PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread IX

[summersm343]

^^ I love it!

[Mappy]

Originally Posted by Kidphilly

Mappy Very cool

On the first map, is that the number of people within 30 minutes walking or transit or number of Jobs?

Also is there an external link for the map

Its a map of how many jobs are within a certain point using walking/transit
Yeah the link is Here:
https://a.tiles.mapbox.com/v4/ctswebrequ...n0.muGg6tMDG4NOGrV4qQQ8yw#4/38.00/-99.76

Originally Posted by Kidphilly

My own dab-lings (including use of a lot of current ROW and station in the new Innovation and rail yard. Oh one can dream
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zNG4WyRIq_Oo.k1JXjX9gyItI

Your rail line designs got me excited about a couple of things I hadnt thought of testing out yet. particularly the "Railyard/Zoo/River Link". I hadnt thought of connecting the City Line to the 25th St Viaduct.

This would be fantastic since it would connect all the wasted ROW that could be passenger rail into one very useful line, hitting all the tourist regions + 30th St Station, and several residential areas...

My only concern when trying to integrate that into my rails plan maps was the physical rail lines. The elevated line (currently CSX freight)going through U.City doesn't connect to any lines going over the Connecting Railway Bridge. they could build a switch as it curves around the Zoo, but then it would also need to cross all the way from the furthest North track, to the furthest South track in order to make the turn to the Pennsylvania Ave stretch of the City Line, and it would have to make these switches while ON the bridge. I'll keep working on it, but I dont know if this is possible.

Perhaps an alternative that would work is a new switch by Stewart Field that would send the new line through 30th St Station instead of the elevated CSX tracks.
Like the "City Line" here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1M7ORw1X9nMTUJhS3JOQUt4a3c/view?usp=sharing

[Mappy]

Originally Posted by Teakwood

I love the idea of promoting transit areas, but I'm not sure this would necessarily have a fully beneficial effect if put into practice. It seems like many of the areas close to transit are or are close to fully gentrified, and rather expensive, notably in the small towns near rail lines outside of the city. By decreasing taxes in these already expensive areas and raising taxes in the often depressed areas, the net effect would seem to be increased property values for the rich, and decreased property values for the now higher taxed poorer. This may price many out of areas with access to transit, resulting in an additional hardship for those who may not be able to afford transportation.

Gotta disagree dude.
Look at the Jobs-Transit map again. we are talking about Kensington Ave, N. Broad up to Erie, Erie Ave, Camden, West Philly, all of South Philly... etc.
The yellow, orange, and red areas are where there would be significant property tax breaks.
Then remember it also is working in tandem with the Density Consolidation incentives where it will basically force developers to stop building far from existing density, and allow additional density where it ought to be in the first place.

[Kidphilly]

Originally Posted by Mappy

Its a map of how many jobs are within a certain point using walking/transit
Yeah the link is Here:
https://a.tiles.mapbox.com/v4/ctswebrequ...n0.muGg6tMDG4NOGrV4qQQ8yw#4/38.00/-99.76




Your rail line designs got me excited about a couple of things I hadnt thought of testing out yet. particularly the "Railyard/Zoo/River Link". I hadnt thought of connecting the City Line to the 25th St Viaduct.

This would be fantastic since it would connect all the wasted ROW that could be passenger rail into one very useful line, hitting all the tourist regions + 30th St Station, and several residential areas...

My only concern when trying to integrate that into my rails plan maps was the physical rail lines. The elevated line (currently CSX freight)going through U.City doesn't connect to any lines going over the Connecting Railway Bridge. they could build a switch as it curves around the Zoo, but then it would also need to cross all the way from the furthest North track, to the furthest South track in order to make the turn to the Pennsylvania Ave stretch of the City Line, and it would have to make these switches while ON the bridge. I'll keep working on it, but I dont know if this is possible.

Perhaps an alternative that would work is a new switch by Stewart Field that would send the new line through 30th St Station instead of the elevated CSX tracks.
Like the "City Line" here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1M7ORw1X9nMTUJhS3JOQUt4a3c/view?usp=sharing

thanks for the link

My plan is really just not anything more than playing with maps and some basic knowledge and not an expert on the junctions etc.

