PHILADELPHIA | Lowrise/General Developments Thread

[City Wide]

Originally Posted by 1487

I said people and taxpayers may not agree with the idea of a highway agency becoming a redevelopment authority and using money intended for TRANSPORTATION in general for new parkland that will primarily enhance life and property values in a relatively well of part of the city. I am pro SEPTA and PA funds transit agencies through taxes and fees related to driving- that is the way it's always been. That said, there is not universal love for public transportation in this state and when they originally decided to reform how PENNDOT was funded public trans was not a focal point at all. But even public trans haters can acknowledge the link between traffic and moving people and public trans. Paying hundreds of millions to create a park that has nothing to do with moving people is a different story.

I suggest you folks go back and read up on what happened with the DRPA in recent years. They embraced this mentality of using toll money to fund projects that had nothing to do with the bridges and it backfired big time and led to significant reforms. They don't do it anymore.

One problem with your DRPA example is that they were spending borrowed money, where I think PennDOT is spending money built up via the 'pay at the pump' gas tax (I might be wrong about that). DRPA's spending was based on the idea, crazy as it was, that the projects they had a minor role in funding, would create more tolls! I never believed it, but that was their logic.

The use of gas tax being used for public transit is fairly new, maybe in the last 10 years, and it still is an issue that is far have being settled and certain. The road building lobby apparently is completely separate from the subway building lobby!.

I'm still trying to figure out if you personally are against the way PennDOT spent money on the 'extras' relating to landscaping on the bridge rebuilding in the Logan Sq. area? Knowing which side of the fence you stand on would help me understand you better. You seem like you are very principled; I just want to know what those principles are?

While I basically agree with you that PennDOT is not and should not be a urban renewal agency, (although in the 60's and 70's they were often used for that purpose). I also firmly believe that PennDOT should be responsible for repairing their past mistakes-----such as the holes on Logan Sq. caused by I-676/Vine St. expressway being pushed through that area. The bids for the total job, which includes multiply bridges, came in under budget by some large surprising figure, like $35M. PennDOT immediately directed that 'found' money toward other bridge replacement jobs, such as Chestnut St. Not only did they never consider capping the other Logan Sq. holes in the original bid package, they never considered adding it onto the work after the bids came in much under budget. And as Inga points out, the City apparently put no pressure on the State to include capping the Logan Sq. holes.

One of the stated reasons that PennDOT included so many bridges into one multi year construction bid is that they claimed having one primary contractor be in charge of design and construction would result in significant saving. And since all the bids came in under budget, I guess they were right. But the same argument could have been used, should have been used, to include capping the three other Logan Sq. holes into the overall job.

Sure there's nothing in general stopping the State or the City (or private groups) from funding capping these holes later this year or in 15 years. But it would have made more sense to have done the work now. It would have saved money and time and bother to have included this additional work now. And depending on how one looks at it, there was money available in the budget to consider having it done now.

Would you have been ok if the work would have included parking lots on the capped areas of Logan Sq.? You seem to be saying that the parks are un-needed; if they were parking lots maybe the revenue could have gone to the State.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by 1487

I have no idea what you are talking about. Because Inga said you can't cap the parks for next 50 years it's fact? WTF? What basis was there for her statement? None. If the highway gets capped it's likely NOT going to be a Penndot led project anyway. There is absolutely no reasoning or logic or intelligence behind the claim that we "can't" cap the highway now that this project is done. These were bridges that needed to be replaced- the work had to be done no matter what. It does not prohibit or make capping any more or less likely.

Philadelphia's behalf? PENNDOT is run from Harrisburg. With money being no object a cap sounds great to me- no argument there. I don't support the notion that not doing a $500M highway covering project as opposed to doing what HAD to be done for failing bridges serves as evidence that PENNDOT failed at core mission. Sorry.

You are incredibly, incredibly dense.

Penndot is a Pennsylvania State agency that was tasked with replacing highway bridges.

Philadelphia is a city in Pennsylvania that would like to cap space over a highway around Logan Circle, next to the bridges that Penndot is tasked with replacing.

