PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread IX

[Philly-Drew]

Originally Posted by allovertown

....Darrell Clark's proposal that builders be forced to incorporate more parking into their developments is incredibly idiotic and terrible for Philadelphia. Even as a starting point, the direction for parking requirements that he wants to take is the wrong direction. The fact that his constituents support him, does not make his stance any less idiotic, it just demonstrates that his constituents don't know anything about city planning. Fortunately those people aren't in City Council... but Darrell Clark is and he needs to do better. Something being politically popular is hardly a measure of its value....

+1

This exemplifies a negative side of how politics function. A politician will vote however his/her constituency wants him/her to, without focusing on what's best for the bigger picture. They'd rather focus on doing what's required to get them voted in again during the next election cycle.

[1487]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

And where do these constituent views come from? Are they organic and intrinsic? Sometimes. And some are. But politicians stay in office, locally and on a national scale, by obfuscating and trying to influence constituent views in ways that make it easy to seem as it they are delivering something. There is plenty of evidence that the parking and housing policies Clarke and others are not actually favorable to his constituents in the longterm. He does not not acknowledge many of the costs and drawbacks and won't discuss them when confronted. It is the job of citizen and neighborhood groups informed on the issues to educate citizens. It's not a problem unique to him either. It's common.

How would they be hurt long term? They own their houses- they aren't interested in buying new construction homes in North Philly. Your statement is presumptuous and insulting. The people are too stupid to know whether or not they are unhappy so they look to Clarke for guidance on how to think? Seriously?

I also like how folks are pretending these people in this neighborhood are the first and only to complain about development and parking problems in changing areas. This is not something specific to North Philly or Clarke.

[1487]

Originally Posted by Philly-Drew

+1

This exemplifies a negative side of how politics function. A politician will vote however his/her constituency wants him/her to, without focusing on what's best for the bigger picture. They'd rather focus on doing what's required to get them voted in again during the next election cycle.

yeah I would say that doing things your constituents don't want isn't really the key to being an effective representative. What you are really saying is that a select group of people who you (and others here) deem worthy of making decisions should be the arbiter of what is acceptable for the lesser folks who aren't qualified to have a say in policy- even if it affects their own neighborhood. You sound like 1960s Penn.

[McBane]

Okay that's it, I'm convinced 1487 works for City Council. How else can anyone explain the constant defense of this awful institution. By your logic, we should have "the people" create policy on healthcare, taxes, roads, everything? Grrrrrrrrr

What others are saying is that neither Council nor city residents are planning experts. Leave city planning to the professionals.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by 1487

How would they be hurt long term? They own their houses- they aren't interested in buying new construction homes in North Philly. Your statement is presumptuous and insulting. The people are too stupid to know whether or not they are unhappy so they look to Clarke for guidance on how to think? Seriously?

I also like how folks are pretending these people in this neighborhood are the first and only to complain about development and parking problems in changing areas. This is not something specific to North Philly or Clarke.

Yes, seriously. And it increases costs for newcomers to the neighborhood. There's a large body of research indicating it increases cost even for existing owners. Obviously, it's not unique to North Philly or Clarke. In fact, that's EXACTLY what I said. It's common in politics. You obviously glossed over that part.

[1487]

Originally Posted by McBane

Okay that's it, I'm convinced 1487 works for City Council. How else can anyone explain the constant defense of this awful institution. By your logic, we should have "the people" create policy on healthcare, taxes, roads, everything? Grrrrrrrrr

What others are saying is that neither Council nor city residents are planning experts. Leave city planning to the professionals.

nothing I said had anything do with city council. I said that people here seem oblivious to the fact that not every city resident or taxpayer sees everything the way they do and if you don't share their views you are stupid, uneducated, and otherwise unfit to have any say in policy. As someone said earlier, people who live near Temple don't understand planning so their opinions on conditions on the ground or policy should be ignored.

And if you have basic understanding of democracy you know that those elected are SUPPOSED to represent the desires and goals of their constituents. City planners do not legislate nor are they accountable to voters.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by 1487

nothing I said had anything do with city council. I said that people here seem oblivious to the fact that not every city resident or taxpayer sees everything the way they do and if you don't share their views you are stupid, uneducated, and otherwise unfit to have any say in policy. As someone said earlier, people who live near Temple don't understand planning so their opinions on conditions on the ground or policy should be ignored.

And if you have basic understanding of democracy you know that those elected are SUPPOSED to represent the desires and goals of their constituents. City planners do not legislate nor are they accountable to voters.

