PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread X

[FtGreeneNY]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

No hyper educated intellectual person I know is eager to move to conservative Evangelical America. Every day TN goes backwards, it seems, in a competition for the lowest of the low in the world of the culture wars.

While that may be a decent characterization of much of Tennessee, it's actually not an accurate one of Nashville, which is and has always pretty much been a fairly/relatively progressive place - its history in the Civil Rights Movement (and quite frankly, the Civil War) bears this out.

And while it's the "Buckle of the Bible Belt" that, like the country music industry is a very small part of the cultural and economic landscape and largely relegated to religious publishing companies, not Fundamentalist "Christian" political leadership. Nashville has primarily been an Eds and Meds place, changing now with some of the new relos. HCA has long been based there. In Vanderbilt it's got a good research university and medical center (one of a number in town). Meharry may still graduate the vast majority of Black doctors in the U.S. It was nicknamed "Athens of the South" not because of the Parthenon there (that was put there in honor of the moniker) but because it's so full of colleges and universities, including 3 HBCUs.

Now, all of that said, the collar counties are a whole different thing, but with the growth even they're (very) slowly changing...and the rest of the state perhaps save for Memphis? Sheesh!! Most Nashvillians desperately try and pretend that they're not surrounded by all of that and that legislators from the rest of the state don't converge on it constantly as it's the Capitol. Nashville is indeed a Southern city and it will always be, but much the same as it's important to not conflate Philly with the rest of Pennsylvania (or NYC with the rest of NYS), it's important to not conflate Nashville with the rest of Tennessee.

And apparently, about half the folks moving there are from the coasts. However, the guy I sold my mom's house in East Nashville in 2020 to was relocating there from Chicago for an engineering job. He looked so young I wondered if his testes had dropped yet...my mom's old next door neighbors and I thusly dubbed him "Skippy."

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by FtGreeneNY

Most Nashvillians desperately try and pretend that they're not surrounded by all of that and that legislators from the rest of the state don't converge on it constantly as it's the Capitol. Nashville is indeed a Southern city and it will always be, but much the same as it's important to not conflate Philly with the rest of Pennsylvania (or NYC with the rest of NYS), it's important to not conflate Nashville with the rest of Tennessee.

I think you're missing the point.

The influence of NYC does not end at the city border. Most of the suburban counties in New York and North Jersey skew liberal because of the orbit of NYC.

All of Philadelphia's 4 PA collar counties are mildly to solidly blue. That influence now extends all the way north to the Lehigh Valley to Lehigh and Northampton Counties, the first of which is solidly blue the other purple. The suburban NJ counties on the other side of the river from Philadelphia also blue. So again, the influence and thinking of these big cities goes far beyond their borders.

Nashville's influence within the metropolitan area apparently begin and ends somewhere between Nashville city limits and the Davidson County line, because beyond that, apparently there's no effect.

Sure. I'm not gonna blame Nashville or lump it in with anything happening in rural East Tennessee. But you would think it could extend a few miles to Williamson County. A county with Williamson's demographics on the outskirts of literally any other city east of the Mississippi River would be a +15 Biden county minimum.

[FtGreeneNY]

I'm not missing the point at all. But again, even you noted the shift to Dems in those collar counties: 10% but granted from very low prior performance.

I'll also say that suburban counties here like Suffolk and even Nassau have in recent years been Republican run. That aside, New York or Philly's relationship with and to their suburbs has a much much longer and substantive history than Nashville does with its suburban counties. When my mom initially moved to Nashville in '78 there was essentially nothing in those counties save for perhaps Franklin (Williamson) or Murfreesboro (Rutherford), so yes, it at present (and likely for some time) has less "influence" on them - there was no "there" there until 5 minutes ago. Also, Nashville after consolidation was geographically larger than Philly or NYC (or NYC and Philly combined) and when it consolidated it encompassed most of the close-in suburbs (kind of like grabbing Delaware County and 200 additional square miles). And with the exception of a few cities (totaling about 30K) Nashville is coextensive with Davidson County.

Don't get me wrong, I couldn't live there for a number of reasons, but to dismiss it as you did is what I think misses the point: the folks moving to Nashville are moving to Nashville and they do not seem care what's going on elsewhere in Tennessee or really even what's happening on the other side of that Davidson County line. So the statement "There can be all the high profile relocations you want in Nashville, but organic growth is going to be constricted by the fact that it is not an intellectually open minded or curious place," doesn't hold up to the reality of things (double-digit - and increasing - growth rate over 3 decades...and some of that's got to be "organic," right?) and is overall an incorrect assessment of the place.

