PHILADELPHIA | Schuylkill Yards Future Phases | 1,095 - 375 FT | 70 - 28 FLOORS

[Boku]

https://twitter.com/SchuylkillYards/status/1095340523156459520

[McBane]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

1.5 MILLION square feet in the PIPELINE?

That to me sounds super encouraging. There have to be a number of major players who have informally committed to space...I would assume if that number is real, it's new entrants to the market from either other regions or the suburbs (or both).

I hope so. I don't want to see musical chairs with office space, but rather real growth. Could you imagine if SY became our new CBD and all those West Market office buildings became hotels and condos?

[Nova08]

Originally Posted by McBane

I hope so. I don't want to see musical chairs with office space, but rather real growth. Could you imagine if SY became our new CBD and all those West Market office buildings became hotels and condos?

Or there is enough commercial growth that the CBD extends from City Hall to 38th. It would be great to get more residential activity on West Market, but that is a ton of space. We need far more jobs.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by Nova08

Or there is enough commercial growth that the CBD extends from City Hall to 38th. It would be great to get more residential activity on West Market, but that is a ton of space. We need far more jobs.

And West Market is not really that desirable a street to live on. There will always be takers, but I wouldn't want to live there and many agree. Mixed use, or more of it would be good, but I see more apartments than condo development on that street (Murano notwithstanding). On your point of jobs and commercial development (new construction), here's a good article on why we're not seeing more and what needs to happen for that to change: https://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia...les-price-for-philadelphias-bny.amp.html

[mcgrath618]

They've begun pouring the whole western side of the park, closest to the Bulletin building

[iheartphilly]

Originally Posted by mcgrath618

They've begun pouring the whole western side of the park, closest to the Bulletin building

Pic? Not sure if they haven't uploaded yet. Can't wait for the redwoods? to be planted. I like trees what can I say.

[mcgrath618]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

Pic? Not sure if they haven't uploaded yet. Can't wait for the redwoods? to be planted. I like trees what can I say.

I'll try and get one tomorrow after one of my classes.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

And West Market is not really that desirable a street to live on. There will always be takers, but I wouldn't want to live there and many agree. Mixed use, or more of it would be good, but I see more apartments than condo development on that street (Murano notwithstanding). On your point of jobs and commercial development (new construction), here's a good article on why we're not seeing more and what needs to happen for that to change: https://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia...les-price-for-philadelphias-bny.amp.html

It's doubtful West Market will ever be truly mixed use; more like office towers east of 19th and residential west of 19th. Unless, firms leave en mass to SY. To be honest, I'm okay with West Market and JFK being dominated by office buildings. Developers really can't build tall office buildings anywhere else in Center City (because of NIMBYs).

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by McBane

It's doubtful West Market will ever be truly mixed use; more like office towers east of 19th and residential west of 19th. Unless, firms leave en mass to SY. To be honest, I'm okay with West Market and JFK being dominated by office buildings. Developers really can't build tall office buildings anywhere else in Center City (because of NIMBYs).

I'd like to see one tower at Centre Square and Morgan Lewis's building at 17th and Market get renovated and go residential. And Brandywine to do a nice mixed use building at 2100 Market. That would be residential/mixed use enough with the Murano, Trader Joe's Building and building with the wine store all being residential or partially residential. And it would get some further East and closer to City Hall. Centre Square is eventually going to need to be renovated extensively anyway. Place is a dump.

[McBane]

But here's what I don't get. Virtually all other areas of Center City are overwhelmingly residential. And developers aren't wedging office towers along Walnut or Chestnut. And the few office buildings on these streets are prime candidates for residential conversion. So if we've established that most of Center City is residential, why would we want our CBD to have more residential? Why do we have to shove more residential buildings in the one place where office is dominant? No one is talking about building office buildings along Broad Street, Walnut, Chestnut, etc. in a bid to make those areas more mixed use.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by McBane

But here's what I don't get. Virtually all other areas of Center City are overwhelmingly residential. And developers aren't wedging office towers along Walnut or Chestnut. And the few office buildings on these streets are prime candidates for residential conversion. So if we've established that most of Center City is residential, why would we want our CBD to have more residential? Why do we have to shove more residential buildings in the one place where office is dominant? No one is talking about building office buildings along Broad Street, Walnut, Chestnut, etc. in a bid to make those areas more mixed use.

