PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread IX

[1487]

Originally Posted by mja

Drexel is indeed partnering with SDP to create an SLA middle school & a new building for Powel at UC Square. Powel will feed into the new middle school, which actually opens next year at a temporary location in a Drexel-owned building on Spring Garden & 36th, I think.

I'm also a parent that stayed in the city and I have two children at an SDP public school in Center City, and I've been extremely happy with my children's schooling. Given that the biggest predictors of educational success for a child are their parents' level of education and level of income, the district's problem is primarily one of marketing. There's nothing really earth-shattering that happens at Penn Alexander, for example. They've just been able to sell the idea that they're a "good" school to lawyers, doctors, and other professionals, who then in turn feel good about sending their kids there, who then in turn do well in school because they come from economically-stable, well-educated households, which then in turn reinforces the narrative that Penn Alexander is a "good" school.

Agreed and I did hear about the new Drexel school. It's a step in the right direction. I think from a marketing standpoint having more schools with heavy involvement from the universities would mean a lot. I'm not saying there is anything earth shattering at P-A and I do know it's become a school fed by an area where housing is very pricey and the parents are upper middle class and well educated and mostly white. What I am saying is that the Universities are sitting on the sidelines while being right in the middle of this crisis situation and they should step up and do more. It will do wonders for their image, the surrounding areas and for kids and families. Even if they only affect 10 schools that is a significant difference that will really add value to the surrounding neighborhoods. Penn in particular has been lobbied to expand its partnership to another elementary school in West Philly and I can't think of any good reason why they shouldn't act.

[PHL10]

As a Gen Xer raising my kids in the city and surrounded by people in my neighborhood doing the same, my perspective is probably a bit skewed. I see all these millennials running around and I assume that many of them are living in the City as a thing to do – it’s a popular choice for the post college crowd and socially, it’s very engaging. That being said, the majority of these people likely grew up in the suburbs and they aren’t urbanists at heart. So I’m not surprised that a majority of them would return to the burbs eventually. I would expect the continued migration of young people into the city so every 30 year old we lose, they will be replaced by someone 5 years their junior. So even if we capture 10% of them long term and they settle and have families, we are much further ahead than we were a decade ago. What I’m saying is that it’s just not realistic that most would stay long term and because that it is an unrealistic expectation, I think it’s negative spin to focus on the lack of retention as a huge issue.

[Milksteak]

Originally Posted by Hrytsyu

Ugh. I almost regret responding to this sentiment because apparently people who are determined to move to the suburbs for supposed sake of their children's educations never listen and most certainly aren't capable of learning. However, I shall repeat myself.

There are many fine competitive public schools in the city. If you believe your child isn't capable of attending those schools, perhaps you should consider the suburbs. Don't believe all schools in the suburbs are great. They're not at all. Many people move to the suburbs for the supposedly superior education opportunities , only to send their kids to parochial schools.

Furthermore, I've noticed that in rebounding areas, such as South Philadelphia near Center City, the young parents are determined to influence and change the local schools. That also reflects the will they have to direct their own children. They will certainly prosper.

My own child is a beneficiary of that approach. We would have chosen no other path.

I hope you had your pinky up when you wrote this. Nobody is saying schools in the burbs=better education, but the Philadelphia school system has some serious issues that they need to tackle before it can be taken as a serious contender to some of the suburban school districts. I am not insulting people who have kids and stay in the city, I am not saying that the city does not have decent options for those who put the time and research into their child's education.

[allovertown]

Just agreeing with some others who posted here regarding moving to the suburbs for education. The correlation between educational success may seem at first glance to favor the suburbs but a much much stronger correlation exists between household income and a stable home life.

I have a somewhat unique perspective in the sense that as a child I initially attended a Catholic school, then finances forced my parents to send me to a city public school, and then I actually went to high school in the suburbs in what is considered a good school district.

All were really shockingly similar. Sure the suburban school generally had more resources and there were less distractions from truly disruptive students. But I really don't think I'd say the actual level of instruction was truly superior in any way. Some of the worst, laziest teachers I ever had taught in that High School and some of the dumbest fucking people I've ever met in my life cruised along with a 3.0 grade point averages in that suburban high school and most are currently losers posting racist screeds on Facebook about Donald Trump or something.