You lack a basic understanding of democracy. Clarke was elected by his constituents to represent their interests, yes. However it is not the job of an elected official to poll his constituents and do whatever they want at all times. Once elected to office, he answers for his own decisions, not his constituents. His constituents have their own jobs. It is not their job to be experts on urban parking policy. It's not necessarily Clarke's job either, but if he wants to legislate parking policy he should either become an expert, or more reasonably, he should use the resources at his fingertips to involve urban parking policy experts in the creation of his legislation. His failure to do that is an act of unforgivable idiocy and hubris.

As far, as his constituents living around Temple go, they have their right to their opinion. They have a right to be concerned about parking and to demand an improvement. However, their proposed solution, to mandate more parking in new construction is not an effective way to deal with the problem they are so concerned about. I'm not saying the people around temple are stupid. I'm saying they don't know how to deal with this problem. And honestly if people have views that are directly opposed by all research and have no basis in fact, then I'm sorry, but those views are stupid and have no place in a reasoned debate on parking policy.

For Clarke to not only allow this unreasoned logic into the debate, but to allow it to dominate the conversation shows Clark to be a terrible politician who is more concerned about perception and the support of his constituents for reelection than his desire to actually solve his constituents problems.

[iheartphilly]

Originally Posted by allovertown

You lack a basic understanding of democracy. Clarke was elected by his constituents to represent their interests, yes. However it is not the job of an elected official to poll his constituents and do whatever they want at all times. Once elected to office, he answers for his own decisions, not his constituents. His constituents have their own jobs. It is not their job to be experts on urban parking policy. It's not necessarily Clarke's job either, but if he wants to legislate parking policy he should either become an expert, or more reasonably, he should use the resources at his fingertips to involve urban parking policy experts in the creation of his legislation. His failure to do that is an act of unforgivable idiocy and hubris.

As far, as his constituents living around Temple go, they have their right to their opinion. They have a right to be concerned about parking and to demand an improvement. However, their proposed solution, to mandate more parking in new construction is not an effective way to deal with the problem they are so concerned about. I'm not saying the people around temple are stupid. I'm saying they don't know how to deal with this problem. And honestly if people have views that are directly opposed by all research and have no basis in fact, then I'm sorry, but those views are stupid and have no place in a reasoned debate on parking policy.

For Clarke to not only allow this unreasoned logic into the debate, but to allow it to dominate the conversation shows Clark to be a terrible politician who is more concerned about perception and the support of his constituents for reelection than his desire to actually solve his constituents problems.

Right. One way to look at the parking situation is analogous to highway congestion. People think that there are not enough lanes on the highway when it is congested all the time. So the common wisdom and thinking is to build more lanes on the highway. Guess what, that doesn't solve the problem. It just brings more vehicles onto the additional lanes. Look for smart solutions, not just solutions that are apparent becuase those usually don't solve the problem but compound it.

[1487]

Originally Posted by allovertown

You lack a basic understanding of democracy. Clarke was elected by his constituents to represent their interests, yes. However it is not the job of an elected official to poll his constituents and do whatever they want at all times. Once elected to office, he answers for his own decisions, not his constituents. His constituents have their own jobs. It is not their job to be experts on urban parking policy. It's not necessarily Clarke's job either, but if he wants to legislate parking policy he should either become an expert, or more reasonably, he should use the resources at his fingertips to involve urban parking policy experts in the creation of his legislation. His failure to do that is an act of unforgivable idiocy and hubris.

As far, as his constituents living around Temple go, they have their right to their opinion. They have a right to be concerned about parking and to demand an improvement. However, their proposed solution, to mandate more parking in new construction is not an effective way to deal with the problem they are so concerned about. I'm not saying the people around temple are stupid. I'm saying they don't know how to deal with this problem. And honestly if people have views that are directly opposed by all research and have no basis in fact, then I'm sorry, but those views are stupid and have no place in a reasoned debate on parking policy.

For Clarke to not only allow this unreasoned logic into the debate, but to allow it to dominate the conversation shows Clark to be a terrible politician who is more concerned about perception and the support of his constituents for reelection than his desire to actually solve his constituents problems.

Politicians (or people posting on forums like this) are almost never experts on all the details of the policies they propose or vote on. So no, you don't need to go to school for urban planning to decide to propose something that is reacting to consistent complaints by your constituents.

Although I see you still haven't done it I suggest you go back and READ the damn planphilly post. You could save keystrokes if you did. If you read it you get the impression Clarke knows he is unlikely to get 100% of what he wants and is essentially pushing hard to force SOME sort of concessions that move the needle his direction. Contrary to your warped and naive view of how things work he is indeed paid to work in behalf of his district and to do what is possible to address their concerns as taxpayers. He is not paid to be a City Planner- we have plenty of those working in city government. The people in that area have an issue and they want some action taken to mitigate what's happening- for any elected official legislation is the primary way to address activity that is currently allowed but is lowering the quality of life of voters.