Because commercial only districts suck and are dead and lifeless. They are going by the wayside in most top cities. Practically gone in New York, with the attendant benefits in restaurants and retail and life past 5:00 p.m., which even office workers enjoy (but cannot alone sustain). Midtown Manhattan increasingly has condo and apartment towers mixed in. Unsurprisingly, new developments, like Schuylkill Yards, are planned as a smorgasboard of residential, office, research, and retail development in immediate proximity of each other. Hell, Hudson Yards is. So is Chicago's Lincoln Yards. But yes, we are probably not there yet to make this happen on West Market.

[McBane]

I get that, JFK and West Market are incredibly dull. I guess my issue is that we'd only get to see residential buildings go up in the office district but not office buildings going up in residential areas.

Say we had an office boom, would residents of Rittenhouse and Washington Square, etc. agree to tall office buildings in their neighborhoods? We saw the CCRA fight 1911 Walnut because 600 feet - the height of a modest office tower - was too tall. We know the LSNA is concerned about the Comcast campus encroaching their neighborhood.

So you can certainly remake the CBD into a mixed use neighborhood but it would be challenging to incorporate more office towers in neighborhoods that are primarily residential. It's not that I think it's a bad idea, just that's it's not realistic to expect a true two way exchange.

Of course, this all academic. But it's fun to discuss!

[McBane]

I should probably point out that I'm still okay with the inevitable - Market West getting increasingly residential. As long as the area continues to develop tall buildings and improve its westernmost end, I'm happy, even if the majority are shorter residential buildings. I just wouldn't argue that mixed use is superior than strictly commercial in this particular area.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by McBane

I get that, JFK and West Market are incredibly dull. I guess my issue is that we'd only get to see residential buildings go up in the office district but not office buildings going up in residential areas.

Say we had an office boom, would residents of Rittenhouse and Washington Square, etc. agree to tall office buildings in their neighborhoods? We saw the CCRA fight 1911 Walnut because 600 feet - the height of a modest office tower - was too tall. We know the LSNA is concerned about the Comcast campus encroaching their neighborhood.

So you can certainly remake the CBD into a mixed use neighborhood but it would be challenging to incorporate more office towers in neighborhoods that are primarily residential. It's not that I think it's a bad idea, just that's it's not realistic to expect a true two way exchange.

Of course, this all academic. But it's fun to discuss!

I think it's realistic. Residential districts with good restaurants and retail and cultural institutions don't need office and commercial buildings. They already have built-in vibrancy. It doesn't mean there can't be some tall buildings, though. 1911 Walnut is an example. There will always be people that complain about height, but most of the complaints were about its design, preservation, and other issues that were addressed through compromise. If there was a shortage of space for commercial buildings, it'd be one thing. But I don't see that in Philly anytime soon without encroaching primarily residential neighborhoods.

[iheartphilly]

if you can get more people to live and work in the city, that's the best case for more residential building construction notwithstanding organic job growth. think of the all the commuters coming in from the regional rail to their jobs everyday but leave at the end of the day to go back home. again, i still think schools are the biggest thing holding the growth of residents, aside from those without children wanting to live and wok in the city. most of the people coming in from the suburbs by rail have families with kids in public school, and the top 10 school districts are in the burbs of philly. And then you could see an explosion of new commercial spaces for dance schools, karate school, gymnastics, any and all activities that can be done indoors during the winter months or other uses when the weather is conducive for outdoor extracurricular activities. this then further perpetuates other types of businesses like retail that more families will use. in NYC you have a high-rise that is residential, then you have below that a school, daycare, and some other business all under one roof. does philly have this kind of set up? I haven't heard that we do.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

if you can get more people to live and work in the city, that's the best case for more residential building construction notwithstanding organic job growth. think of the all the commuters coming in from the regional rail to their jobs everyday but leave at the end of the day to go back home. again, i still think schools are the biggest thing holding the growth of residents, aside from those without children wanting to live and wok in the city. most of the people coming in from the suburbs by rail have families with kids in public school, and the top 10 school districts are in the burbs of philly. And then you could see an explosion of new commercial spaces for dance schools, karate school, gymnastics, any and all activities that can be done indoors during the winter months or other uses when the weather is conducive for outdoor extracurricular activities. this then further perpetuates other types of businesses like retail that more families will use. in NYC you have a high-rise that is residential, then you have below that a school, daycare, and some other business all under one roof. does philly have this kind of set up? I haven't heard that we do.

