PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread IX

[Radio5]

Originally Posted by Londonee

One point. I'm in my mid-30s with a family and generally price "affordability" based on how much a house would cost for a family of three/four who needs ~ 3brs and 2bathrooms - in a minimum of ~1200sf of space. Ya know, like, for living life like real people. And how does that price point change from neighborhood to neighborhood.

No one is saying a 20 something can't shack up with 3 or 4 other people in a 5th floor walkup in Ft. Greene for a relatively affordable price.

The larger discussion about affordability - especially as it relates to Amazon and by extension Philly - is can people make careers in NYC, raise families, afford enough space to do so, have a decent QOL, etc. Affordability isn't just raw access to how many places you can get for $2k/month regardless of quality and condition.

I agree, which is why I said if you're single or a couple. In your case, it's much harder to do. No disagreements there. Doesn't make sense to live there to raise a family unless you're making a 🞵🞵🞵🞵 ton.

[EastSideHBG]

Originally Posted by allovertown

25,000 jobs added spread across like 10 years. the few thousand they add every year would barely register as a blip on New York's radar. I don't think it is ridiculous to question giving so many tax breaks and allowances to the world's richest company, owned by the world's richest man, when you're a city that has no issue at all bringing in jobs.

Amazon looks clueless here. They had this big long contest waving their jobs in front of everyone's faces to get tax breaks, and then they settled in basically the one city in America where no one really gives a 🞵🞵🞵🞵 about adding jobs and is in fact in the midst of a housing crisis with overflowing public transit to the point where there is a significant contingent of people that are openly hostile to adding these tops of jobs in large numbers.

Them opening up a headquarters here, even if it was for less the 25,000 would make all the sense in the world. But then again, based on what they said they wanted, it made 10 times as much sense to come here instead of NYC in the first place, so I'm not optimistic.

Regardless I still think it is good news for Philadelphia. Setting aside whether or not people were smart to fight against Amazon coming to NYC, the very fact that they did and won really demonstrates that the New York is starting to turn a corner in terms of public sentiment. People are getting fed up with the never ending expansion and ever rising costs, clearly. There will still be tons of jobs heading to NYC, but if Amazon couldn't make a go of it, there will be others. If we can just peel off a small percentage of that run off we'll be in good shape.

Originally Posted by skyscraper

Well as I said, it's very revealing. It's like when you know someone cheats on their significant other, then you start dating them thinking "it'll be different when they're with *me*."

Originally Posted by Boku

They've changed this time! I just know it! Lol.

[Capsule F]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

There's a contingent of New Yorkers that already live in Philly for its lower cost of living but take a NYC salary and commute by train to NYC to work. If Amazon was smart, they would have an outpost here. It doesn't have to be the full 25k. It will give them the ability to get the tech folks from NYC to possible re-locate if such outpost exist. A few thousand tech jobs would be very good for the city with the Amazon nameplate attach to it. Then you could see Google follow suit. It's one of those things where we just need one recognizable tech name to attract more.

Amazon will never come here especially now after how stupid our city leadership has become.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-threatens-philadelphia-over-plan-to-ban-cashless-stores/

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by Capsule F

Amazon will never come here especially now after how stupid our city leadership has become.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-threatens-philadelphia-over-plan-to-ban-cashless-stores/

Become? When was it not?

[iheartphilly]

Originally Posted by Capsule F

Amazon will never come here especially now after how stupid our city leadership has become.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-threatens-philadelphia-over-plan-to-ban-cashless-stores/

Yep, if Amazon is petty about this, then it's another childish reason for them to dismiss us in all aspects. But, why should we yield to them to dictate how retail should work. Cash or credit is what people have. Leave it up to them when they make the purchase. I think the city council is doing the right thing here. Some people better budget by taking out cash for the week and spending that in their wallet. It reminds them of what's left. Credits cards not so much when you only know or want to know at the end of the credit cycle. Other reasons is that not everyone has a checking account...hard to believe but that's just it.

