Quote:
Originally Posted by PHLtoNYC
|
The 10 year tax abatement has nothing at all to do with demolition of historic structures. These would’ve been demolished either way, it’s just that developers are rushing to do it more quickly now than they would’ve been if the abatement kept going unaltered. More of Inga completely missing the point, but having the right heart.
I don’t disagree with the idea here; Ridge Avenue, while now dense and built up, has quite a few mingers in a sea of mediocrity. There are even fewer attractive buildings.
It’s honestly a balance. What qualifies as historic? What makes a building worth preserving? I would argue that the Robinson Building on Market doesn’t, but some people on this board might disagree with me.
At the end of the day, we need to strike a balance as a city, especially as a World Heritage City, between preservation and change. Philadelphia should not remain stagnant. On the other hand, we should honor our heritage and keep the feel of neighborhoods around for posterity. I wouldn’t be a good rail preservationist if I didn’t admit that much.
I think that at least part of the problems that Inga complains about could be solved by mandating which materials can be used in which neighborhoods. Surprisingly, I think there was a recent bill in Strawberry Mansion which mandated that new construction must use masonry and is explicitly not allowed to use metal paneling. This type of zoning overlay could certainly not only help make new construction look better, but also allow for developers to construct buildings that are holistically better for the feel of the neighborhood. Buildings that, given time, themselves might even be worth preserving.
To compare the other cities, we need to be somewhere in between Baltimore and Chicago. Baltimore was one of the first cities to mark buildings as immune to demolition, and while they certainly have preserved a lot of great architecture, it has fallen to the wayside as developers have not had the freedom to better utilize the land. Chicago, on the other hand, tore down most of the South Side and has erected plenty of monotonous, aluminum-siding-clad homes. Almost reminiscent of some of the shit we get in Philly.
Developers can build well. They can even do it economically. There’s a building I see going up in Wrigleyville on my commute in that is brand new, but could have been designed in the 1920s. Traditional massing, masonry construction, etc. I believe Wrigleyville has a historical zoning overlay that makes developers build using these materials, and I would love to see Philly do the same.
Certain places like Clark Park and Parkside come to mind. These neighborhoods should be preserved, and any new structure should be in accordance with the character of the neighborhood. Altering the fabric of the neighborhood won’t be holistically beneficial here like it was along Ridge or Front Street along the El.
On the other hand, as just stated above, there are plenty of places in the city I can think of that desperately need to be rezoned, and almost completely rebuilt. South Broad comes to mind. South Philadelphians love to complain about parking, and then refuse to let dense development be built around their one transit line.
Sorry for what has turned into a rant. It’s a difficult situation that some people believe the answer is clearly one way or the other. In reality, this can only be fixed with a compromise.
Prev
Linear Mode