Capping additional highway space as part of the same project where Penndot was already replacing adjacent bridges and disrupting traffic and creating a new cap would be cheaper and easier than a whole new project undertaken after the Penndot project concludes.

If Philadelphia had undertaken a study on capping 676 prior to this project it could have been encorporated into Penndot's protect without costing Penndot any additional money with additional funds being contributed by Philadelphia, Center City District, philanthropic donations etc.

No one said that Philly can't cap 676 for 50 years. They're saying whenever we do it in the future it will cost more than if we did it in conjunction with this project. And a similar opportunity to save money and cap 676 in conjunction with a bridge replacement project won't come for another 50 years.

If you need to redo the plumbing and ductwork in your house, would you tear apart the walls to replace the pipes and then tear the walls apart again in a few years to replace the ducts? Or would you do both at the same time and save money? The answer is obvious.

Can you now comprehend this incredibly simple concept that Inga and about a dozen posters have tried to explain to you?

[1487]

Originally Posted by City Wide

One problem with your DRPA example is that they were spending borrowed money, where I think PennDOT is spending money built up via the 'pay at the pump' gas tax (I might be wrong about that). DRPA's spending was based on the idea, crazy as it was, that the projects they had a minor role in funding, would create more tolls! I never believed it, but that was their logic.

The use of gas tax being used for public transit is fairly new, maybe in the last 10 years, and it still is an issue that is far have being settled and certain. The road building lobby apparently is completely separate from the subway building lobby!.

I'm still trying to figure out if you personally are against the way PennDOT spent money on the 'extras' relating to landscaping on the bridge rebuilding in the Logan Sq. area? Knowing which side of the fence you stand on would help me understand you better. You seem like you are very principled; I just want to know what those principles are?

While I basically agree with you that PennDOT is not and should not be a urban renewal agency, (although in the 60's and 70's they were often used for that purpose). I also firmly believe that PennDOT should be responsible for repairing their past mistakes-----such as the holes on Logan Sq. caused by I-676/Vine St. expressway being pushed through that area. The bids for the total job, which includes multiply bridges, came in under budget by some large surprising figure, like $35M. PennDOT immediately directed that 'found' money toward other bridge replacement jobs, such as Chestnut St. Not only did they never consider capping the other Logan Sq. holes in the original bid package, they never considered adding it onto the work after the bids came in much under budget. And as Inga points out, the City apparently put no pressure on the State to include capping the Logan Sq. holes.

One of the stated reasons that PennDOT included so many bridges into one multi year construction bid is that they claimed having one primary contractor be in charge of design and construction would result in significant saving. And since all the bids came in under budget, I guess they were right. But the same argument could have been used, should have been used, to include capping the three other Logan Sq. holes into the overall job.

Sure there's nothing in general stopping the State or the City (or private groups) from funding capping these holes later this year or in 15 years. But it would have made more sense to have done the work now. It would have saved money and time and bother to have included this additional work now. And depending on how one looks at it, there was money available in the budget to consider having it done now.

Would you have been ok if the work would have included parking lots on the capped areas of Logan Sq.? You seem to be saying that the parks are un-needed; if they were parking lots maybe the revenue could have gone to the State.

I don't have strong opinion one way or another in terms of whether we "need" a cap. City has much larger issues in my book- but apparently not to others here.

The DRPA situation is directly relatable to this. Toll payers resented the fact that so much money was being spent on something OTHER than repair and maintenance of the bridges and PATCO. DRPA ran up debt doing too many projects and then had to increase tolls to pay off that debt. So you could definitely see how some in PA would feel about the prospect of PENNDOT getting into the park business.

When a project comes in way under budget that is an uncommon and surprising development. You cannot quickly add on a multi million dollar piece of work just because you have favorable numbers. You need years of design and permitting done before you even go out for bids so the decision to build highway caps (and the necessary ventilation) isn't something that can be made on a whim. As I explained earlier- money is categorized within any governmental system. So when you have excess money due to low bids that money needs to be spent within the same ballpark as the original project. Money for bridges just doesn't turn into money for parks overnight. These things are much more complex and governed than people think. There are well defined classifications for spending.