Whether Philly gets a second look or not is kind of a different matter. If they want what SY or UCity Square has to offer then they will take a seriously second look regardless of the offense on the cashless store. They are after tax breaks and incentives and tech folks to further their domination. Opening cashless retail store isn't going to give them the kind of growth that is available from online sales. There are 500k different products online and the audience for that is non-comparable to anything except alilbaba in China. What are they going to carry in stores besides convenient things that we can't already get at WaWa, CVS, Walgreens, or the like. There are options in this regard and competition. Brick and mortar retail is not that easy to conquer either.

I'm not holding my breath that Amazon will want to come here in the first place and to scapegoat the reason is these cashless stores...I dunno.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

Yep, if Amazon is petty about this, then it's another childish reason for them to dismiss us in all aspects. But, why should we yield to them to dictate how retail should work. Cash or credit is what people have. Leave it up to them when they make the purchase. I think the city council is doing the right thing here. Some people better budget by taking out cash for the week and spending that in their wallet. It reminds them of what's left. Credits cards not so much when you only know or want to know at the end of the credit cycle. Other reasons is that not everyone has a checking account...hard to believe but that's just it.

Whether Philly gets a second look or not is kind of a different matter. If they want what SY or UCity Square has to offer then they will take a seriously second look regardless of the offense on the cashless store. They are after tax breaks and incentives and tech folks to further their domination. Opening cashless retail store isn't going to give them the kind of growth that is available from online sales. There are 500k different products online and the audience for that is non-comparable to anything except alilbaba in China. What are they going to carry in stores besides convenient things that we can't already get at WaWa, CVS, Walgreens, or the like. There are options in this regard and competition. Brick and mortar retail is not that easy to conquer either.

I'm not holding my breath that Amazon will want to come here in the first place and to scapegoat the reason is these cashless stores...I dunno.

What are you talking about? There is basically a zero percent chance that Amazon puts part of HQ2 in Philly. That's an entirely separate issue from whether Amazon puts some of its many (anticipated 3000) Amazon Go cashierless stores in Philly. I agree that the latter should not be the driving force of whether Kenney should sign this into law. It can be assessed independently. I think it's stupid and should not be passed.

[iheartphilly]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

What are you talking about? There is basically a zero percent chance that Amazon puts part of HQ2 in Philly. That's an entirely separate issue from whether Amazon puts some of its many (anticipated 3000) Amazon Go cashierless stores in Philly. I agree that the latter should not be the driving force of whether Kenney should sign this into law. It can be assessed independently. I think it's stupid and should not be passed.

Yep, basically a zero chance. That's why I said I wasn't holding my breath that they would come.

And, was saying cashless/humanless stores should not be equated to their decision making process about alternate HQ2 location since NYC (Queens) was dropped. That's all.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

Yep, basically a zero chance. That's why I said I wasn't holding my breath that they would come.

And, was saying cashless/humanless stores should not be equated to their decision making process about alternate HQ2 location since NYC (Queens) was dropped. That's all.

Gotcha.

[cardeza]

the entire amazon thing was a joke. A few months ago they "needed" 25k jobs in NYC- now they don't and claim they will make do with the other locations. Complete BS.

[City Wide]

Originally Posted by cardeza

the entire amazon thing was a joke. A few months ago they "needed" 25k jobs in NYC- now they don't and claim they will make do with the other locations. Complete BS.