[PurpleWhiteOut]

Can mods get this on track? Why are there like 2 pages about Nashville lol

[rb233541]

Sorry to continue the Nashville pile on, but I have some points to add here. I think that comparing Nashville and Philly is sort of strange because they occupy very different places in the "market," so to speak. Philly has nearly 3x the population of Nashville in about a quarter of the space. From a scale perspective, Nashville is roughly equivalent in size and population to Bucks County.

(Anecdotally, when I first moved to Nashville from NY, I called my mom and cried and told her that I felt like I had moved to Cherry Hill with a few skyscrapers).

The growth in Nashville has, of course, been meteoric and it has come a long way in "urbanizing" itself--there are entire parts of the city that are actually walkable now! But Nashville is building from a very different place than Philadelphia. Nashville has had essentially zero historic preservation so there is much less historic fabric. Further, the public transportation infrastructure was lost years ago. The two recent attempts to build new light rail were defeated. (Someone mentioned earlier the fact that both Philly and Nash struggle to get funding from their states, which is true. The most recent transit effort was a complicated story about a combo of voter apathy and a hamstrung city council that had no choice but to propose an 11% sales tax to foot the bill...)

On paper, one might look at the two cities and think that Nashville clearly has far less to offer than Philadelphia, HOWEVER, it punches far above its class. Why? It has a wide reaching cultural influence. (cultural, not political). The Nashville brand is young and fun. Celebrities live there. In some ways, it's like a very mini-LA.

It is clear that population and infrastructure are not the main drivers behind people's decisions to move somewhere. People are moving to Nashville for (1) jobs, (2) "cheaper" cost of living [for now], (3) because it's "~Nashville~".

Now, my story does have a happy ending. I loved my time in Nashville (three years for law school), but in the end, I CHOSE to move to Philly. I am originally from South Jersey, so it's not like I had zero ties to the area, but I had been living in NYC for about 6 years leading up to Nashville and all of my friends were there. Staying in Nashville or going back to New York would have been the obvious choices for me. Ultimately, Nashville wasn't a big enough city (in my eyes) and New York, while great, is also exhausting and expensive. Philadelphia occupied a perfect sweet spot: livable, cheaper than NYC, cultural center, an actual dense city. After renting for 3 years, I just bought a house here a few months back. Can't see myself ever leaving.

[Redddog]

Originally Posted by rb233541

... New York, while great, is also exhausting and expensive. Philadelphia occupied a perfect sweet spot: livable, cheaper than NYC, cultural center, an actual dense city. After renting for 3 years, I just bought a house here a few months back. Can't see myself ever leaving.

My take as well. I came from NYC. While I loved it there, I took advantage of about 22% of what that town is awesome for.

I take advantage of about 87% of what Philly is awesome for which is about 94% as awsome as NYC - give or take 6% or so.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by Redddog

My take as well. I came from NYC. While I loved it there, I took advantage of about 22% of what that town is awesome for.

I take advantage of about 87% of what Philly is awesome for which is about 94% as awsome as NYC - give or take 6% or so.

I 3rd the sentiment (relocated NYer) but have to say I'm missing NY mightily at the moment. That's for personal reasons (haven't rebuilt my friend network here yet), but luckily I'm still in NYC 1-2 days a week for work, so still get a taste of it on the regular.

All of the above of course is also affected by the pandemic as *nothing* is really "normal" at the moment, so probably contributing to my nostalgia.

[EastSideHBG]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

I 3rd the sentiment (relocated NYer) but have to say I'm missing NY mightily at the moment. That's for personal reasons (haven't rebuilt my friend network here yet), but luckily I'm still in NYC 1-2 days a week for work, so still get a taste of it on the regular.

All of the above of course is also affected by the pandemic as *nothing* is really "normal" at the moment, so probably contributing to my nostalgia.

I am not a native here either and it's been a strange/tough place to make good friends in, as roots can go deeply here (along with a boatload of other dynamics going on). It's starting to shift as more outsiders come in but yeah my overall experience is that I have had better luck in other places.

[summersm343]

Yeah, I think this is enough. Let’s move on from Nashville, Austin, etc. Thanks guys!

[PHLtoNYC]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

I 3rd the sentiment (relocated NYer) but have to say I'm missing NY mightily at the moment. That's for personal reasons (haven't rebuilt my friend network here yet), but luckily I'm still in NYC 1-2 days a week for work, so still get a taste of it on the regular.

All of the above of course is also affected by the pandemic as *nothing* is really "normal" at the moment, so probably contributing to my nostalgia.

Not to take this off topic again, but the bold is the 2nd reason why I decided to stay in New York.

I left Philadelphia a while ago for career prospects, and have since developed a really great group of friends in NYC. Meanwhile most of my Philadelphia friends have either moved or just drifted apart, so I would need to start a new circle.

At this point, I could get a job in Philadelphia since I've advanced myself enough to relocate, but the older I get, the more I realize a social circle (even if small) is one of the most important aspects of deciding where to live (IMO).