Inga doesn't understand much about how things work with PENNDOT or the city. The city doesn't dictate to PENNDOT nor control it's budget. It's laughable to think that doubling the project budget would have been as simple as the City saying "Hey PennDOT, cap all of 676 since you are doing a bridge project". They probably didn't ask because there have already been discussions about what is and isnt feasible with state funds. PennDOT will fund trails but if you notice they really aren't in the park building business.

[PhilliesPhan]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Work on Temple’s 1810 Liacouras Walk expansion to begin in August



Read more here:
https://philly.curbed.com/2017/7/3/1...ion-renderings

Even though I'm not a fan of the skywalk (and kind of passionate about it since I'm a student at the Fox School of Business), it is still a VERY exciting time to be a Temple student! '][' The campus looks radically different as compared to when I took my first tour of campus in 2010, when I was a freshman in high school. The great thing about the Visualize Temple plan is that there seems to be a real emphasis on urban, sustainable design and how campus users interact with the urban environment. I'm just mad that many of the projects, including the new library, will be completed after I graduate haha

Originally Posted by 1487

I don't have strong opinion one way or another in terms of whether we "need" a cap. City has much larger issues in my book- but apparently not to others here.

I can agree that the city has other issues (defining which ones are "larger" depends on the issue) to deal with. It's likely due to the fact that I'm a Finance major, but I see capital expenditures towards public amenities as our way to solve the larger issues that plague our city. Capping I-676 would have real economic benefits. According to the zoning code, street width has a lot to do with how tall an entity can build a building. Capping the VSE would transform Vine Street into one large, wide, continuous stretch of roadway. Re-configuring the interchange at 15th/16th Street to open that land up for development would also have to occur. Once the capping and re-configuration are complete, zone everything above CMX-3. The large parking lots east of Vine, as well as the entire intersection of Broad and Vine, should be zoned CMX-5. This will dramatically increase property values, thus bringing in a greater flow of tax revenues. Once these properties are developed, there are now income-generating properties that are subject to more taxes, as well as companies that are now required to pay taxes. In the end, we could end up with a tall skyscraper corridor (and other ancillary development due to the new connectedness of North Philly and Center City) along a newly mended roadway.

Capping the VSE not only provides great public benefit, but also great economic benefits. The city is as much to blame as PennDOT, however. How can we move forward on progressive, forward-thinking proposals to mend the fractured urban environment in that area when it is ran by the most regressive politician on City Council, Darrell Clarke? The one who drives to corner stores and pushes increased parking minimums in new developments. Jannie Blackwell is also a menace to the city's progress. Kenyatta Johnson used to be, but hasn't done anything regressive to his district lately (at least based on what I've been seeing). In order to continue our newfound growth, we need new elected officials whose mindsets aren't stuck in a time when Philadelphia was in decline and the only way to save it was through auto-oriented projects.

[City Wide]

Originally Posted by 1487

I don't have strong opinion one way or another in terms of whether we "need" a cap. City has much larger issues in my book- but apparently not to others here.

The DRPA situation is directly relatable to this. Toll payers resented the fact that so much money was being spent on something OTHER than repair and maintenance of the bridges and PATCO. DRPA ran up debt doing too many projects and then had to increase tolls to pay off that debt. So you could definitely see how some in PA would feel about the prospect of PENNDOT getting into the park business.

When a project comes in way under budget that is an uncommon and surprising development. You cannot quickly add on a multi million dollar piece of work just because you have favorable numbers. You need years of design and permitting done before you even go out for bids so the decision to build highway caps (and the necessary ventilation) isn't something that can be made on a whim. As I explained earlier- money is categorized within any governmental system. So when you have excess money due to low bids that money needs to be spent within the same ballpark as the original project. Money for bridges just doesn't turn into money for parks overnight. These things are much more complex and governed than people think. There are well defined classifications for spending.

Inga doesn't understand much about how things work with PENNDOT or the city. The city doesn't dictate to PENNDOT nor control it's budget. It's laughable to think that doubling the project budget would have been as simple as the City saying "Hey PennDOT, cap all of 676 since you are doing a bridge project". They probably didn't ask because there have already been discussions about what is and isnt feasible with state funds. PennDOT will fund trails but if you notice they really aren't in the park building business.

