PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread IX

[Parkway]

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.

Except that there is a limit to how much people are willing to pay for rent in Philadelphia. Additional parking and an affordability requirement may push rents past that point and if it does developers simply won't build. What I don't think Clarke understands is that this isn't a win, developers not building is not going to stop young people, empty nesters, and immigrants from moving to Philadelphia. It's going to put an incredible amount of pressure and the existing housing stock throughout the city. Unfortunately granny with her fixed income is not going to be able to compete financially with millennial or immigrant households where 4 people have full time jobs.

[1487]

Originally Posted by Parkway

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.

most outlying neighborhoods aren't part of the equation. These issues aren't issues in built out parts of town. There is virtually no new construction in most of the city- including where I live. Not many large buildings are going up in the area in question so I think this specifically relates to the multi-apt 3-4 story buildings going up to aim for temple students. Adding parking (especially underground) will make prices higher. Not sure that is really going to stop developers from catering to students who are already overpaying for housing. When you consider the short term nature of students and the fact that in many cases they aren't spending their own money I don't know that a few more dollars a month will really deter them from living in brand new rental housing.

[1487]

Originally Posted by Parkway

Except that there is a limit to how much people are willing to pay for rent in Philadelphia. Additional parking and an affordability requirement may push rents past that point and if it does developers simply won't build. What I don't think Clarke understands is that this isn't a win, developers not building is not going to stop young people, empty nesters, and immigrants from moving to Philadelphia. It's going to put an incredible amount of pressure and the existing housing stock throughout the city. Unfortunately granny with her fixed income is not going to be able to compete financially with millennial or immigrant households where 4 people have full time jobs.

rents are already high on new construction in philly. The idea that adding a few parking spots is going to drastically change the equation is questionable at best. And as I've said 2 or 3 times- the long time residents who are complaining aren't interested in buying or renting any new construction so the fact that new buildings (built after zoning change) will be a bit more overpriced isn't really relevant to them. No low or moderate income renter is considering any of these overpriced, stucco and metal panel specials going up near Temple. In fact, regular working city dwellers aren't even living in these places- not in that area at least.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by 1487

rents are already high on new construction in philly. The idea that adding a few parking spots is going to drastically change the equation is questionable at best. And as I've said 2 or 3 times- the long time residents who are complaining aren't interested in buying or renting any new construction so the fact that new buildings (built after zoning change) will be a bit more overpriced isn't really relevant to them. No low or moderate income renter is considering any of these overpriced, stucco and metal panel specials going up near Temple. In fact, regular working city dwellers aren't even living in these places- not in that area at least.

So a ten unit building that previously needed to find room for 3 parking spaces now needs to find room for 6 parking spaces. Most 10 unit apartment buildings in this area already tend to have the majority of the first floor devoted to parking, how the hell are they going to find the room for 3 more spots? Underground parking? Yea, that wont' drastically change the equation of the construction of these buildings. Are you serious?

This bill literally specifically mandates extra parking on commercial corridors like E Passyunk and Frankford Ave. It's — terrible. WHY THE — ARE YOU DEFENDING IT FOR 5 PAGES? Even if you honestly believe it's good in your heart of hearts, just give up, christ.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by allovertown

So a ten unit building that previously needed to find room for 3 parking spaces now needs to find room for 6 parking spaces. Most 10 unit apartment buildings in this area already tend to have the majority of the first floor devoted to parking, how the hell are they going to find the room for 3 more spots? Underground parking? Yea, that wont' drastically change the equation of the construction of these buildings. Are you serious?

This bill literally specifically mandates extra parking on commercial corridors like E Passyunk and Frankford Ave. It's — terrible. WHY THE — ARE YOU DEFENDING IT FOR 5 PAGES? Even if you honestly believe it's good in your heart of hearts, just give up, christ.

Can EVERYONE just stop talking about this? Summersm is too kind...people on the New York skyscraper page have been suspended for far less. And people need to stop engaging with 1487 on stupid —. I pledge to from this moment on. One response where he/she takes it a tangential or irrelevant direction and I'm done responding. I suggest everyone do the same...