And lucky for me (reverse of you), I travel to Philadelphia often for work, my family is in the region, my bestie still lives there, and my boyfriend loves taking weekend trips there. But, I won't rule a return one day, just not ready yet

[FtGreeneNY]

New York (Brooklyn to be specific) or back in Philly are really the only cities I could probably live in in the U.S.

Considered the move back to Philly last year when it was taking forever to close on a new apartment in my building for me to move into so I could move my mom into my old apartment and almost made an offer on a couple of units on Washington Square which has always been my favorite: it was a straight shot when I'd sneak down from school (Kearney) to look at the people and buildings in town and loved staring at the bas relief angels on The Avery Building.

[BnaBreaker]

Yikes... what the — was all that? Lmao...I am obsessed with Philly... it's why I'm here... I pop into this thread from time to time to see what was up in one of my favorite cities anywhere. So as much as I love my hometown, let me as a former Nashvillian be (apparently the first?) to tell you that Philly... you are far too cool and amazing to be obsessing over... us.

[bdurk]

Okay to attempt to get this thread somewhat back on track, I have a hypothetical I have been thinking of. Jerry Wolman, the owner of the Eagles at the time, was the one who built the John Hancock Center in Chicago in 1969 (all this info is what I remember so sorry if I mess up any of it). Wolman was a developer in DC and I believe lived in Philadelphia and also developed in Philly. So, I was thinking the other day that he might have actually wanted to build a skyscraper of that size in Philadelphia, but due to the stupid Gentleman's Agreement, he ended up building the iconic John Hancock Center in Chicago instead. I know it's a reach, but it is fun to think about a 1000'+ skyscraper in Philly in 1970. What are everyone else's thoughts on the Gentleman's Rule?

[PHLtoNYC]

Originally Posted by bdurk

Okay to attempt to get this thread somewhat back on track, I have a hypothetical I have been thinking of. Jerry Wolman, the owner of the Eagles at the time, was the one who built the John Hancock Center in Chicago in 1969 (all this info is what I remember so sorry if I mess up any of it). Wolman was a developer in DC and I believe lived in Philadelphia and also developed in Philly. So, I was thinking the other day that he might have actually wanted to build a skyscraper of that size in Philadelphia, but due to the stupid Gentleman's Agreement, he ended up building the iconic John Hancock Center in Chicago instead. I know it's a reach, but it is fun to think about a 1000'+ skyscraper in Philly in 1970. What are everyone else's thoughts on the Gentleman's Rule?

Meh, I find it dumb, but it is what it is. And I have new clue if the John Hancock Tower in Philadelphia was even a thing.

I do wonder what the skyline may have looked like if the agreement never existed. Would Philadelphia's skyline rival New York or Chicago? Probably not. But there would likely be several 600'+ buildings built in the earlier 1900s, similar to those found in New York.

And maybe the frumpy Penn Center buildings would be taller and more majestic like the towers along Park Avenue or Wacker Drive.

P.S. I love the John Hancock Tower, a beautiful (and interesting building). And the vista looking South from the Lincoln Park Zoo is the best skyline vista in North America (IMO). There are many other wonderful vistas, but something about that view is so beautiful and serene.

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by PHLtoNYC

Not to take this off topic again, but the bold is the 2nd reason why I decided to stay in New York.

I left Philadelphia a while ago for career prospects, and have since developed a really great group of friends in NYC. Meanwhile most of my Philadelphia friends have either moved or just drifted apart, so I would need to start a new circle.

At this point, I could get a job in Philadelphia since I've advanced myself enough to relocate, but the older I get, the more I realize a social circle (even if small) is one of the most important aspects of deciding where to live (IMO).

And lucky for me (reverse of you), I travel to Philadelphia often for work, my family is in the region, my bestie still lives there, and my boyfriend loves taking weekend trips there. But, I won't rule a return one day, just not ready yet

Not sure how old you are - but friends groups start shifting when you and your friends start having kids. Even if kids aren’t on your radar, trust me - if your friends start popping them out, your relationships will change dramatically.

For me, I still keep in touch with my old hangs, both here and abroad (social media has made that amazingly easy) but have totally found a new group of friends in the city who are simply going through the same — as me - parents, living in the city, coaching little league, involved in the school, volunteering for non-profits, etc.