They're not of age yet, but I have no qualms sending my children to city public schools. I'd say it's a tougher environment, but I don't necessarily think it's bad to challenge your children, to have them confront and experience a diverse school. With the proper support at home I think such an experience is actually an asset that few suburban schools could even dream of competing with.

Two exceptions. Some schools in this city are truly deplorable, I'm not talking about those schools. I'm also not talking about Penn Alexander or something like that, just a school that is at least functional. Also, if your child has a learning disability or something like that, it's a different story. City schools just don't have the resources or specialization to help a special needs children like so many suburban schools can.

But in general? I truly believe a city education is not only able to compete with the suburbs but in actuality offers a better and more complete education to prepare your child for the real world.

[Knight Hospitaller]

. [Never mind - my wisecracking won't bring this back to development any sooner]

[Outta here]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

. [Never mind - my wisecracking won't bring this back to development any sooner]

............................

[Flyers2001]

duplicate

[Flyers2001]

Originally Posted by 1487

I doubt it. Unless you are talking about drug addict related thefts. for the record, you can likely go into any neighborhood in Philly and long timers will tell you it was safer and better "back in the day". Statistics and reality don't always line up. It is true that the 15th district is the busiest based on what i read and that does cover Mayfair and frankford, but that's just one part of the NE.

Yes the 15th is the busiest and one of the largest. Living in the northeast and seeing the steady decline over the past 10 years has been heartbreaking.

I have many friends in the PPD that work all over the city and they would tell you Mayfair is turning into what Kensington was. The Oxford circle has had a huge increase in crime the past 20 years. So while the city as a hole may have a reduction in crime, many neighborhoods have seen an increase.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by Flyers2001

Yes the 15th is the busiest and one of the largest. Living in the northeast and seeing the steady decline over the past 10 years has been heartbreaking.

I have many friends in the PPD that work all over the city and they would tell you Mayfair is turning into what Kensington was. The Oxford circle has had a huge increase in crime the past 20 years. So while the city as a hole may have a reduction in crime, many neighborhoods have seen an increase.

It has seemed fairly clear to me for many years that what is happening in the Lower Northeast is pretty much what is happening in eastern Delco and other older, working class inner suburbs in South Jersey and Bucks County: historically, these neighborhoods had been relatively stable compared to poorer neighborhoods in the city, yet they remained relatively affordable because they lacked certain characteristics (in terms of proximity to higher-end amenities, physical beauty, building stock, status, education attainment, etc.) necessary to become more stable, more expensive "professional" or upper-middle-middle class neighborhoods like, say, West Mt. Airy, Melrose Park, Ardmore, Narberth, etc.

So, as older residents have either died or migrated outward, they have increasingly been being replaced by poorer newcomers who in many cases previously lived in impoverished areas of the city and had been looking for better living options, which these areas seem to offer.

The statistics seem to suggest that this transition has been accompanied by an increase in crime as the population has become poorer, perhaps in part because a certain criminal element has followed some of the newcomers in from the higher crime neighborhoods from which many of them departed.

This transition has accelerated the out-migration of the previous generation of residents who, justifiably or not, may in many cases have grown uncomfortable with the kind of dramatic transformation taking place. I'd imagine for many of the old-timers, the last couple decades of change has evoked a foreboding sense of deja-vu:

The Northeast basically emerged because of white flight in the 1950s and early 1960s as a relatively idyllic alternative to North Philly and the River Wards. As most of us here know, many older NE residents or their parents came from ethnic white working class inner city neighborhoods that had been hollowed out and recast as segregated black ghettos through the corrupt fear-mongering of broker blockbusting practices, in combination with federally mandated redlining policies and the destruction of the inner city manufacturing base. Clearly, black people suffered the most as they became isolated in segregated pockets of decline, disinvestment, and joblessness; but regardless, a generation or two of working class ethnic whites seemed to have been so deeply traumatized by the sudden, catastrophic destruction of their "old neighborhoods" that I can imagine many of them bolted the Lower NE in terror at the first signs decades later of in-migration by less well off minority populations.

This seems like a fairly obvious and well documented process at this point, having been going for probably at least twenty years. It's certainly not a new phenomenon, right?