You folks talking about "research" regarding parking requirements are confused. The people who are complaining are not in the marker for new construction so the claim that "changes in policy are going to make housing more expensive for the people who need help" makes absolutely zero sense. I don't live there and I assume you don't either so I'm not quite understanding how you and others are experts on the merits of these complaints. From what I've read in numerous stories about this area the complaints center around the fact that people moving into the new structures that are built following current parking minimums own cars at a higher clip than anticipated and long time residents are now fighting for on street parking spots that were never in contention before. You are delusional if you think such a scenario would not annoy or frustrate long time residents in any neighborhood. But good luck telling people to settle down and go study sound parking policy so they can realize there is no problem or they should just stop driving.

[1487]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

Right. One way to look at the parking situation is analogous to highway congestion. People think that there are not enough lanes on the highway when it is congested all the time. So the common wisdom and thinking is to build more lanes on the highway. Guess what, that doesn't solve the problem. It just brings more vehicles onto the additional lanes. Look for smart solutions, not just solutions that are apparent becuase those usually don't solve the problem but compound it.

They are not proposing to build parking garages. The crux of the argument is that the ratios need to be bumped up. That's really it. City planners can't control gas prices or other factors that determine how willing people are to drive- that's part of the issue. Public trans use is down, driving is up and gas is probably cheaper than it was 30 years ago adjusted for inflation. So you have a lot more residents in multifamily units having cars than intelligent people would've assumed when the current regulations were crafted.

I've seen tons of criticism of the residents, me, clarke, etc. but no real solutions- other than saying there really isn't a problem. And no, charging EXISTING people a fee for having their cars on the street isn't a fair solution to me.

[iheartphilly]

Originally Posted by 1487

They are not proposing to build parking garages. The crux of the argument is that the ratios need to be bumped up. That's really it. City planners can't control gas prices or other factors that determine how willing people are to drive- that's part of the issue. Public trans use is down, driving is up and gas is probably cheaper than it was 30 years ago adjusted for inflation. So you have a lot more residents in multifamily units having cars than intelligent people would've assumed when the current regulations were crafted.

I've seen tons of criticism of the residents, me, clarke, etc. but no real solutions- other than saying there really isn't a problem. And no, charging EXISTING people a fee for having their cars on the street isn't a fair solution to me.

Agreed that they can't control external factors. But, they can look to experts that have experience with high density planning without the need for more parking or adding more cars to the area. This only will compound the existing problem. Note that Uber and Lyft killed the car sharing business model that was poplular in Philly. The city was devoting exclusive parking for car sharing like the Enterprise vehicles.

[1487]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

Agreed that they can't control external factors. But, they can look to experts that have experience with high density planning without the need for more parking or adding more cars to the area. This only will compound the existing problem. Note that Uber and Lyft killed the car sharing business model that was poplular in Philly. The city was devoting exclusive parking for car sharing like the Enterprise vehicles.

No one has explained how it will compound the existing problem. Don't follow that at all. We are not talking about adding commercial parking here.

The argument is that the development should contain more on site (could be underground) parking relative to what current code allows. If the problem is STREET parking I don't follow your position. It will help keep the problem from getting worse- even if it's not the Planner's dream solution.

carsharing is for people who want to drive themselves occasionally. I don't know that ride hailing has destroyed or eliminated the need for it at all. I don't see much overlap. If I don't own a car but I want to spend the day store hopping or visiting a friend outside of the metro area I don't think uber is really a practical solution.

One solution could be to charge a parking permit fee for anyone who is a student or renter that would discourage them from owning a car. Of course you would need some sort of visible evidence of which cars belong to homeowners.

[summersm343]

For fucks sake. I'm just going to start handing out infractions. I'm tired of asking (what feels like weekly) to end these conversations.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by 1487

No one has explained how it will compound the existing problem. Don't follow that at all. We are not talking about adding commercial parking here.

The argument is that the development should contain more on site (could be underground) parking relative to what current code allows. If the problem is STREET parking I don't follow your position. It will help keep the problem from getting worse- even if it's not the Planner's dream solution.

carsharing is for people who want to drive themselves occasionally. I don't know that ride hailing has destroyed or eliminated the need for it at all. I don't see much overlap. If I don't own a car but I want to spend the day store hopping or visiting a friend outside of the metro area I don't think uber is really a practical solution.