[Justin7]

Originally Posted by 1487

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

OK, but what you wrote was:

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.

Current code does in fact allow more parking if developers choose to build more parking. The question is whether or not they should be forced to include more parking.

You're of course entitled to your opinion, but maybe try to be clearer with your statements. At best you're making an honest mistake. Or perhaps you're being intentionally misleading.

It's my opinion that parking minimums should be entirely eliminated. If someone wants to buy a unit without parking why should that person be forced to pay for it and why should builders be forced to provide it?

On street parking is not a right. Nor should it be.

[1487]

Originally Posted by allovertown

So a ten unit building that previously needed to find room for 3 parking spaces now needs to find room for 6 parking spaces. Most 10 unit apartment buildings in this area already tend to have the majority of the first floor devoted to parking, how the hell are they going to find the room for 3 more spots? Underground parking? Yea, that wont' drastically change the equation of the construction of these buildings. Are you serious?

This bill literally specifically mandates extra parking on commercial corridors like E Passyunk and Frankford Ave. It's — terrible. WHY THE — ARE YOU DEFENDING IT FOR 5 PAGES? Even if you honestly believe it's good in your heart of hearts, just give up, christ.

what bill has been written, voted on and passed? Let me know. I didn't advocate for any specific bill. Reading is fundamental. Since you are on top of every thing I post go back and read where I said my theory is that whatever Clarke is talking about is a starting point- he said as much in the PlanPhilly article that smart people like yourself can't seem to read or comprehend. So there is no final bill to be debating. Not rocket science here- not to me at least.

[City Wide]

Originally Posted by allovertown

So a ten unit building that previously needed to find room for 3 parking spaces now needs to find room for 6 parking spaces. Most 10 unit apartment buildings in this area already tend to have the majority of the first floor devoted to parking, how the hell are they going to find the room for 3 more spots? Underground parking? Yea, that wont' drastically change the equation of the construction of these buildings. Are you serious?

This bill literally specifically mandates extra parking on commercial corridors like E Passyunk and Frankford Ave. It's — terrible. WHY THE — ARE YOU DEFENDING IT FOR 5 PAGES? Even if you honestly believe it's good in your heart of hearts, just give up, christ.

Stop making sense!

One factor in the parking battles that doesn't get any air time is that in the same way that parking creates the need for even more parking, more parking creates more cars which get driven which creates traffic and more wear and tear on the city streets, more pollution, etc.

Not that its easy to do, but if the City worked very hard for a long time at getting rid of cars and were even slightly successful, parking wouldn't be such a battle.

In the meantime the City has to realize and acknowledge that if the neighborhoods were ever able to have enough easy, free, on street parking to satisfy most people, the neighborhoods would have to change radically. Who wants a neighborhood full of curb cuts, parking lots and first floors only for cars? That kind of change happens a little bit at a time, but after 10 years or so, it adds up to being a big change. Its got to stop.

[1487]

Originally Posted by Justin7

OK, but what you wrote was:



Current code does in fact allow more parking if developers choose to build more parking. The question is whether or not they should be forced to include more parking.

You're of course entitled to your opinion, but maybe try to be clearer with your statements. At best you're making an honest mistake. Or perhaps you're being intentionally misleading.

It's my opinion that parking minimums should be entirely eliminated. If someone wants to buy a unit without parking why should that person be forced to pay for it and why should builders be forced to provide it?

On street parking is not a right. Nor should it be.

Not sure how much clearer I can be- the position is that the minimum ratios should be RAISED. I.e. made higher. Like more parking space per unit vs current minimums.

Who said on street parking isn't a right? I mean until like 5 years ago such an idea was probably rarely expressed. Even if that be the case your statement in itself does nothing to solve the issue at hand. Again- people pay taxes and have lived in an area for years- now they have an issue that didn't exist and causes inconvenience (especially for older people) and what they are looking for is some mitigation of the issue- not urban planning platitudes. Not sure how telling people "sorry, parking isnt a right and thus your problem isn't really a problem" gets anything done. Especially when the parking squeeze is caused by transient students who pay minimal taxes to the city. Anyone pretending they wouldn't be annoyed or pissed off just because they are slaves to urban design principles is being duplicitous. Give me a break. This is classic "it's not a problem because it doesn't affect me". Nothing more.

