PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread IX

[1487]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

if it weren't for DCs height restrictions this wouldn't be the case (to the extent that it is). in addition, many of dc's "satellite" centers are still very close to the core of dc (i.e. pentagon city, arlington, bethesda, etc). while outside of the city, they function in many ways as contiguous portions of the city. finally, my guess is dc still houses a much higher % of jobs relative to it's metro than do we.

I seriously doubt that. a huge proportion of jobs are outside of DC and some are many miles outside of DC. If anything, the job sprawl is increasing as the metro expands. Besides, DC can't be compared to any other city- it has a built in advantage (national capital and hundreds of thousands of federal workers) that no other city can claim.

[br323206]

There have been studies on DC's height restrictions and it seems that they certainly do encourage a certain amount of development to sprawl into places like Silver Spring, Arlington, Bethesda, etc. Of course, it's not the only factor, as other posters have pointed out.

I also think that 1487's point about barriers to sprawl is a good one. Both Boston and NYC have natural barriers to sprawl (the ocean) that are incomparable to our geography. On the other hand, DC is more comparable geographically but as 1487 mentioned it can't really be compared because of the presence of the federal government. That leaves us with Baltimore, most similar geographically and economically--and I think we actually compare very well to Baltimore in the sprawl category. Smart Growth America ranks us as 33rd least-sprawled metro and Baltimore as 57th.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by br323206

There have been studies on DC's height restrictions and it seems that they certainly do encourage a certain amount of development to sprawl into places like Silver Spring, Arlington, Bethesda, etc. Of course, it's not the only factor, as other posters have pointed out.

I also think that 1487's point about barriers to sprawl is a good one. Both Boston and NYC have natural barriers to sprawl (the ocean) that are incomparable to our geography. On the other hand, DC is more comparable geographically but as 1487 mentioned it can't really be compared because of the presence of the federal government. That leaves us with Baltimore, most similar geographically and economically--and I think we actually compare very well to Baltimore in the sprawl category. Smart Growth America ranks us as 33rd least-sprawled metro and Baltimore as 57th.

I think beltways (like DC, Balto., Atlanta, etc.) encourage sprawl as well. We never had anything even approximating that here until the Blue Route connected 95 and the Turnpike.

[br323206]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

I think beltways (like DC, Balto., Atlanta, etc.) encourage sprawl as well. We never had anything even approximating that here until the Blue Route connected 95 and the Turnpike.

True, I think of my hometown, Cincinnati, as a great example of that. Longest Interstate beltway in the country and only one to go into three states. Interestingly, it doesn't work as much of a bypass.

Time from Southern intersection of 75/275 to northern intersection of 75/275 via 75 (through Cincinnati): 26 mins.

Same trip, using the 275 beltway: 43 mins.

71/275 intersection south of city, to 71/275 north of city via 71: 27 mins.

Same trip, using the 275 beltway: 38 mins.

Obviously those times even out a bit during rush hour, but it is still quicker to just go through the city. Beltways generally don't do what they were meant to do and the Blue Route was a waste of money too, in my opinion.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by br323206

Blue Route was a waste of money too, in my opinion.

I don't know about that. Being from the Media area originally, it's a lot easier to get to points north than it used to be. I never set foot in parts of Montco until the Blue Route was built.

[br323206]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

I don't know about that. Being from the Media area originally, it's a lot easier to get to points north than it used to be. I never set foot in parts of Montco until the Blue Route was built.

Sure, it's good at getting people from Delco to Montco and vice versa. But what's the value of getting people from Media to KOP easier and is it worth the investment? And how does that compare to other things that the money could've been spent on? I don't think the ROI justifies the cost.

[Palms]

Originally Posted by br323206

Sure, it's good at getting people from Delco to Montco and vice versa. But what's the value of getting people from Media to KOP easier and is it worth the investment? And how does that compare to other things that the money could've been spent on? I don't think the ROI justifies the cost.

This regions infrastructure is antiquated enough with the Blue Route.

They didnt build the blue route just to waste money. They built the blue route to relieve jam packed backroads and improve the quality of life in delaware and montgomery counties. Building the blue route was a necessity to allow those counties to grow.

[1487]

Here are stats on regional job share. Philly is on par with DC and Boston and all three cities are way behind NYC in terms of share of regional jobs.

http://centercityphila.org/docs/CCR14_employment.pdf

This data is from 2011 so I'd wager Philly has made progress since this data was published. Even in 2011 Philly had larger share than DC.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by Palms

This regions infrastructure is antiquated enough with the Blue Route.

They didnt build the blue route just to waste money. They built the blue route to relieve jam packed backroads and improve the quality of life in delaware and montgomery counties. Building the blue route was a necessity to allow those counties to grow.

Agreed. 320, etc., couldn't handle the traffic. We cannot pretend that suburbanites don't have cars. They certainly don't have the mass transit infrastructure to make up for leaving the car at home.

[Palms]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

Agreed. 320, etc., couldn't handle the traffic. We cannot pretend that suburbanites don't have cars. They certainly don't have the mass transit infrastructure to make up for leaving the car at home.

And the blue route saves many thousands of cars per day from having to commute via 95.

Heard horror stories(pre blue route) of 2 hours to get from Media to Plymouth Meeting via 252 or 320.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by Palms

And the blue route saves many thousands of cars per day from having to commute via 95.

Heard horror stories(pre blue route) of 2 hours to get from Media to Plymouth Meeting via 252 or 320.