No one should be surprised. Who knows what Amazon needs, wants or is going to do-----except then is no reason to think they won't continue to try to operate from what they see as a position of near total control and power. Last year they apparently made, as in profit, over $10B but paid no federal tax, and are actually putting in for a refund.
These big piranha companies need to be stopped.
I would have loved to see a influx of 10K to 20K new jobs into the CC area and all the construction and building and new urbaneness that might have come along with those jobs, but not having the power mad Amazon in town might be a blessing of sorts. (and yes, I hardly ever order through Amazon)

[Tatts]

Originally Posted by eixample

Society hill may have been sparsely populated then BUT it is even more sparsely populated now AND with almost zero chance of becoming much more dense in the future. (7,000 in 1950, 6,000 in 2010 - source.) Society Hill is extremely undense considering where it is in a major city, largely because of automotive uses and the desires of a wealthy class that has entrenched its preferred planning style. The neighborhood is not pulling its weight to absorb new population in a growing urban core and anyone who is upset with gentrification in Point Breeze and Kensington (not me really) should lay part of the blame on the Society Hill neighborhood organization. These apartment buildings do a tiny bit to change that (smaller units would do even more).

Society Hill (and Old City, parts of Queen Village, Wash West, Rittenhouse Square, Fairmount) cannot be looked on from that perspective (density), and they can't be accused of NIMBYism in all such matters. The reason is that all of those 2- and 3-story houses in those neighborhoods are the historical fabric of Philadelphia. And the one big thing Philadelphia has to sell is history.

Society Hill is the largest existing bunch of houses of that age in the entire country--hundreds of them. And that draws people here. And that gets the city a lot of publicity and tourism income.

All neighborhoods are not created equal. High rises in Graduate Hospital or would change, but not damage, the neighborhood or the fabric of the city. This city has lots of room to grow; we can do that without damaging the parts that are important to what we are.

Nobody visits Paris to see the high-rises in La Defense.

[eixample]

Originally Posted by Tatts

Society Hill (and Old City, parts of Queen Village, Wash West, Rittenhouse Square, Fairmount) cannot be looked on from that perspective (density), and they can't be accused of NIMBYism in all such matters. The reason is that all of those 2- and 3-story houses in those neighborhoods are the historical fabric of Philadelphia. And the one big thing Philadelphia has to sell is history.

Society Hill is the largest existing bunch of houses of that age in the entire country--hundreds of them. And that draws people here. And that gets the city a lot of publicity and tourism income.

All neighborhoods are not created equal. High rises in Graduate Hospital or would change, but not damage, the neighborhood or the fabric of the city. This city has lots of room to grow; we can do that without damaging the parts that are important to what we are.

Nobody visits Paris to see the high-rises in La Defense.

Rittenhouse does a better job with density than Society Hill. I think Society Hill is a beautiful neighborhood, don't get me wrong and I appreciate the history. But it is a dead zone for retail and doesn't have a great street life. I am not suggesting highrises everywhere but a few four or five story apartment buildings wouldn't hurt anything, particularly around the fringes of the neighborhood. The Acme site on 5th Street being the most obvious example. I also think the neighborhood could have been developed in a signifcantly more dense manner during the urban renewal of the neighborhood in the 50s, 60s, 70s with less space devoted to automobile storage, more small apartment buildings, etc.
Density is not necessarily about high rises as Paris and many other European cities demonstrate - I'm sure Society Hill would compare pretty poorly in a measure of density to Paris.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by Tatts

Society Hill (and Old City, parts of Queen Village, Wash West, Rittenhouse Square, Fairmount) cannot be looked on from that perspective (density), and they can't be accused of NIMBYism in all such matters. The reason is that all of those 2- and 3-story houses in those neighborhoods are the historical fabric of Philadelphia. And the one big thing Philadelphia has to sell is history.

Society Hill is the largest existing bunch of houses of that age in the entire country--hundreds of them. And that draws people here. And that gets the city a lot of publicity and tourism income.

All neighborhoods are not created equal. High rises in Graduate Hospital or would change, but not damage, the neighborhood or the fabric of the city. This city has lots of room to grow; we can do that without damaging the parts that are important to what we are.

Nobody visits Paris to see the high-rises in La Defense.