The area in question is experiencing a building boom for student housing. So no I'm really not that concerned about the fact that adding a space or two within the property will drive up the inflated rent a little more.

Anyone pretending that there is ANY possibility that there will be a blanket zoning change that will apply to the entire city needs to stop. We all know that won't happen. My guess is what comes out of this is some sort of overlay for areas near Temple and Drexel that adjusts the formula.

If less cars is the goal than punitive parking permit fees for students should be created.

[1487]

Originally Posted by City Wide

Stop making sense!

One factor in the parking battles that doesn't get any air time is that in the same way that parking creates the need for even more parking, more parking creates more cars which get driven which creates traffic and more wear and tear on the city streets, more pollution, etc.

Not that its easy to do, but if the City worked very hard for a long time at getting rid of cars and were even slightly successful, parking wouldn't be such a battle.

In the meantime the City has to realize and acknowledge that if the neighborhoods were ever able to have enough easy, free, on street parking to satisfy most people, the neighborhoods would have to change radically. Who wants a neighborhood full of curb cuts, parking lots and first floors only for cars? That kind of change happens a little bit at a time, but after 10 years or so, it adds up to being a big change. Its got to stop.

In much of the city (esp NW and NE) there is plenty of on street parking because there is plenty of off street parking. Lack of free parking isn't an issue in most of Philly.

This city can and has accommodated 2.1M people. We are a long way from being choked with cars.

What I've noticed with the anti car, new urbanist types is that they feel they can determine who should and shouldnt' have a car based on where you live. No regard for realties, no regard for personal freedom to own a car or neighborhood history. So if an area is within reach of CC and has a bus route people shouldn't have a car and those that do are just stubborn, ignorant and in need of replacement by more enlightened residents. If 50-60% of Philadelphians work in the suburbs you can damn sure bet the same % either has or WISH they had a car. The people that reverse commute via SEPTA are generally doing so because they don't have a car. When large swaths of the city do not have grocery stores or retail in their specific neighborhoods anyone who can afford a car has one for the sake of quality of life.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by 1487

what bill has been written, voted on and passed? Let me know. I didn't advocate for any specific bill. Reading is fundamental. Since you are on top of every thing I post go back and read where I said my theory is that whatever Clarke is talking about is a starting point- he said as much in the PlanPhilly article that smart people like yourself can't seem to read or comprehend. So there is no final bill to be debating. Not rocket science here- not to me at least.

So... you're basically conceding the bill is stupid. But because it is not yet a final bill and because it's just a starting point, no one should criticize it? Do you realize how insane that sounds?

Listen, when my politicians are making a bill, I would appreciate it if they don't start with a stupid proposal and then compromise toward a bill that is somewhere between stupid and where we started. And if the President of the City Council of my city proposes a bill, I and everyone else here is well within our rights to criticize it!

I get that it is harder for granny to find a parking spot in some neighborhoods and that's no good. But you have to think logically about these problems. Studies show that forcing new buildings to be built with more parking spots just encourages more of the people who live within that building to live with cars, and that effect combined with the loss of spot with a curb cut often means that these types of buildings with more parking only WORSEN parking problems.

That doesn't even get into how damaging and less walkable the streetscape becomes when suddenly every building has a garage or a driveway. Philadelphia can't be all things to all people, for us to succeed as a city we need to embrace what makes us unique and great, and that is our dense walkable urban fabric, and I mean that even in the not so ritzy far flung neighborhoods. I grew up in Haddington and no one in my family ever had car growing up!