It's getting far away from Schuylkill Yards, I guess. But it's a very interesting and fraught topic that has a lot of chicken and egg to it. How do you get the schools to a level where middle-class parents, will en masse, feel comfortable sending their kids? And can you ever do it without getting that critical mass of middle class families in the first place? In which case... http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2013/06/middle_class_pa.html https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/ny/2018/...-weve-skipped-our-local-schools-for-now/
https://shelterforce.org/2016/02/04/gentrification_and_public_schools_its_complicated/ https://www.edutopia.org/parents-activism-urban-public-schools
file:///C:/Users/16105/Downloads/Posey-Maddox_et_al-2014-Sociology_Compasscopy.pdf

[iheartphilly]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

It's getting far away from Schuylkill Yards, I guess. But it's a very interesting and fraught topic that has a lot of chicken and egg to it. How do you get the schools to a level where middle-class parents, will en masse, feel comfortable sending their kids? And can you ever do it without getting that critical mass of middle class families in the first place? In which case... http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2013/06/middle_class_pa.html https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/ny/2018/...-weve-skipped-our-local-schools-for-now/
https://shelterforce.org/2016/02/04/gentrification_and_public_schools_its_complicated/ https://www.edutopia.org/parents-activism-urban-public-schools
file:///C:/Users/16105/Downloads/Posey-Maddox_et_al-2014-Sociology_Compasscopy.pdf

I don't mean to derail the discussion into schools. But, a lot of tough issues most big city schools, including philly have to overcome to compete with say top 10 suburb school districts that are usually in above average income counties that are ranked high on various metrics. This usually means parents place a higher value on education and are willing to support their kids (and in some instances have the means to pay for tutors or enrichment programs, etc) in every way in succeeding both academically and being involved in extracurricular activities like sports or academic/art clubs. I'm sure some of the forumers here have kids in the philly school district and they can voice their likes/dislikes or what works and doesn't work, how to improve, etc. It's no secret that the tax schemes as a lot of us voice prohibits additional business growth or that underperforming schools for a plethora of reasons hinder philly's family growth in population. I'm curious about your insight into all the articles you linked. I skimmed a few but not all.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

I don't mean to derail the discussion into schools. But, a lot of tough issues most big city schools, including philly have to overcome to compete with say top 10 suburb school districts that are usually in above average income counties that are ranked high on various metrics. This usually means parents place a higher value on education and are willing to support their kids (and in some instances have the means to pay for tutors or enrichment programs, etc) in every way in succeeding both academically and being involved in extracurricular activities like sports or academic/art clubs. I'm sure some of the forumers here have kids in the philly school district and they can voice their likes/dislikes or what works and doesn't work, how to improve, etc. It's no secret that the tax schemes as a lot of us voice prohibits additional business growth or that underperforming schools for a plethora of reasons hinder philly's family growth in population. I'm curious about your insight into all the articles you linked. I skimmed a few but not all.

Well, me personally, I wouldn’t send my kids (not yet school age) to public high school in Philly. Much like the middle class black family in one of the articles and for many of the same reasons (even though we are white). Elementary and middle at Greenfield or Penn Alexander, yes. But not all the way through. And I recognize that we may be “part of the problem” in this respect. And that a lot of the challenges may not be real problems when the kids are well-resourced and given the home care and support (fiscal, emotional, and otherwise) they need. But it’s just not a leap my family is comfortable taking. We might stay here anyway as we really like the city and can afford private school. But a lot of people can’t or won’f make that decision. Or maybe by the time kids are that age, our views will have changed. Or the City will have. Who knows.

Of course, not everyone has this discomfort either. A lot has to do with upbringing and your own parents and social group, your spouse’s, etc...

[PHL10]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Well, me personally, I wouldn’t send my kids (not yet school age) to public high school in Philly. Much like the middle class black family in one of the articles and for many of the same reasons (even though we are white). Elementary and middle at Greenfield or Penn Alexander, yes. But not all the way through.

Parents in your boat are sending their kids to Masterman, Central, or going the Charter route for High School.

It's a complicated subject but what’s happening now is that these public schools are improving organically and at a grass roots level. At first, only the more adventurous parents would put their kid in a school but as word gets around, more and more kids start going as these yuppy offspring become school aged (and don’t move to the burbs or go to private/catholic /charter). About 10 years ago, I believe Greenfield (22nd and Chestnut) was only about half in-catchment kids, now it’s full. Meredith (Queen Village) and McCall (Society Hill) are also solid. Jackson and Chester Arthur are on a major upswing in South Philadelphia by the same mechanism just to name a couple. It’s gotten to the point that controversy like this is starting to brew.

https://thenotebook.org/articles/2019/01/15/opinion-all-schools-and-all-students-need-libraries/


In any case, the mechanism is that the gentrifies are a key component in bringing about the changes in the school as opposed to the schools improving due to-down measures from the District.

[Boku]

Anyhoo, can't wait to see those redwoods!