PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread X

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by Gatorade_Jim

Rittenhouse and Hunting Park are in the same district. Those two constituencies could not have more different needs. There is no universe where that makes sense.

As are K&A and Society Hill.

I mean, when your constituencies include both the most notorious heroin corner and one of the wealthiest urban neighborhoods in the whole of the US, makes you sound sorta petty when you want to bitch about how we don't have street cleaning.

Also, Fishtown is in the 5th and notably absent from the 1st which is where it belongs in the current configuration.

[TonyTone]

Originally Posted by bdurk

Is there any chance we could maybe create a separate thread for politics? I get excited to come on here every day and see news about new skyscrapers but for the past month I feel like this thread has been mainly about politics. I don't mind the talk about who we want as mayor as I know it's important discourse but I think a separate thread might be nice.

It's politic season baby, once the election is over and the city improves, less talks of Politics will happen, it's just the natural order of things, and we do have a Political thread, it's just so far buried in another thread, no one uses it, I posted there a month ago and didn't get a single comment.

[Gatorade_Jim]

Originally Posted by TonyTone

It's politic season baby, once the election is over and the city improves, less talks of Politics will happen, it's just the natural order of things, and we do have a Political thread, it's just so far buried in another thread, no one uses it, I posted there a month ago and didn't get a single comment.

I suspect that has a lot more to do with the format of the forum. If the politics thread and the transportation thread were stickied here or even in the same page group as the development forums, they’d get much more use. It’s just really clunky to use so people (including me) end up posting here.

[Mayormccheese]

Originally Posted by Gatorade_Jim

I suspect that has a lot more to do with the format of the forum. If the politics thread and the transportation thread were stickied here or even in the same page group as the development forums, they’d get much more use. It’s just really clunky to use so people (including me) end up posting here.

I’m not sure you can really stop politics discussion. County council members have so much power over what gets developed and the neighborhood groups and special interests have a lot of power too. Development and politics are too intertwined. For just news on development the blogs like rising.realestate or OCF are better.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by Mayormccheese

I’m not sure you can really stop politics discussion. County council members have so much power over what gets developed and the neighborhood groups and special interests have a lot of power too. Development and politics are too intertwined. For just news on development the blogs like rising.realestate or OCF are better.

And for that matter, there's not that much super high profile stuff going on at the moment so we're just filling dead air.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by McBane

By your logic, if CC has 50,000 people it would make EVEN MORE sense for all of them to be in the same district rather than divided into two. And then the remaining population should be filled from other gentrified neighborhoods. I don't know what exactly that looks like. Regardless, it's logical for districts to be demographically cohesive (as much as possible while ensuring evenly populated districts of course). I mean, if we were talking about minority populations rather than wealthier gentrifiers, this wouldn't even be an argument.

Also, the process is entirely done behind closed doors without any public feedback, which doesn't help things either. Of course Darell Clarke knows that he would never be elected by such a constituency. Most of the bozos there wouldn't stand a chance if they had to run in a district populated by the highly educated. No wonder our best council people are voted at large.

there is absolutely no logic to anything you are saying. None. It doesnt work like that in terms of congressional districts or council districts and by your logic a mayor cant do a good job for an entire city because the population isnt homogenous. As with many here your commentary and disdain for certain people on council is borderline insulting and offensive. If I am understanding you correctly we should have districts where all people of similar background, income and education (hmm, wonder what that means) should be represented by one of their own and the "other" types of candidates should be left to represent districts with poor, under educated residents that look more like them. Listen, this is all crying over spilled milk. Any candidate black or white, new or long timer has to learn how to appeal to the various groups in their district- period. Clarke has rarely been challenged so dont give this crap that he only wins by a landslide because he is elected by idiots in north philly who dont know any better. How many properly educated challengers that meet your demographic standards have actually run against clarke?

BTW squilla and others have to deal with diverse districts that include gentrifying areas, center city and more traditional neighborhoods that have changed little over the years. It's nothing new and Its a function of how geographically close folks of varied incomes live in this city. I mean look at University City vs nearby portions of West Philly to the north. You expect people to feel bad because upper middle class or wealthy residents have to share a councilperson with "lesser" people? Wow.

[el don]

Originally Posted by cardeza

there is absolutely no logic to anything you are saying. None. It doesnt work like that in terms of congressional districts or council districts and by your logic a mayor cant do a good job for an entire city because the population isnt homogenous. As with many here your commentary and disdain for certain people on council is borderline insulting and offensive. If I am understanding you correctly we should have districts where all people of similar background, income and education (hmm, wonder what that means) should be represented by one of their own and the "other" types of candidates should be left to represent districts with poor, under educated residents that look more like them. Listen, this is all crying over spilled milk. Any candidate black or white, new or long timer has to learn how to appeal to the various groups in their district- period. Clarke has rarely been challenged so dont give this crap that he only wins by a landslide because he is elected by idiots in north philly who dont know any better. How many properly educated challengers that meet your demographic standards have actually run against clarke?