One solution could be to charge a parking permit fee for anyone who is a student or renter that would discourage them from owning a car. Of course you would need some sort of visible evidence of which cars belong to homeowners.

What is indisputable is that imposing parking requirements increases costs to the developer...and those costs are indisputably passed onto the consumer (buyer, renter, whoever).

So what I will say is this. Clark cannot simultaneously complain about lack of affordable housing on one hand and then mandate parking minimums on another. That double speak and inconsistency is what makes him an idiot.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Yes, seriously. And it increases costs for newcomers to the neighborhood. There's a large body of research indicating it increases cost even for existing owners. Obviously, it's not unique to North Philly or Clarke. In fact, that's EXACTLY what I said. It's common in politics. You obviously glossed over that part.

Originally Posted by summersm343

For fucks sake. I'm just going to start handing out infractions. I'm tired of asking (what feels like weekly) to end these conversations.

Maybe just a standalone thread where 1487 can argue with the rest of the forum on things only tangentially related to development? As opposed to in every thread.

[Frontst17]

I feel you certainly can demand affordable housing with parking minimums. May not agree with it but it's then up to the developer how best to do it and still profit. If you can have luxury with parking you can have market rate with parking. And you can also have either without parking. Parking in Philadelphia has been in issue for decades long before Clarke. Much of the city is strictly residential and without convenient access to public transit (not specifically getting to and from CC) many people drive. It's a convenience issue and people who have been dealing with it for decades are going to speak up about it to their councilman/woman. He'll listen if he wants to be reelected. Whether or not it's smart or the best thing for the city or have a pos/neg effect is not the debate. The people will speak and their representatives will represent.

[Justin7]

Originally Posted by 1487

The argument is that the development should contain more on site (could be underground) parking relative to what current code allows.

Are we talking about parking minimums or parking maximums? Honest question from someone who hasn't followed this closely. Parking maximums are pretty damn rare but that is what this quote is stating.

Originally Posted by 1487

One solution could be to charge a parking permit fee for anyone who is a student or renter that would discourage them from owning a car. Of course you would need some sort of visible evidence of which cars belong to homeowners.

Discriminating against students and renters may be "one solution" but it's certainly not a good one.

[1487]

Originally Posted by Justin7

Are we talking about parking minimums or parking maximums? Honest question from someone who hasn't followed this closely. Parking maximums are pretty damn rare but that is what this quote is stating.



Discriminating against students and renters may be "one solution" but it's certainly not a good one.

My understanding is the argument is the minimums need to be increased- i.e. the ratio of cars to units.

That solution may be the most equitable. Especially since most are arguing we should using regulations and fees to drive down car ownership. Honestly, most students on an urban campus do not need a car.

[1487]

Originally Posted by Frontst17

I feel you certainly can demand affordable housing with parking minimums. May not agree with it but it's then up to the developer how best to do it and still profit. If you can have luxury with parking you can have market rate with parking. And you can also have either without parking. Parking in Philadelphia has been in issue for decades long before Clarke. Much of the city is strictly residential and without convenient access to public transit (not specifically getting to and from CC) many people drive. It's a convenience issue and people who have been dealing with it for decades are going to speak up about it to their councilman/woman. He'll listen if he wants to be reelected. Whether or not it's smart or the best thing for the city or have a pos/neg effect is not the debate. The people will speak and their representatives will represent.

true and people who seem to live in and around CC (or at least only hang out in those areas) seem out of touch with the realities of working class neighborhoods. Outside of a few select areas food, drink and retail is not easily accessible by foot or bike. That USED to be different in the old Philadelphia, but those days are long gone. In many areas options within walking distance would include fast food, corner stores, low end goods stores, etc. In my part of the city few use SEPTA and many aren't even that familiar with it.

[Parkway]

Originally Posted by 1487

true and people who seem to live in and around CC (or at least only hang out in those areas) seem out of touch with the realities of working class neighborhoods. Outside of a few select areas food, drink and retail is not easily accessible by foot or bike. That USED to be different in the old Philadelphia, but those days are long gone. In many areas options within walking distance would include fast food, corner stores, low end goods stores, etc. In my part of the city few use SEPTA and many aren't even that familiar with it.

That's the problem, his proposal wouldn't do much to help the parking situation in outlying neighborhoods because most of the development out there is not big enough to trigger the requirement. What this is going to do is make building large buildings more expensive in a market where existing buildings can't even fill their own garages with the current rule.

A compromise on permits could be to require that the vehicle be registered to the address or at least registered in the city. Even if you don't raise the cost of the permit the insurance increase would cause many people to rethink owning a casual car.