I think in theory there would be a new bridge (or maybe a second below south) in my plan built for the crossing by the zoo

This would handle an retrofit HR Airport line (Airport through 30th, Zoo, Penny cut and terminate back at 15th and Locust), the BLVD line (from Neshaminy mall down BLVD to a BSL connection (well both Norristown and CH W would be retrofitted HR to trunk with BSL to Broad and Locust using the express tracks) along Lehigh (elevated) 33rd (elevated) accross the river and down to the Navy Yard via the viaduct. There would also be a loop from Louct and 15th around and down to the Navy yard


So the 15th and locust would be the terminus for a lopp line to the Navy Yard, the airport line and Patco

The Navy Yard would have the Blvd Terminus, Loop line terminus both via the viaduct and the current BSL terminus

North Philly would connect the BLVD, Norristown and CH West lines as well as the remaining RR lines that come through there

30th would link Trolleys, MFL, RR, Amtrak, the BLVD, Loop, and Airport Lines

8th would link Patco, MFL, Loop, and Airport lines

Just a though or way to leverage the exiting ROW somewhat meaningfully, I think in theory elevated ROW could somehow navigate the railyard, but smarter minds then mine would need to figure that out

I also thought the under side current road area of 30th from Market to Walnut could be the ROW for the new HR line, or some configuration of that

I also have some LRT lines to be added

Will check your map in more detail - thanks

[Teakwood]

Originally Posted by Mappy

Gotta disagree dude.
Look at the Jobs-Transit map again. we are talking about Kensington Ave, N. Broad up to Erie, Erie Ave, Camden, West Philly, all of South Philly... etc.
The yellow, orange, and red areas are where there would be significant property tax breaks.
Then remember it also is working in tandem with the Density Consolidation incentives where it will basically force developers to stop building far from existing density, and allow additional density where it ought to be in the first place.

The natural progression of gentrification follows transit routes. That is why we are seeing the corridor of Northern Liberties/Fishtown/Kensington specifically gentrifying, and are starting to see progress along North Broad. Interest in these areas aren't directly tied to cost, but preference by those who choose to live in those areas. the areas that are impoverished along the transit lines will eventually be in line for gentrification, this may only serve to speed that process. However, many of those poorer areas already have absurdly low property taxes.

There are also the nodes like Collingswood and Haddonfield, who I do not see as particularly poor areas, and this will serve to make the rich richer.

As for lower to middle income people who are unlucky enough to not live in an area with good transit accessibility, they will see an increase in property taxes that will drive down their property values. Areas like Havertown and Springfield in Delco that are firmly middle class and close to the city will suffer, and their taxes are already through the roof. As the poorer areas that you speak of benefit, many landloards will cash in on their soaring property values, pushing the impoverished out of the city.

I am all for your plan for smart density, as many of the suburbs and far reaching areas are beyond their capacity for the existing infrastructure. I am just not sure that adding additional incentives to live near transit (which already is a huge incentive) and penalizing middle and lower class homeowners who do not live near transit is the perfect solution.

[Mappy]

Originally Posted by Teakwood

The natural progression of gentrification follows transit routes. That is why we are seeing the corridor of Northern Liberties/Fishtown/Kensington specifically gentrifying, and are starting to see progress along North Broad. Interest in these areas aren't directly tied to cost, but preference by those who choose to live in those areas. the areas that are impoverished along the transit lines will eventually be in line for gentrification, this may only serve to speed that process. However, many of those poorer areas already have absurdly low property taxes.

There are also the nodes like Collingswood and Haddonfield, who I do not see as particularly poor areas, and this will serve to make the rich richer.

As for lower to middle income people who are unlucky enough to not live in an area with good transit accessibility, they will see an increase in property taxes that will drive down their property values. Areas like Havertown and Springfield in Delco that are firmly middle class and close to the city will suffer, and their taxes are already through the roof. As the poorer areas that you speak of benefit, many landloards will cash in on their soaring property values, pushing the impoverished out of the city.