You have to understand that implementing these types of law has a real impact on construction and real estate, which has a real impact on this city's finances. You can pass laws like these, but what you're doing is basically subsidizing parking spots. So not only do you have to weigh if stuff like this actually works, you have to really think about what you would rather do, make it easier for people to park, or spend more money on education, public transit, etc. This is a zero sum game.

Darrell Clarke's proposal was terrible, anti-urban and ill-informed. Starting point or final bill, it's terrible and worthy of ridicule. If you disagree, then fine, say your piece. But you don't have keep going on and on for 5 pages.

To everyone else, I know I'm contributing to the problem by even responding to this guy. I'm sorry but he's impossible to ignore. I had him on my ignore list but everyone responds to him so he still manages to dominate the conversation. It's just incredibly annoying to come here for updates and just see this BS all the time. After this though, I'm finished with this topic.

[1487]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Can EVERYONE just stop talking about this? Summersm is too kind...people on the New York skyscraper page have been suspended for far less. And people need to stop engaging with 1487 on stupid —. I pledge to from this moment on. One response where he/she takes it a tangential or irrelevant direction and I'm done responding. I suggest everyone do the same...

how is it stupid? People are talking about parking and effects on development. You can't handle THAT? Really? —

[1487]

Originally Posted by allovertown

So... you're basically conceding the bill is stupid. But because it is not yet a final bill and because it's just a starting point, no one should criticize it? Do you realize how insane that sounds?

Listen, when my politicians are making a bill, I would appreciate it if they don't start with a stupid proposal and then compromise toward a bill that is somewhere between stupid and where we started. And if the President of the City Council of my city proposes a bill, I and everyone else here is well within our rights to criticize it!

I get that it is harder for granny to find a parking spot in some neighborhoods and that's no good. But you have to think logically about these problems. Studies show that forcing new buildings to be built with more parking spots just encourages more of the people who live within that building to live with cars, and that effect combined with the loss of spot with a curb cut often means that these types of buildings with more parking only WORSEN parking problems.

That doesn't even get into how damaging and less walkable the streetscape becomes when suddenly every building has a garage or a driveway. Philadelphia can't be all things to all people, for us to succeed as a city we need to embrace what makes us unique and great, and that is our dense walkable urban fabric, and I mean that even in the not so ritzy far flung neighborhoods. I grew up in Haddington and no one in my family ever had car growing up!

You have to understand that implementing these types of law has a real impact on construction and real estate, which has a real impact on this city's finances. You can pass laws like these, but what you're doing is basically subsidizing parking spots. So not only do you have to weigh if stuff like this actually works, you have to really think about what you would rather do, make it easier for people to park, or spend more money on education, public transit, etc. This is a zero sum game.

Darrell Clarke's proposal was terrible, anti-urban and ill-informed. Starting point or final bill, it's terrible and worthy of ridicule. If you disagree, then fine, say your piece. But you don't have keep going on and on for 5 pages.

To everyone else, I know I'm contributing to the problem by even responding to this guy. I'm sorry but he's impossible to ignore. I had him on my ignore list but everyone responds to him so he still manages to dominate the conversation. It's just incredibly annoying to come here for updates and just see this BS all the time. After this though, I'm finished with this topic.

Good. And hopefully one day you will grasp that not everyone in Philadelphia agrees with you on every aspect of urban life. If you could get that you would do well. I'm a honestly stunned by how insular, arrogant and condescending some people are. But it comes from lack of exposure to people who don't live as you do or think in lockstep with your views.

Politics is about compromise. A proposal that pleases some but doesn't please you isn't "stupid"- it's just something you don't agree with. Negotiations are how things get done legislatively. Few bills are going to pass with no modifications so the chances of Clarke getting a zoning amendment passed exactly as he initially proposed as slim to none. But yeah he is "stupid" for proposing something that likely aligns with what his constituents would want to see.

[jjv007]

Can we stop getting so upset about the conversations here? Most of the debate is development-related somewhat so if someone doesn't want to be a part they can just ignore. I say this as someone who doesn't engage in these long back and forths. We're not missing out on any development-related info due to this. It's not like there's a whole lot anyway at this time.