I am not asking for your opinion about the caps, as in whether or not you think the city "needs" the caps. I'm trying to understand, to ask you to speak directly to the question if you think PennDOT should do nothing except bare minimum construction, or if there is room in your world view for PennDOT to do more then just the basic, functional construction.

I don't think its a trick question, I don't mean it as one. But the fact that you aren't answering it raises other questions-------I see it as a 'yes' or a 'no' type question. If there are 'grey area' issues please explain. I'm asking because I personally think it might help me understand what you are saying (in this issue and in others!) and where your seemingly endless ability to apologize for all sorts of governments come from.

By the way, didn't PennDOT get into the 'park business' when it torn up a park to put in the highway in the first place? And highway projects almost always include all sorts of bits and pieces unrelated to moving cars, sound barriers, tree planting, improving local roads, sewer construction, relocating signs. I'm quite sure that PennDOT didn't have a line item or a category in the bid package for "parks". However it was broken out it was probably under 'landscaping' which is a common factor in highway construction.

Personally I think although it might have cost more then a few new trees, if PennDOT wants to have a expressway running through the heart of the City, a expressway which I use maybe 8 times a week, it should be buried.

What is so hard for you to see that Inga, myself and many others are saying that the reality, however that came to be, where only 1 of the 4 Logan Sq. holes were capped, is very, very unfortunate. And the bottom line is that it didn't happen, it wasn't even considered, because of piss poor planning. That error in planning should be shared amount many----the State, the City, various planning commissions, CC district, etc. If it had been considered but not done because of the costs or other factors, that would be a different argument, but one we can't have, again because apparently none of our so called leaders was interested.

If, for whatever reasons, the State, since they were the lead agency on this job, had had a interest in capping all 4 holes, the bid package could have very easily had a base level of work that was to be included (such as the work that is being done) and a secondary level of work that would have been bid on that might have been accepted depending on pricing. It is my understanding that this job is a design/build job (with the desire to save money) so if additional work would have been included, either in the primary contract or in a secondary contract issued at the same time, the increased work should not have effected "design and permitting".

But those are just details---could have, should have, might have been's that don't really effect the main premise: as nice as what PennDOT has done, what they didn't do, didn't even consider, was a great missed opportunity. And one that won't present itself again for a long time (these bridges are suppose to have a 75 year life). But nothing that you have said so far, unless you think that all tax payer funded work should be bare bones, makes me pause in my opinion, said as a tax payer, that the rebuilding of the bridges should have included capping all of the Logan Sq. holes, and it should have at least considered additional capping of the expressway.

[Jawnadelphia]

They aren't wasting anytime here (NOVO Philly) - demolition well underway, 10 extra-wide townhouses with a $2.5 mil starting price to rise (directly behind the Alexander//Mormon complex).





More news on NOVO Philly:
https://philly.curbed.com/2017/2/23/...are-renderings
---

Fairmount - 7 more giant houses nearly completed - 2000 block of North Street:

[1487]

Originally Posted by PhilliesPhan

I can agree that the city has other issues (defining which ones are "larger" depends on the issue) to deal with. It's likely due to the fact that I'm a Finance major, but I see capital expenditures towards public amenities as our way to solve the larger issues that plague our city. Capping I-676 would have real economic benefits. According to the zoning code, street width has a lot to do with how tall an entity can build a building. Capping the VSE would transform Vine Street into one large, wide, continuous stretch of roadway. Re-configuring the interchange at 15th/16th Street to open that land up for development would also have to occur. Once the capping and re-configuration are complete, zone everything above CMX-3. The large parking lots east of Vine, as well as the entire intersection of Broad and Vine, should be zoned CMX-5. This will dramatically increase property values, thus bringing in a greater flow of tax revenues. Once these properties are developed, there are now income-generating properties that are subject to more taxes, as well as companies that are now required to pay taxes. In the end, we could end up with a tall skyscraper corridor (and other ancillary development due to the new connectedness of North Philly and Center City) along a newly mended roadway.