I agree with you. But here's the thing: no one is proposing to destroy the unique rowhouse neighborhood of Society Hill or to even put tall towers in its core. And it's not zoned for it. Variances would be required. The only proposals have been for towers on the outskirts (e.g. Walnut), where there IS by right zoning, and where there are other towers in the IMMEDIATE vicinity. Towers are eminently appropriate everywhere they have been proposed. And there is no legitimate opposition. It's just NIMBYism and selfish desire to protect pristine views (i.e. from the NIMBYs in Society Hill Towers). Viewshed protection does not exist in Philadelphia except in the case of rare public vistas, like on East Market to protect the view of City Hall from various vantage points. The same for the other neighborhoods you mention. Nor will 4-5 story buildings that are well-designed, on select plots in the core of Society Hill, compromise that neighborhood in any way.

[Justin7]

Originally Posted by Tatts

Society Hill (and Old City, parts of Queen Village, Wash West, Rittenhouse Square, Fairmount) cannot be looked on from that perspective (density), and they can't be accused of NIMBYism in all such matters. The reason is that all of those 2- and 3-story houses in those neighborhoods are the historical fabric of Philadelphia. And the one big thing Philadelphia has to sell is history.

Society Hill is the largest existing bunch of houses of that age in the entire country--hundreds of them. And that draws people here. And that gets the city a lot of publicity and tourism income.

All neighborhoods are not created equal. High rises in Graduate Hospital or would change, but not damage, the neighborhood or the fabric of the city. This city has lots of room to grow; we can do that without damaging the parts that are important to what we are.

Nobody visits Paris to see the high-rises in La Defense.

Strongly disagree with this sentiment. Society Hill isn't preserved, it's stuck in the mid-20th century. It's the heart of Philadelphia NIMBYism. Obviously there are wonderful residential stretches that should not be touched, but towers are absolutely appropriate on Walnut/Dock St. No one visits Philadelphia to see Society Hill and density is one of the most important factors that makes Paris Paris.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by Justin7

Strongly disagree with this sentiment. Society Hill isn't preserved, it's stuck in the mid-20th century. It's the heart of Philadelphia NIMBYism. Obviously there are wonderful residential stretches that should not be touched, but towers are absolutely appropriate on Walnut/Dock St. No one visits Philadelphia to see Society Hill and density is one of the most important factors that makes Paris Paris.

Yes, and 5-story Hausmann-designed buildings are central to that. There is room to incorporate some such buildings even in Society Hill's core. I do support exacting design standards. Not sure if the Historical Commission or Architectural Committee must weigh in on a lot of stretches in this neighborhood, but imagine so, and that's for the better. But reflexively squelching any project over 3 stories is garbage.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by Tatts

Nobody visits Paris to see the high-rises in La Defense.

This is a true statement. But it's also true that Paris does not survive as a city on tourism alone. It needs a healthy business sector.

And the thing about NIMBYs is that they're entirely self interested. It's all about their views, their parking convenience, and their preferences - and only for the brief period of time that they're living in the neighborhood.

They don't care how much revenue the city will bring in from a 30 story high rise vs a 5 story one. They don't care that the population increase helps Philadelphia's political clout. NIMBYs don't care that a building that might have once been opposed is now a beloved icon (City Hall, Liberty Place) or at least an acceptable fabric of the neighborhood (does anyone really miss Rindlaub's Row?). They don't care that the small business owners on the nearest commercial corridor need more customers to live within walking distance. And they really don't care about historical preservation (see the old Please Touch Museum or the debacle at St. Laurentis Church in Fishtown).

Bottom line: zoning laws should reflect what's best for the city as a whole, now and for future generations. These decisions should not be dictated by the preferences of residents who are currently living in a specific neighborhood (as if they'll live forever in their current homes). And what's best for the city should be determined by professional city planners, not politicians who only look as far as the next election.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by McBane

This is a true statement. But it's also true that Paris does not survive as a city on tourism alone. It needs a healthy business sector.

And the thing about NIMBYs is that they're entirely self interested. It's all about their views, their parking convenience, and their preferences - and only for the brief period of time that they're living in the neighborhood.