BTW squilla and others have to deal with diverse districts that include gentrifying areas, center city and more traditional neighborhoods that have changed little over the years. It's nothing new and Its a function of how geographically close folks of varied incomes live in this city. I mean look at University City vs nearby portions of West Philly to the north. You expect people to feel bad because upper middle class or wealthy residents have to share a councilperson with "lesser" people? Wow.

So wait, are the districts gerrymandered or not?

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by McBane

Exactly.

Allovertown, just to clarify, you think it's odd for Fairmount and Society Hill to be in a single district but Society Hill with Port Richmond makes sense? Fitler Square belongs with North Philly but not with Old City? Why is it your kneejerk reaction to always defend everything the City does, not matter how dysfunctional it may be? And to answer your question, besides wealth: more educated, more diverse, less families, more young professionals and empty nesters; is that enough? Now please list all the things that Society Hill and Port Richmond have in common.

I think you have me confused with someone else. I love criticizing Philadelphia government. Who doesn't love shooting fish in a barrel?

I'd say we disagree on the purpose of electoral districts. You seem to think the goal should be to get as many of the same type of people in one district. You suggested a district should be all of center city and then because that's not enough people... just throw in any other gentrified part of the city with them. Lol I mean, you're literally describing how people gerrymander. You have a goal in mind, namely more power for wealthy people and you're nakedly setting out to achieve that goal. It doesn't even matter to you which parts of town are grouped together in a district as long as you achieve your goal.

Center City is not some unified entity. Seems perfectly sensible that districts in Philadelphia would come out of center city sort of like a pinwheel, tying center city neighborhoods with the neighborhoods outside of center city that are geographically near them following the major thoroughfares, transit lines, and geographical features that tie them together.

As I admitted, I'm sure there is some gerrymandering going on with city council districts. But come on. Look at some of the gerrymandered districts elsewhere in this country. Philly has nothing like that. These are all fairly compact districts that group together nearby neighborhoods.

If you wanted to feed all of this info into a computer and have a computer automatically spit out the most balanced and fair districts as possible, I'd be all for that. Let's totally eliminate gerrymandering from the equation. Though in such a scenario I highly doubt the computer would decide to group together the entirety of center city and whatever other wealthy enclaves it can piece together throughout the city to get enough people for a district.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by el don

So wait, are the districts gerrymandered or not?

Its the united states, there is definitely gerrymandering but not as bad as congresional districts. This is a nationwide problem and if you understand the opposition to gerrymandering it has nothing to do with poor and upper middle class people having the same representative. Its about districts not being geographically contiguous and adding or subtracting tiny sections to keep a district in one camp or another. In a city that is 90% democratic there is much less pressure to create crazy shaped districts vs house districts in a purple state such as PA.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by el don

So wait, are the districts gerrymandered or not?

Its the united states, there is definitely gerrymandering but not as bad as congresional districts. This is a nationwide problem and if you understand the opposition to gerrymandering it has nothing to do with poor and upper middle class people having the same representative. Its about districts not being geographically contiguous and adding or subtracting tiny sections to keep a district in one camp or another. In a city that is 90% democratic there is much less pressure to create crazy shaped districts vs house districts in a purple state such as PA.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by el don

So wait, are the districts gerrymandered or not?

Its the united states, there is definitely gerrymandering but not as bad as congressional districts. This is a nationwide problem and if you understand the opposition to gerrymandering it has nothing to do with poor and upper middle class people having the same representative. Its about districts not being geographically contiguous and adding or subtracting tiny sections to keep a district in one camp or another. In a city that is 90% democratic there is much less pressure to create crazy shaped districts vs house districts in a purple state such as PA.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by el don

So wait, are the districts gerrymandered or not?

Its the united states, there is definitely gerrymandering but not as bad as congressional districts. This is a nationwide problem and if you understand the opposition to gerrymandering it has nothing to do with poor and upper middle class people having the same representative. Its about districts not being geographically contiguous and adding or subtracting tiny sections to keep a district in one camp or another. In a city that is 90% democratic there is much less pressure to create crazy shaped districts vs house districts in a purple state such as PA.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by el don

So wait, are the districts gerrymandered or not?

Its the united states, there is definitely gerrymandering but not as bad as congressional districts. This is a nationwide problem and if you understand the opposition to gerrymandering it has nothing to do with poor and upper middle class people having the same representative. Its about districts not being geographically contiguous and adding or subtracting tiny sections to keep a district in one camp or another. In a city that is 90% democratic there is much less pressure to create crazy shaped districts vs house districts in a purple state such as PA.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by el don

So wait, are the districts gerrymandered or not?