[thoughtcriminal]

Originally Posted by bdurk

Okay to attempt to get this thread somewhat back on track, I have a hypothetical I have been thinking of. Jerry Wolman, the owner of the Eagles at the time, was the one who built the John Hancock Center in Chicago in 1969 (all this info is what I remember so sorry if I mess up any of it). Wolman was a developer in DC and I believe lived in Philadelphia and also developed in Philly. So, I was thinking the other day that he might have actually wanted to build a skyscraper of that size in Philadelphia, but due to the stupid Gentleman's Agreement, he ended up building the iconic John Hancock Center in Chicago instead. I know it's a reach, but it is fun to think about a 1000'+ skyscraper in Philly in 1970. What are everyone else's thoughts on the Gentleman's Rule?

my thought on the "Gentleman's Agreement" is that it was hurtful and regressive and did nothing to help architecture in the city. generations of commercial and residential buildings were stifled because of the one guy who enforced it - Ed Bacon. he couldn't get a zoning ordinance enacted to make it law, so he strongarmed developers and architects into designing their buildings to fit his vision of city hall as being the supreme building in the city to which all others must bow down. I wish they had broken that "Agreement" long ago. it would have been great to have a John Hancock-scale building here at that time and sooner. but it would have been a bit of a culture shock to have a 1000-footer all of a sudden after almost a century of lower scale buildings. if they had done it gradually and built the skyline up a bit with some 600- and 700-footers first, it would have been more a more organic way to do it and would have been less controversial. but either way, the important thing would have been to do away with the stupid "Agreement."

[blorkishdork]

I can't say I think the gentleman's agreement was all bad. By limiting the height of buildings this caused development to be more spread out creating better street level activity over a larger area, creating a more European feel. I do agree the gentleman's agreement stunted the skyline and the architecture of the city to some degree. So I don't think it was all bad.

[JohnIII]

The Gentleman's Agreement, wow; haven't heard that term in a while now.

It had positives and negatives. It stunted the growth of buildings; it made Philadelphia look boring because by the 1970's downtown didn't have a dynamic look; and it hurt the image of the city in many ways because people thought that Philadelphia was a city with unfriendly leadership. The Gentleman's Agreement also in a strange way made Philadelphia look like Moscow in the Soviet era because the same way Moscow revolved around the Kremlin and Red Square is how some saw City Hall; it was a building lit in yellow light and it was the brightest thing is the city but when nothing else was as high or as brilliant then the image you saw was that the most important thing in Philadelphia was government; not business because we didn't have any really bright tall buildings.

The good thing about the Gentleman's Agreement was that it did spread our the activity in downtown when it came to street level activities but it was in section mostly because in those days the theaters were in what is now the Business District; they were really grand looking; so many of the theaters looked like a scene out of imperial Rome; and then you know you have the shopping at the Gallery. To a degree in other areas but remember also that even though Philadelphia has a European feel this feel didn't start when the Gentleman's Agreement did; the areas of North Liberties, Fishtown, University City are more recent results of the Gentleman's Agreement because the need of commercial street level activity spreads out from areas that were already established in the days of the Gentleman's Agreement. For example in the 1980's and before Fishtown was not the place it is now; if you were a minority you had a better chance at being safe in North Vietnam; it was bad; Drexel University was pretty dull back then but they're vibrant now.

The Gentleman's Agreement was really good and bad; it was good especially after they built Liberty One; that building really started the shift I think looking back it started slowly when the theaters left. When Liberty One came it really turned vibrant; both in the dynamic view of a modern Philadelphia; a corporate Philadelphia; the city was far more welcoming and this date saw street level activity spread out.

I am very excited for what's ahead for Philadelphia; its the one city not in the Sun Belt that is growing, cosmopolitan and showing vibrancy; I love New York City but people are moving from New York and moving here in such numbers I ever imaged. Its also the one city in North America that is well established; internationally known; and close to Europe, Africa and the Middle East; and that gives it international appeal, and old world charm just as long as we are pro business and not radical in our leadership; but balanced.

[PHLtoNYC]

Originally Posted by blorkishdork

I can't say I think the gentleman's agreement was all bad. By limiting the height of buildings this caused development to be more spread out creating better street level activity over a larger area, creating a more European feel. I do agree the gentleman's agreement stunted the skyline and the architecture of the city to some degree. So I don't think it was all bad.

Is there evidence to suggest that tall buildings limit development in a larger area? And "creating better street level activity", not necessarily. New York never had a height limit and has amazing street level activity.

I don't think Philadelphia would be a different city if the Gentlemen's agreement never existed. But, as I said, there would likely be more elegant (older) skyscrapers and probably an older trophy tower similar to the Chrysler Building, and maybe a longer canyon on Broad Street.

And maybe the city wouldn't be as resistant to larger denser buildings in general?

[PurpleWhiteOut]

I'm going to be honest, I don't think there was historical demand for anything taller than we have from the early skyscraper era. I think the "agreement" ended exactly when the modern demand necessitated it. If the demand were there earlier, I would imagine it would have been surpassed. I think it's more likely that the added costs of building so high wasn't worth it since buildable land wasn't that scarce, especially back then they had no qualms with demolition to redevlop