[Frontst17]

I'm actually enjoying this back and forth because it perfectly spells out the environment in the city right now. You don't have to disagree with someone because of their username. 1487 is correct about a lot of this. I'm in a new neighborhood almost everyday and I talk to dozens of people rich, poor, white, black, doesn't matter a lot of them have the same issues with development and new residents. Older residents or "old philly" are very involved with their community issues and "new philly" residents are much less involved. One thing I notice almost everyone has a cone to protect their parking it's a huge issue for a lot of people. Many "old" philadelphians work shop eat outside the city and rarely venture downtown. Conversely many "new" philadelphians work shop eat almost exclusively downtown. One is never going to convince the other that their way is right or better. No one wants a car centric, parking spot overloaded city, however these issues are only going to become louder as the outer or "fringe" neighborhoods become more developed. The worst possible thing is to say no you're wrong that's stupid because a lot of long time residents are already ready to up and move.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by 1487

how is it stupid? People are talking about parking and effects on development. You can't handle THAT? Really? —

I can handle it. Indeed, I sometimes participate. It would be best if the Highrise Thread is for specific highrise info and the lowrise for general lowrise projects. There can be a separate thread for public policy debate and discussion of regulation, taxes, and whatever else in that vein that's not project-specific. Would be better. Not sure how that would be created, though. It's up to summers and other mods and admin to decide whether and how to implement this.

[Sgalla04]

Originally Posted by 1487

If 50-60% of Philadelphians work in the suburbs you can damn sure bet the same % either has or WISH they had a car. The people that reverse commute via SEPTA are generally doing so because they don't have a car.

I reverse commute via SEPTA and own a car, which remains parked at a SEPTA parking lot year round (10 min. drive to work from the station). I choose not to drive directly to work because of the horrible traffic and knowing I can work on the train instead of limiting myself to only listening to music and/or road rage.

I haven't needed a car the past 3 years and have no regrets. I've only driven and parked overnight in the city on 3 occasions since moving to Center City. Either take SEPTA to other areas on the weekend or drive my car to the mountains, shore, etc. after work.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Considering that at least 14 out of 20 posts on the prior page were dedicated to complaining about each other's opinions, it's not a matter of "getting upset" about or not being able to "handle" the posts. It's just a waste of time to even scroll past.

[summersm343]

Report: Philly’s housing inventory has hit an all-time low

Read more here: https://philly.curbed.com/2017/7/20/16003508/philadelphia-housing-inventory-low-real-estate

[summersm343]

Half empty, 3535 Market to undergo $40M renovation

The owner of 3535 Market St. plans a $40 million redevelopment of the 435,000-square-foot medical office building in University City.

The 18-story building has become nearly half empty as a result of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia vacating 226,089 square feet of space when it relocated to a newly constructed office tower along Schuylkill Avenue. The University of Pennsylvania Health System is a long-term tenant in the remainder of the space at 3535 Market.

Built in 1973, the building is dated and, with lots of empty space, the owner of the building decided that an extensive renovation is warranted in order to attract tenants that have new options at the Science Center. Just about everything — from the lobby to new thermal pane windows — will get redone at 3535 Market.

“It’s a pretty extensive renovation,” said Nick Gersbach, who along with Kevin Maloney of CBRE Inc. are trying to release the vacant space.

The building was originally constructed for the General Services Administration. In 2006, ProMed Properties bought it for about $110 million. In August 2014, ProMed Properties sold the building to its current owner, HCP Inc., for $140.6 million. The property was the company’s first acquisition in Philadelphia. A year later, it bought 833 Chestnut St., a 705,000-square-foot building for $161 million.

The company, which focuses on medical office buildings, is a long-term holder of its real estate and is looking to add to its local holdings. When it bought the 3535 Market, it was aware CHOP would be departing from the property.

“We assumed we would eventually have to do a major repositioning of the building,” said Billy May, director of asset management at HCP. “We can’t make a new building but want to get as close to market as possible.”

https://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia...35-market-to-undergo-40m-renovation.html