I am all for your plan for smart density, as many of the suburbs and far reaching areas are beyond their capacity for the existing infrastructure. I am just not sure that adding additional incentives to live near transit (which already is a huge incentive) and penalizing middle and lower class homeowners who do not live near transit is the perfect solution.

We do agree that this would probably just speed up (hopefully) gentrification where it likely would happen anyway.

(I would like to see expansion and enforcement of affordable housing quotas to ensure housing access wherever people need to, or choose to, live. That's a completely different avenue of planning ideas though.)

There is not a regional tax authority anywhere in the US (that Im aware of). You cant impose a property tax break in a section of one town that would be balanced by a different town in a different county or state. So this would more likely be implemented as an income tax deduction based on primary residential location, with caveats for commute methods, distance (maybe income?).

This is not meant to help or hurt the rich or poor, so I would leave that out of the geographic equation. Its solely meant to have those areas dependent on the infrastructure of sprawl pay for those costs more proportionately. And factor into housing location decisions - building, buys, or renting.

That being the case, perhaps it would be better implemented as a federal tax break for folks living in Orange or Red, and just those living in the Blue areas would see an increase.

At any rate, Im less interested in the tax incentive aspect, and more interested in figuring out how to make the "Density Consolidation" development credits system work, since that would have a more direct impact on land use changes in the long term.

[Teakwood]

Originally Posted by Mappy

We do agree that this would probably just speed up (hopefully) gentrification where it likely would happen anyway.

(I would like to see expansion and enforcement of affordable housing quotas to ensure housing access wherever people need to, or choose to, live. That's a completely different avenue of planning ideas though.)

There is not a regional tax authority anywhere in the US (that Im aware of). You cant impose a property tax break in a section of one town that would be balanced by a different town in a different county or state. So this would more likely be implemented as an income tax deduction based on primary residential location, with caveats for commute methods, distance (maybe income?).

This is not meant to help or hurt the rich or poor, so I would leave that out of the geographic equation. Its solely meant to have those areas dependent on the infrastructure of sprawl pay for those costs more proportionately. And factor into housing location decisions - building, buys, or renting.

That being the case, perhaps it would be better implemented as a federal tax break for folks living in Orange or Red, and just those living in the Blue areas would see an increase.

At any rate, Im less interested in the tax incentive aspect, and more interested in figuring out how to make the "Density Consolidation" development credits system work, since that would have a more direct impact on land use changes in the long term.

I think we are starting to see the sprawly-er areas starting to pay out a higher tax rate as those areas are beginning to lose their appeal with the masses, and developers aren't flocking to their open lands at the same rate that they have for decades. In either case, I fully agree that any new development that occurs away from transportation should be required to provide at least a percentage of the necessary infrastructure upgrades that would be required to sustain the increase in traffic flow in a given area. If that can be accomplished, there will either be a decrease in the demand in areas such as Malvern, and the money bookmarked for projects such as the 202 widening can be re-allocated to more transit friendly options.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by 1487

This is interesting. Few seem to be really willing to delve into the numbers and explore the storyline about the city bleeding jobs to the suburbs. Im sure it was true in the 70s through the 90s. Not sure if its really true today. While pro job tax reform cant hurt, the reality is job growth and office space growth in this entire region is anemic- its not a Philly specific problem even though the story isnt presented that way.

http://planphilly.com/articles/2015/04/2...ower-in-philly-s-center-than-the-suburbs

It's anemic in part because a lot of companies only want to be in Central Cities and they by pass ours (and thus the entire region) to go to a central city where the tax policies make more sense.

You will see in region migration happen if this goes through, but you will also see more satellite offices from other companies opening here because it's a 70 minute train ride from NYC.

[Mappy]

"Great New way to see American Cities"

http://cityobservatory.org/peaks-valleys-and-donuts-a-great-new-way-to-see-american-cities/


Whoa! whats with the 3 mile's out for Philly?