Capping the VSE not only provides great public benefit, but also great economic benefits. The city is as much to blame as PennDOT, however. How can we move forward on progressive, forward-thinking proposals to mend the fractured urban environment in that area when it is ran by the most regressive politician on City Council, Darrell Clarke? The one who drives to corner stores and pushes increased parking minimums in new developments. Jannie Blackwell is also a menace to the city's progress. Kenyatta Johnson used to be, but hasn't done anything regressive to his district lately (at least based on what I've been seeing). In order to continue our newfound growth, we need new elected officials whose mindsets aren't stuck in a time when Philadelphia was in decline and the only way to save it was through auto-oriented projects.

These issues are bigger than any councilperson. People on Council have ZERO pull when it comes to PennDOT's agenda. If money was no object I am all for the cap and everything else. Unfortunately, in the real world money is an object. The CCD didn't even raise enough money to fully complete the artwork installation at Dilworth and that was a $55M project that got help from the city, state and feds to come to fruition. Considering how much nongovernmental financing would be required to get the 676 cap done it's not a simple endeavor. Keep in mind thus far we have only gotten the first 1/4 mile of the rail viaduct park funded and that took YEARS.

[1487]

Originally Posted by City Wide

I am not asking for your opinion about the caps, as in whether or not you think the city "needs" the caps. I'm trying to understand, to ask you to speak directly to the question if you think PennDOT should do nothing except bare minimum construction, or if there is room in your world view for PennDOT to do more then just the basic, functional construction.

I don't think its a trick question, I don't mean it as one. But the fact that you aren't answering it raises other questions-------I see it as a 'yes' or a 'no' type question. If there are 'grey area' issues please explain. I'm asking because I personally think it might help me understand what you are saying (in this issue and in others!) and where your seemingly endless ability to apologize for all sorts of governments come from.

By the way, didn't PennDOT get into the 'park business' when it torn up a park to put in the highway in the first place? And highway projects almost always include all sorts of bits and pieces unrelated to moving cars, sound barriers, tree planting, improving local roads, sewer construction, relocating signs. I'm quite sure that PennDOT didn't have a line item or a category in the bid package for "parks". However it was broken out it was probably under 'landscaping' which is a common factor in highway construction.

Personally I think although it might have cost more then a few new trees, if PennDOT wants to have a expressway running through the heart of the City, a expressway which I use maybe 8 times a week, it should be buried.

What is so hard for you to see that Inga, myself and many others are saying that the reality, however that came to be, where only 1 of the 4 Logan Sq. holes were capped, is very, very unfortunate. And the bottom line is that it didn't happen, it wasn't even considered, because of piss poor planning. That error in planning should be shared amount many----the State, the City, various planning commissions, CC district, etc. If it had been considered but not done because of the costs or other factors, that would be a different argument, but one we can't have, again because apparently none of our so called leaders was interested.

If, for whatever reasons, the State, since they were the lead agency on this job, had had a interest in capping all 4 holes, the bid package could have very easily had a base level of work that was to be included (such as the work that is being done) and a secondary level of work that would have been bid on that might have been accepted depending on pricing. It is my understanding that this job is a design/build job (with the desire to save money) so if additional work would have been included, either in the primary contract or in a secondary contract issued at the same time, the increased work should not have effected "design and permitting".

But those are just details---could have, should have, might have been's that don't really effect the main premise: as nice as what PennDOT has done, what they didn't do, didn't even consider, was a great missed opportunity. And one that won't present itself again for a long time (these bridges are suppose to have a 75 year life). But nothing that you have said so far, unless you think that all tax payer funded work should be bare bones, makes me pause in my opinion, said as a tax payer, that the rebuilding of the bridges should have included capping all of the Logan Sq. holes, and it should have at least considered additional capping of the expressway.

If you call the project we have today "bare minimum" than I assume you haven't actually looked at the website and fully grasped the scale of the project. They did a LOT beyond replace the bridge structures. People are arguing they were obligated to do a much larger project, but what is being done will leave the project area much better off from an aethestic, traffic flow and pedestrian perspective. There shouldn't be any debate about that.