I worked in Horsham for six years. I could never have done that without the Blue Route, unless I had moved. I'm sure I'm only one of many who benefitted from enhanced mobility, and I'm sure the region has as a whole. I don't think there's any question of ROI. My only beef is that the Blue Route was deliberately narrowed south of West Chester Pike. That part was obsolete the day it opened.

[br323206]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

I worked in Horsham for six years. I could never have done that without the Blue Route, unless I had moved. I'm sure I'm only one of many who benefitted from enhanced mobility, and I'm sure the region has as a whole. I don't think there's any question of ROI. My only beef is that the Blue Route was deliberately narrowed south of West Chester Pike. That part was obsolete the day it opened.

That's the crux though. If the Blue Route didn't exist, wouldn't you have just moved to Horsham? And wouldn't that have been better overall for the region from a mobility standpoint? Think of how many long trips would've been eliminated. You also mentioned that suburbanites can't get around by transit because there aren't enough options. So what if the Blue Route money was spent on improving transit instead?

And thanks to induced demand, the Blue Route has proved to be wholly inadequate. It just filled up with traffic, and now people just wish it was wider. Then when we widen it, the whole cycle will start over again.

[br323206]

Originally Posted by Palms

This regions infrastructure is antiquated enough with the Blue Route.

They didnt build the blue route just to waste money. They built the blue route to relieve jam packed backroads and improve the quality of life in delaware and montgomery counties. Building the blue route was a necessity to allow those counties to grow.

Thanks to induced demand, building new highways doesn't do a great job relieving jam packed roads. Better transit infrastructure is a better solution.

But more importantly, why did we need to build something to "allow those counties to grow." It didn't bring any new growth to the region. It just moved things from Philadelphia (where infrastructure already existed) to Montco and Delco. That's not growth, it's just reshuffling the deck.

[1487]

Originally Posted by br323206

Thanks to induced demand, building new highways doesn't do a great job relieving jam packed roads. Better transit infrastructure is a better solution.

But more importantly, why did we need to build something to "allow those counties to grow." It didn't bring any new growth to the region. It just moved things from Philadelphia (where infrastructure already existed) to Montco and Delco. That's not growth, it's just reshuffling the deck.

the people were already out there. The migration was well underway and you weren't going to reverse it by not building the highway. The purpose of the road was to provide a more efficient means of moving people and goods between nodes on a corridor that had increased in density during the 60s- through 80s. It was also a way to connect the NE extension with I-95 and allow people to get south of Philadelphia without driving through Philadelphia.

[iheartphilly]

Originally Posted by br323206

Thanks to induced demand, building new highways doesn't do a great job relieving jam packed roads. Better transit infrastructure is a better solution.

But more importantly, why did we need to build something to "allow those counties to grow." It didn't bring any new growth to the region. It just moved things from Philadelphia (where infrastructure already existed) to Montco and Delco. That's not growth, it's just reshuffling the deck.

Depends if you are a half glass full or empty kind of guy. The blue route paved way for expansion of the suburbs. More homes built, more business, better highway access for products/services. As much bitching about it when it was being proposed, the net benefits outweigh the costs up to this day.

Expansion of the Blue Route south of WCP is another story. Especially, in light of inadequate pubic transportation for Broomall, Newtown Square, Havertown residents to hop on a regional line, especially one that is convenient and should be off of WCP.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by 1487

the people were already out there. The migration was well underway and you weren't going to reverse it by not building the highway. The purpose of the road was to provide a more efficient means of moving people and goods between nodes on a corridor that had increased in density during the 60s- through 80s. It was also a way to connect the NE extension with I-95 and allow people to get south of Philadelphia without driving through Philadelphia.

Couldn't agree more.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by br323206

That's the crux though. If the Blue Route didn't exist, wouldn't you have just moved to Horsham? And wouldn't that have been better overall for the region from a mobility standpoint? Think of how many long trips would've been eliminated. You also mentioned that suburbanites can't get around by transit because there aren't enough options. So what if the Blue Route money was spent on improving transit instead?

And thanks to induced demand, the Blue Route has proved to be wholly inadequate. It just filled up with traffic, and now people just wish it was wider. Then when we widen it, the whole cycle will start over again.

No, I wouldn't have moved. I wouldn't have even applied. A move would not have been cost efficient. Maybe it's just me, but the market for jobs and employees being broader is a good thing. The company was founded in Horsham, so expecting them to move to the city is equally unreasonable. We need to be able to distinguish between what is optimal and what is practical. As for the BR being inadequate, if you want to alleviate that with a monorail instead of more lanes, that's fine with me.

[summersm343]

Carl Dranoff: I Want To 'Build The Tallest Building In Philadelphia'

Dranoff Properties CEO Carl Dranoff has already made a major impact on the development scene in Philadelphia, but he has a loftier goal in mind than just making an impact.

"I would like to build the tallest building in Philadelphia but because that will probably be an office building, I am now focused on building the tallest residential structure," Carl told the Philadelphia Business Journal.

His latest project, a 22-floor multifamily high-rise in Fitler Square called One Riverside, is nearing completion. The tallest residential building in Philadelphia right now is the Residences at the Ritz-Carlton, at 48 floors and 518 feet high.

Read more at: https://www.bisnow.com/philadelphia/news...noff-tallest-building-philadelphia-62648

[therealdawk]

Action News got to tour the inside of East Market today. In this video they also talk completion dates.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Carl Dranoff: I Want To 'Build The Tallest Building In Philadelphia'



Read more at: https://www.bisnow.com/philadelphia/news...noff-tallest-building-philadelphia-62648

LOL. How do you write this piece without asking him about and reporting on SLS? Fail, Mathew Rothstein!