Data: http://statchatva.org/changing-shape-of-american-cities/

[1487]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

It's anemic in part because a lot of companies only want to be in Central Cities and they by pass ours (and thus the entire region) to go to a central city where the tax policies make more sense.

You will see in region migration happen if this goes through, but you will also see more satellite offices from other companies opening here because it's a 70 minute train ride from NYC.

we shall see. If they cant get the constitution changed. There is already an inflow of jobs and companies into the city so these changes may accelerate it. Im still not clear on why increasing taxes on office buildings only in Philadelphia wont entice companies to move to the burbs (or continue to stay out of the city) when those taxes are passed down to the office tenants.

I personally think a business tax abatement for new companies makes more sense and would have a more immediate impact. It would also drive up rents which seems to be one of the goals of Levy.

[tsarstruck]

Originally Posted by Mappy

"Great New way to see American Cities"

http://cityobservatory.org/peaks-valleys-and-donuts-a-great-new-way-to-see-american-cities/


Whoa! whats with the 3 mile's out for Philly?

Data: http://statchatva.org/changing-shape-of-american-cities/

Camden, Southwest Philly, West Philly, North Philly. Here are the 1,2,3 mile radiuses from City Hall:

[iheartphilly]

Comcast dropping TWC merger deal:

http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/...dropping-time-warner-merger-attempt.html

Can't say some of us didn't see this coming. Wondering if it will have an impact on the build out of their overall vertical campus. I was hoping we would absorb some of the TWC employees from Manhattan to Philly and further their need for more office space.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

Comcast dropping TWC merger deal:

http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/...dropping-time-warner-merger-attempt.html

Can't say some of us didn't see this coming. Wondering if it will have an impact on the build out of their overall vertical campus. I was hoping we would absorb some of the TWC employees from Manhattan to Philly and further their need for more office space.

Since Comcast just bought this lot with LPT a few days ago, I'm sure they knew what their decision was going to be regarding backing out of the Time Warner deal. So, I'm sure this will have little effect on what happens with the land they just bought.

[philatonian]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

Comcast dropping TWC merger deal:

http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/...dropping-time-warner-merger-attempt.html

Can't say some of us didn't see this coming. Wondering if it will have an impact on the build out of their overall vertical campus. I was hoping we would absorb some of the TWC employees from Manhattan to Philly and further their need for more office space.

Honestly, I think this might be a blessing in disguise. The last time a company merged with TimeWarner, AOL went from #1 to the bilge water of Yahoo. That would truly suck for Comcast and the city.

If Comcast wants to get into the IT market (and with the CITC, it seems they do), cable isn't where it's at. TW would have brought them a lot of customers, but serving customers isn't what Comcast is known for.

I'd love to see them step back and reconsider what to do with the billions of dollars likely burning a hole in their pocket right now: Netflix, Hulu outright, Amazon, or any number of online content providers. Cheaper, but smarter long term investments. Or even investing in developing new ways to deliver content without cable, especially considering Google and Apple are gunning for them.

In ten years, cable companies are going to be the next newspapers. Information will ultimately travel sans cable, and if Comcast keeps fixating on acquiring railroads, they're going to get crushed.

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by philatonian

I'd love to see them step back and reconsider what to do with the billions of dollars likely burning a hole in their pocket right now: Netflix, Hulu outright, Amazon, or any number of online content providers. Cheaper, but smarter long term investments. Or even investing in developing new ways to deliver content without cable, especially considering Google and Apple are gunning for them.

I have no doubt that this is what Comcast will do. It actually has a fairly long history of doing just that kind of thing and transcending the boundaries of a typical cable company, by joint venturing with technology companies like Microsoft, entering and then later exiting the cell phone business when it was first taking off, investing in and purchasing content providers, etc. The CITC, and other projects in Comcast's future, are about a lot more than just adding "traditional" cable and internet subscribers.

[philatonian]

Originally Posted by Philly Fan

I have no doubt that this is what Comcast will do. It actually has a fairly long history of doing just that kind of thing and transcending the boundaries of a typical cable company, by joint venturing with technology companies like Microsoft, entering and then later exiting the cell phone business when it was first taking off, investing in and purchasing content providers, etc. The CITC, and other projects in Comcast's future, are about a lot more than just adding "traditional" cable and internet subscribers.