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

It has seemed fairly clear to me for many years that what is happening in the Lower Northeast is pretty much what is happening in eastern Delco and other older, working class inner suburbs in South Jersey and Bucks County: historically, these neighborhoods had been relatively stable compared to poorer neighborhoods in the city, yet they remained relatively affordable because they lacked characteristics in terms of proximity of high-end amenities, physical beauty, building stock, status, education attainment, etc., necessary to become more stable, more expensive "professional" or upper-middle-middle class neighborhoods like, say, West Mt. Airy, Melrose Park, Ardmore, Narberth, etc.

So, as older residents have either died or migrated outward, they have increasingly been being replaced by poorer newcomers who in many cases previously lived in impoverished areas of the city and had been looking for better living options, which these areas seem to offer.

The statistics seem to suggest that this transition has been accompanied by an increase in crime as the population has become poorer, and perhaps as a criminal element has followed some of the newcomers in from the higher crime neighborhoods from which many of them departed. This transition has accelerated the out migration of the previous generation of residents who, justifiably or not, may in many cases have grown uncomfortable with the kind of dramatic transformation taking place.

This seems like a fairly obvious and well documented process at this point, having been going for probably at least twenty years or more. It's certainly not a new phenomenon, right?

Certainly not new, Southwest has been on the decline since the early 80s, the Northeast a little later. And as you pointed out, the deterioration of neighborhoods in the Northeast and Southwest have more in common with inner ring working class suburbs than the rest of Philadelphia.

Just as most of Philadelphia has benefited from an increased desire from millennials and empty nesters to lives in transit friendly and walkable neighborhoods, these areas have been hurt by those same trends. The increased crime rates in these areas though remain the exception in Philadelphia.

[Larry King]

Jews have been leaving Oxford circle in big numbers since the 90s at least, thank god for immigrants or it'd be a total free fall

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by allovertown

Just as most of Philadelphia has benefited from an increased desire from millennials and empty nesters to lives in transit friendly and walkable neighborhoods, these areas have been hurt by those same trends. The increased crime rates in these areas though remain the exception in Philadelphia.

Originally Posted by Larry King

. . . thank god for immigrants or it'd be a total free fall

My biggest concern about the long-term sustainability of Philly's new growth trends has less to with suburban millenials decamping for the burbs as their kids become school age.

I agree with some previous posters who are suggesting not only that many middle class millenials are simply flirting with city living as a youthful experiment before they continue toward fulfilling their hard-wired, pre-programmed suburban destiny, but also that a much greater proportion (if not a majority) of the current generation, as compared to prior generations, will choose to remain, and that is just a big net plus for the city going forward.

My bigger concern is that immigrants - who are responsible for most of the city's recent population gains - in neighborhoods like the lower NE, deep South and SW Philly, will be moving on out of the city at their first opportunity . . . understandably of course, as these areas are typically transitional "gateway" neighborhoods for them, but not the ultimate American dream of of greenery, privacy, security, mobility, convenience, and open space. Their departure will be a serious drain unless there is a steady replenishment of new immigrants to replace them. But if the city and the region fail to produce bigger increases in growth and employment opportunities for these people, Philly will continue to lose out to places like Atlanta, DC, Dallas, Houston, etc., not to mention NYC.

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

My biggest concern about the long-term sustainability of Philly's new growth trends has less to with suburban millenials decamping for the burbs as their kids become school age.

I agree with some previous posters who are suggesting not only that many middle class millenials are simply flirting with city living as a youthful experiment before they continue toward fulfilling their hard-wired, pre-programmed suburban destiny, but also that a much greater proportion (if not a majority) of the current generation, as compared to prior generations, will choose to remain, and that is just a big net plus for the city going forward.

My bigger concern is that immigrants - who are responsible for most of the city's recent population gains - in neighborhoods like the lower NE, deep South and SW Philly, will be moving on out of the city at their first opportunity. That could be a serious drain unless there is a steady replenishment of new immigrants to replace them. But if the city and the region fail to produce bigger increases in employment opportunities for these people, Philly will continue to lose out to places like Atlanta, DC, Dallas, Houston, etc., not to mention NYC.

In this mode Oxford Circle is the success that'll need to be built upon.