There seems to be a general lack of awareness about money and controls on how it's spent. I'm not defending PENNDOT (pay close attention to what is actually said)- I am saying that their mandate is not endless and many taxpayers are happy for that. So you can keep aiming your fire at me and pretending that there is general consensus that a road maintenance agency should be in the city building business- but that just isn't true. You would likely have to talk to some people outside of this forum to get a handle on how the "average" driver feels about these things. As pointed out, the DRPA tried the scope creep thing and it didn't work out well once the media started to highlight how far flung their investments were and how little of their capital budget was actually going towards the bridges.

I don't know that PENNDOT was even lead on 676 project. It wasn't even an interstate when the initial section was opened so my guess it was something the city and state wanted to see happen and then it was finished in the early 90s and designated an interstate. Very few significant stretches of urban highway were built from the start as tunnels and only a few have been buried. So this is not some unique or specific Philadelphia problem and compared to many other such urban highways 676 is relatively short. Most agree that highways cut through dense urban areas were a mistake- but the notion that there is an "obligation" to bury these highways with current dollars is a matter of opinion, not fact. That doesn't seem to be the conventional wisdom in this state or others since there are a host of these highways in cities across the nation that remain uncovered.

This state has done a poor job of maintaining or expanding or improving it's roads for decades- they are still digging out of that hole. There is a lot of competition for dollars- that's just reality. So the idea of several hundred million being dedicated to increasing green space in Philly while countless roads and bridges are in poor shape could be (would be) a tough sell.

Money is the issue. It's usually the issue. So a study when there is no money is pointless. A design for a project you can't fund is pointless. The caps are not some small additional scope of work that can be added on at the last minute. The caps would likely cost MORE than the project we actually got. PENNDOT doesn't do much design build and this was not design build. Sometimes certain details are left to the contractor but a basic package of documents is still offered for bidders during the procurement cycle. I believe the project was about $10M under budget- that is not even close to enough money to cap the entire section of highway.

again the idea that you cannot cap the highways unless the bridges are being replaced is not based on ANY technical information or logic. So no, you do not have to wait 75 years to cap the highway. Each cap would be an independent or a series of independent structures over the highway. Sorry, but just because Inga says it (she is not an engineer or architect) doesn't make it so.

[summersm343]

Can we stop this conversation? These novel long posts are getting extremely annoying.

[1487]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Can we stop this conversation? These novel long posts are getting extremely annoying.

never seen a novel THAT short.

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by 1487

never seen a novel THAT short.

OK, so maybe they're novellas.

[City Wide]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Can we stop this conversation? These novel long posts are getting extremely annoying.

Yes God! Must be nice to be able to speak for everyone.

Don't like, don't read!

But in any case----regarding my interaction with 1487, I give up. I'm convinced that he/she has a unique way of reasoning and reading and interpreting other peoples comments, which I just can't figure out, and he/she won't answer the most simple direct questions, which makes dialogue next to impossible. I just hope I'm not the same way, but from another perspective.

[Knight Hospitaller]

The ignore list is bliss.

[reparcsyks]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

The ignore list is bliss.

How do you put people on ignore?

[summersm343]

Updates on the Mansions at 21st & Race





Read more here:
http://www.ocfrealty.com/naked-phill...s-at-21st-race

[summersm343]

Southwest Gateway Housing conceptual design



Read more here:
http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/l...munity-project

[summersm343]

Wolff Court - 510 E. Girard Ave - luxury apartments/retail - 4 floors

Approved by the CDR.



Read more here:
http://planphilly.com/articles/2017/...lopment-market

[summersm343]

Art Commission OKs art installation behind the Art Museum



Read more here:
http://planphilly.com/articles/2017/...o-s-public-art

[Hrytsyu]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Updates on the Mansions at 21st & Race





Read more here:
http://www.ocfrealty.com/naked-phill...s-at-21st-race

While 21st and Race Mansions appear impressive, someone"s ambitious pet hamster could very well chew its way from the first unit to the last while setting new land speed record.

[1487]

Originally Posted by reparcsyks

How do you put people on ignore?

they discussed it extensively weeks back. Several people indicated they couldn't stomach anyone who didn't think Inga was a genius so they had to block all my posts. And God forbid everyone not have the exact same view on every single issue- thinking people can't be tolerated apparently. Not sure where these people live or work if they don't ever encounter people who don't agree with them but I want to be in that world .