I really hope so. In that regard, the failed merger could actually be better for Philadelphia long-term. Instead of just being CC/TW business as usual, they can focus on recruiting talent, acquiring new technologies, and building on both.

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by philatonian

I really hope so. In that regard, the failed merger could actually be better for Philadelphia long-term. Instead of just being CC/TW business as usual, they can focus on recruiting talent, acquiring new technologies, and building on both.

I think that's always been the plan, but I think they were hoping that the additional subscribers--and perhaps more significantly, the addition of the NYC and LA subscriber markets--that would have resulted from the TWC merger would have provided more support for that. But as I said in another thread, Comcast's history is to occasionally be down, but never out. I'm sure they have other growth plans to pursue now that the TWC acquisition is apparently not going to happen.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by 1487

we shall see. If they cant get the constitution changed. There is already an inflow of jobs and companies into the city so these changes may accelerate it. Im still not clear on why increasing taxes on office buildings only in Philadelphia wont entice companies to move to the burbs (or continue to stay out of the city) when those taxes are passed down to the office tenants.

I personally think a business tax abatement for new companies makes more sense and would have a more immediate impact. It would also drive up rents which seems to be one of the goals of Levy.

Corporate tax abatement as well as halved wage tax for employees of companies that relocate a certain threshold of NEW jobs to the city should happen.

[iheartphilly]

Originally Posted by philatonian

Honestly, I think this might be a blessing in disguise. The last time a company merged with TimeWarner, AOL went from #1 to the bilge water of Yahoo. That would truly suck for Comcast and the city.

If Comcast wants to get into the IT market (and with the CITC, it seems they do), cable isn't where it's at. TW would have brought them a lot of customers, but serving customers isn't what Comcast is known for.

I'd love to see them step back and reconsider what to do with the billions of dollars likely burning a hole in their pocket right now: Netflix, Hulu outright, Amazon, or any number of online content providers. Cheaper, but smarter long term investments. Or even investing in developing new ways to deliver content without cable, especially considering Google and Apple are gunning for them.

In ten years, cable companies are going to be the next newspapers. Information will ultimately travel sans cable, and if Comcast keeps fixating on acquiring railroads, they're going to get crushed.

I hope you are right about the missed opportunity in disguise. And, you seem to know more about this business sector than others. I don't think Roberts is unaware that cable tv could go by the wayside and that is why I think he got into the content side of the business as well with the purchase of NBCUniversal. It will be his legacy to keep his company front and center for both content and its delivery model. Controlling the distribution of content is not as exclusive as it once was. Although I have yet to see non-traditional cable tv providers deliver major sports content (e.g., NFL, MLB, etc) except through the major cable tv providers and this model may not change for a long while. This is the bait and hook for sports viewers and Comcast knows it. Think before Verizon Fios was able to broadcast the Phillies...everyone wanting to watch the Phillies on tv was stuck with Comcast. And yes I understand having an internet connection allows you the option to purchase content from Netflix, Hulu, etc. of which Comcast and Verizon compete for this side of the business. And, for instance Netflix has its exclusive programming that is not offered on both Comcast or Verizon FIOS, and that's attractive in it of itself. But, not a game changer any time soon. I see it more as a la carte to pay $9 for Netflix and run it through my internet connection. Therefore, would this merger if permitted by regulators allowed economies of scales for Comcast to exert its influence if it increase its consumer base and got into other markets (e.g., NYC or LA markets)? And, would it give it more power in negotiating pricing with companies that produce content and allow Comcast to charge more from tv advertisers. Advertisers are more likely to spend where the largest audiences are viewing programming. Right now, I don't know what CITC would do for Comcast. How do you make cable TV more interesting and more interactive through technology? I definitely have more questions than answers.

[Kfmcshan]

Zillow has Philadelphia ranked as the #1 buyers' market in the country:

http://www.zillow.com/blog/buyers-seller...l&utm_campaign=emm-0415_marketreport-img