphia's growth. And although San Antonio is a fun place to visit, it is hardly cosmopolitan. Take away the River Walk and there isn't a whole lot to do there. You can see the Alamo in 90 minutes.

No disrespect to Houston or San Antonio, I've been to both of them and glad I visited them. I just wouldn't want to live there personally. I need more variety, and walkability in my life.

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by Philly-Drew

You can see the Alamo in 90 minutes.

Or in 60 minutes if you don't see the basement.

[Yeah, it's a Pee Wee Herman reference. ]

[relnahe]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Take a look at the core of Philadelphia and how much construction is ongoing. That should tell you right there who is coming and who is leaving.

Well that is obvious as you observe that the tax money coming from the wage tax is increasing while the actual tax is going down as well. I've stated this before but he seems fixated on it regardless.

[Outta here]

Originally Posted by Philly-Drew

Actually I'm pretty sure Phoenix' population has been quite stagnant as of the recession, and Houston has annexed it's way to over 600 sq miles. Neither are an apples to apples comparison to Philadelphia's growth. And although San Antonio is a fun place to visit, it is hardly cosmopolitan. Take away the River Walk and there isn't a whole lot to do there. You can see the Alamo in 90 minutes.

No disrespect to Houston or San Antonio, I've been to both of them and glad I visited them. I just wouldn't want to live there personally. I need more variety, and walkability in my life.

Sitka, Alaska . 2,870 sq. mi. and a population of 10,323 ..... Now THAT's stagnant .
And just for shits & giggles , if Houston had the same land mass as Philly ( population distributed evenly ) ,
Houston's population would be around 492,000 ..... Or if you prefer , if Philly had Houston's land area , say adding Montgomery
County , it's population would be something like 2,375,000 ........ minus the Alamo .