Its the united states, there is definitely gerrymandering but not as bad as congressional districts. This is a nationwide problem and if you understand the opposition to gerrymandering it has nothing to do with poor and upper middle class people having the same representative. Its about districts not being geographically contiguous and adding or subtracting tiny sections to keep a district in one camp or another. In a city that is 90% democratic there is much less pressure to create crazy shaped districts vs house districts in a purple state such as PA.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by allovertown

I think you have me confused with someone else. I love criticizing Philadelphia government. Who doesn't love shooting fish in a barrel?

I'd say we disagree on the purpose of electoral districts. You seem to think the goal should be to get as many of the same type of people in one district. You suggested a district should be all of center city and then because that's not enough people... just throw in any other gentrified part of the city with them. Lol I mean, you're literally describing how people gerrymander. You have a goal in mind, namely more power for wealthy people and you're nakedly setting out to achieve that goal. It doesn't even matter to you which parts of town are grouped together in a district as long as you achieve your goal.

Center City is not some unified entity. Seems perfectly sensible that districts in Philadelphia would come out of center city sort of like a pinwheel, tying center city neighborhoods with the neighborhoods outside of center city that are geographically near them following the major thoroughfares, transit lines, and geographical features that tie them together.

As I admitted, I'm sure there is some gerrymandering going on with city council districts. But come on. Look at some of the gerrymandered districts elsewhere in this country. Philly has nothing like that. These are all fairly compact districts that group together nearby neighborhoods.

If you wanted to feed all of this info into a computer and have a computer automatically spit out the most balanced and fair districts as possible, I'd be all for that. Let's totally eliminate gerrymandering from the equation. Though in such a scenario I highly doubt the computer would decide to group together the entirety of center city and whatever other wealthy enclaves it can piece together throughout the city to get enough people for a district.

Even when districts are compact there are typically rules (when they exist about fair districts) that also articulate guidelines about where to draw the lines (i.e. make an effort to not split towns or zipcodes or school districts etc). The most logical thing to do would be to start in Center City (making it a district to the extent that one can) and then go out from there.

[Justin7]

Originally Posted by allovertown

This looks gerrymandered to you? Come on. Districts one and three have some slightly funky stuff going on, but overall, these are some pretty compact sensible districts. Especially compared to the gerrymandering that goes on with congressional districts, this practically looks like it was created impartially by a computer, and for all I know it was.

Yes, this looks gerrymandered to me. Just because it's not as egregious as it used to be (or as some congressional districts) doesn't mean it's not a problem.

Here is a closer look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philad...cil#/maplink/0

There is certainly room for discussion as to how districts should be split. I personally find it a very difficult question to answer, but I think it's wrong to design districts in search of a particular result, and I do think that is clearly the case.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by Justin7

Yes, this looks gerrymandered to me. Just because it's not as egregious as it used to be (or as some congressional districts) doesn't mean it's not a problem.

Here is a closer look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philad...cil#/maplink/0

There is certainly room for discussion as to how districts should be split. I personally find it a very difficult question to answer, but I think it's wrong to design districts in search of a particular result, and I do think that is clearly the case.

As I conceded from the start, it's clear some gerrymandering is going on. It's just that all things considered it doesn't seem egregious just looking at the districts on a map. I'm not an expert on the matter though, so I understand appearances can be deceiving. I'm all for creating new districts that are less gerrymandered if this is truly a problem.

My main issue wasn't with people wanting to make council districts less gerrymandered. My issues is with people who think the way to do that is to purposely try and group a bunch of rich people together in a district so they have a stronger voice. That doesn't fix gerrymandering, it just gerrymanders the districts in a different way that they'd prefer.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by allovertown

My issues is with people who think the way to do that is to purposely try and group a bunch of rich people together in a district so they have a stronger voice. That doesn't fix gerrymandering, it just gerrymanders the districts in a different way that they'd prefer.

It's not about being "rich". It's about giving a constituency a consistent voice.

Philadelphia is so accustomed to the narrative that everybody is poor and the main issue is poverty and violence (even though our council is inept at addressing those issues) that literally nothing else gets lip service.

We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Just because my neighborhood doesn't have the same existential issues as poorer neighborhoods in the city doesn't mean my priority issues don't deserve an advocate.

[phishtown]

For some actual development news, update on the Beury Building:
https://billypenn.com/2023/01/26/beu...jobs-training/

Shift Capital has shared details on the hotel planned for the Beury site: It’ll have 172 guest rooms, a ground-level and rooftop restaurant, a fitness center, and meeting spaces. Use of that meeting space by neighborhood groups — at least once a month, without fees, per Shift spokesperson Michael Matera — is one of the items in the new community benefits agreement.

...

Construction on the site is projected to commence in May, Shift spokesperson Matera told Billy Penn.

[el don]

Alright so the districts are gerrymandered, and districts are gerrymandered to keep an incumbent party/person in power. Doesn't seem "fair".