Philadelphia is close enough to NYC -- and NYC's affordability issues so pervasive -- that we can (and I'd argue we need to) market ourselves as an alternative to NYC for many immigrant families looking to set down roots but not be too far from NYC's extensive immigrant infrastructure: 90% of what NYC offers, easy access to the other 10%, all at half price. Chicagoland doesn't have that advantage.

The Philly region also has a large stock of affordable 1920s-1960s housing stock still in reasonably good condition (Oxford Circle, Lawn- and Rhawnhurst, Mayfair, Pennsauken, Sharon Hill, Clifton-Aldan, Levittown, and on and on and on) -- a very persuasive argument for getting immigrants to come here. Philly offers homeownership at low cost, still, and that shouldn't be something to ignore.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

Philly offers homeownership at low cost, still, and that shouldn't be something to ignore.

I agree, that's a key part of the equation, but it is unfortunately paired with low economic growth (in fact part of why houses are cheap here relative to peer cities like DC, Boston, NYC). I think we will need to pair our affordability with more opportunity to persuade a larger portion of NYC's prospective immigrants to consider the Philly alternative.

[1487]

Originally Posted by Milksteak

I hope you had your pinky up when you wrote this. Nobody is saying schools in the burbs=better education, but the Philadelphia school system has some serious issues that they need to tackle before it can be taken as a serious contender to some of the suburban school districts. I am not insulting people who have kids and stay in the city, I am not saying that the city does not have decent options for those who put the time and research into their child's education.

The entire Philly school district will never be "good" in the sense you are talking about and never has been. If you (or anyone) thinks universal PSD parity with lower merion or council rock is the standard you might as well give up now. There are already many decent options- and the PSD needs to create more of those options to encourage a greater % of professionals to stay. There are 200 schools in the district and many different programs and specialties. They cannot be discussed (positive or negative) as one entity. Most of the "good" districts we talk about have 4-5 schools at most. Very easy to maintain a "good" district consisting of maybe half dozen schools fed from communities full of upper middle class folks living in $400k+ houses. I'd be more impressed if they were generating those results with a more racially and economically diverse crowd and PSD levels of funding.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by PHL10

As a Gen Xer raising my kids in the city and surrounded by people in my neighborhood doing the same, my perspective is probably a bit skewed. I see all these millennials running around and I assume that many of them are living in the City as a thing to do – it’s a popular choice for the post college crowd and socially, it’s very engaging. That being said, the majority of these people likely grew up in the suburbs and they aren’t urbanists at heart. So I’m not surprised that a majority of them would return to the burbs eventually. I would expect the continued migration of young people into the city so every 30 year old we lose, they will be replaced by someone 5 years their junior. So even if we capture 10% of them long term and they settle and have families, we are much further ahead than we were a decade ago. What I’m saying is that it’s just not realistic that most would stay long term and because that it is an unrealistic expectation, I think it’s negative spin to focus on the lack of retention as a huge issue.

I grew up in the suburbs and I'm as urban as they get.

This analysis fails because it presumes that at best, there will always be people moving through and we just have to skim some off the top. That clearly isn't the case, because population for decades was decreasing and now is increasing, at not an insignificant rate. If it were just about people passing through we wouldn't be growing.

Clearly, more people are moving here to begin with and more of those people are staying for longer, both with kids and without. Sure, plenty leave, but it appears that more and more are staying.

It's such a pessimistic view to say "it's always been this way so it will remain forever this way".

[iheartphilly]

In general, the perception and reality of getting a good public education in the suburbs (with the exception of a few suburban school districts) outweigh the overall negative perception and reality of a so-so education in the PSD with the exception of a few good and well-known schools (Central High School, Masterman to name a few) for those that follow the areas school ranking. There are so many metrics used to evaluate the quality of a good school. But like Philly, many big metropolitan schools have their problems.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by 1487

The entire Philly school district will never be "good" in the sense you are talking about and never has been. If you (or anyone) thinks universal PSD parity with lower merion or council rock is the standard you might as well give up now. There are already many decent options- and the PSD needs to create more of those options to encourage a greater % of professionals to stay. There are 200 schools in the district and many different programs and specialties. They cannot be discussed (positive or negative) as one entity. Most of the "good" districts we talk about have 4-5 schools at most. Very easy to maintain a "good" district consisting of maybe half dozen schools fed from communities full of upper middle class folks living in $400k+ houses. I'd be more impressed if they were generating those results with a more racially and economically diverse crowd and PSD levels of funding.