They don't care how much revenue the city will bring in from a 30 story high rise vs a 5 story one. They don't care that the population increase helps Philadelphia's political clout. NIMBYs don't care that a building that might have once been opposed is now a beloved icon (City Hall, Liberty Place) or at least an acceptable fabric of the neighborhood (does anyone really miss Rindlaub's Row?). They don't care that the small business owners on the nearest commercial corridor need more customers to live within walking distance. And they really don't care about historical preservation (see the old Please Touch Museum or the debacle at St. Laurentis Church in Fishtown).

Bottom line: zoning laws should reflect what's best for the city as a whole, now and for future generations. These decisions should not be dictated by the preferences of residents who are currently living in a specific neighborhood (as if they'll live forever in their current homes). And what's best for the city should be determined by professional city planners, not politicians who only look as far as the next election.

Well-said. i think this articulates it well.

[iheartphilly]

^
Yep, it's not like any of the proposed highrises are abutted next to a georgian rowhome or some other colonial/federal style home in society hill. I think society hill can still maintain its historic charm. And quite frankly, it would be neat to contrast the new (at the fringe) and old (at the core). I mean if Toll can get away with this just because brick veneers were used...SMH, I don't know what the fuss with the NIMBYs are except blocking their views, etc.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/410+S+...4333ba2f9!8m2!3d39.9425268!4d-75.1444138

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Well-said. i think this articulates it well.

Agreed. To add to that, I wish cities and other municipalities hired actual city planners instead of bureaucratic hacks who just take up space. It seems to me that a lot of this takes place. How many of these people actually understand planning law; who does what on a planning commission or zoning hearing board, etc?

On the subject of NIMBYs, that's typically how you have many cities and neighborhood still stick in a time capsule from 20 or 30 years prior. They elect the same people year in and year out who share their shame beliefs and ideas when those beliefs are no longer valid or relevant. They wonder why they're still stuck in neutral while surrounding areas observe the latest trends in terms of development and therefore are moving forward.

I saw this referenced in a fairly recent episode of This is Us when Randal was running for council for the Philly neighborhood where his father used to live. They'd been electing the same guy since 2003; that neighborhood was stuck in 2003...

[Milksteak]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

Agreed. To add to that, I wish cities and other municipalities hired actual city planners instead of bureaucratic hacks who just take up space. It seems to me that a lot of this takes place. How many of these people actually understand planning law; who does what on a planning commission or zoning hearing board, etc?

On the subject of NIMBYs, that's typically how you have many cities and neighborhood still stick in a time capsule from 20 or 30 years prior. They elect the same people year in and year out who share their shame beliefs and ideas when those beliefs are no longer valid or relevant. They wonder why they're still stuck in neutral while surrounding areas observe the latest trends in terms of development and therefore are moving forward.

I saw this referenced in a fairly recent episode of This is Us when Randal was running for council for the Philly neighborhood where his father used to live. They'd been electing the same guy since 2003; that neighborhood was stuck in 2003...

I live near a small borough with a ridiculous councilperson/population ratio and have witnessed firsthand what happens when you have too many cooks in the kitchen (or more importantly, what doesn't happen). The borough is in a good school district and residential housing seems more or less healthy...but the commercial district is in shambles. The roads are falling apart, there are very few businesses outside of light industrial businesses that would actually attract people to visit (restaurants, bars, shops, cafes, markets, etc.), and nothing has changed in the 5 years I have lived here (and if I were to guess, the 35 years before I moved here). Every time a change is proposed, the classic traffic argument is brought up, and everything gets so severely delayed or 1 councilperson vetoes that with literally every proposal I have seen, the developer has called it quits or the business that was going to move in has pulled out. I've attended town meetings, and it truly seems like an exercise in futility...so I just throw my hands up and ask myself if this is a place I actually want to be in the next 5 years. I wish I were as driven as Randall Pearson haha.