You make a good point and there are good schools in Philly, mostly at the elementary level plus a handful of magnet schools that you have to be lucky to get into.

If we want our neighborhood schools to be more competitive, I would end the PSD's policy of bussing kids in from surrounding communities.

Here in Roxorough/Manayunk, the neighborhood is mostly white middle class, the majority of which are people who have lived in the city their entire lives interspersed with new arrivals (and plenty of homes in the 400-500k range). Now, you would think that the local high school would be representative of the local community but local parents send their kids anywhere but Roxborough High, leaving behind empty seats that are filled with minorities from poor neighborhoods. Skipping over the ugly complexities of "why", the fact is Roxborough High School is one of the most violent schools in PSD despite the fact that it is located in one of the least violent neighborhoods in the city; and naturally school performance suffers. In other words, you have a school that is wholly not representative of the neighborhood it is supposed to serve.

In the suburbs, people pay a premium to live in communities with quality schools. In the city, you don't get that option - you can live in a nice neighborhood but have terrible local school options. I would like to end the bussing program and see PSD broken up into "sub-districts" that have the authority to levy taxes for improvements for schools within the sub-district. And people would gladly pay more taxes to improve the schools and live within a "good" sub-district. Good schools not only keep people in the city, but it increases home values (Penn-Alex catchment zone anyone?).

With regards to Roxborough High, no local parent who can afford it will send their child there but as long this happens, there will be empty seats filled by kids from other neighborhoods, and the cycle won't break.

[Flyers2001]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

In this mode Oxford Circle is the success that'll need to be built upon.

Philadelphia is close enough to NYC -- and NYC's affordability issues so pervasive -- that we can (and I'd argue we need to) market ourselves as an alternative to NYC for many immigrant families looking to set down roots but not be too far from NYC's extensive immigrant infrastructure: 90% of what NYC offers, easy access to the other 10%, all at half price. Chicagoland doesn't have that advantage.

The Philly region also has a large stock of affordable 1920s-1960s housing stock still in reasonably good condition (Oxford Circle, Lawn- and Rhawnhurst, Mayfair, Pennsauken, Sharon Hill, Clifton-Aldan, Levittown, and on and on and on) -- a very persuasive argument for getting immigrants to come here. Philly offers homeownership at low cost, still, and that shouldn't be something to ignore.

Oxford Circle, Lawncrest and even little north to Rhawnhurst has had many homes bought up my investors and turned into Section 8.

[summersm343]

Philly Chamber of Commerce Report Pushes Gas Pipeline

The push to make Philadelphia America’s next energy hub continues.

The Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce this morning hosted an event, “Building the Nation’s Next Energy Hub,” that called for the construction of a natural gas pipeline from the Marcellus Shale to the Philadelphia area.

“Since day one as governor, I have made investing in jobs that pay a top priority for my administration,” Gov. Tom Wolf said in a statement. “In creating this energy hub, we are ensuring that the greater Philadelphia area will reap benefits that will energize the economy and create good-paying jobs for Pennsylvanians. The work done by the energy industry, public sector, labor and government officials in developing this Energy Hub strategy is a great example of how we can work together to foster economic growth in our commonwealth. My administration will carefully review the details of the report and continue to assure that all issues surrounding workforce development, safety, and environmental safeguards are fully addressed.”

The report says the new pipeline would lower energy bills in the region. “Combined, the new savings to residents [in the Greater Philadelphia region] and businesses will generate $888 million each year, supporting 5,250 jobs with $324 million in earnings,” the report says. Gas from the Marcellus Shale is generally cheaper than gas produced along the Gulf of Mexico.

There are also other pipelines prepared for the region. Sunoco Logistics is working on a massive liquid natural gas pipeline, Mariner East 2, that would bring LNGs into Marcus Hook. Construction on that pipeline has been pushed back to the summer, but is expected to be completed by next year.

Read more at http://www.phillymag.com/business/2016/0...elphia-gas-pipeline/#rbHWu8dUPPKpRptp.99