PHILADELPHIA | Lowrise/General Developments Thread

[ScreamShatter]

I support it. Living in Kensington -- parking is getting kinda crazy. I'd like to not see this area become as unlivable as Fairmont or CC -- as parking is important especially for younger families being able to live in the city.

[iheartphilly]

Originally Posted by ScreamShatter

I support it. Living in Kensington -- parking is getting kinda crazy. I'd like to not see this area become as unlivable as Fairmont or CC -- as parking is important especially for younger families being able to live in the city.

I agree. We are not an island like Manhattan NYC where prices are crazy even for parking. Land and space is limited there so more parking doesn't make sense where land can no longer be created. In Philly, we are landlocked and many people have a need to own a vehicle for business or personal reasons and travel to and from NJ/DE or the 5 counties in the Philly Metro area. They should fine a happy balance to meet the needs of both city and non-city residents. It's a symbiotic relationship.

[eixample]

Sorry and will due respect, but you are beimg Nimbys. I live in South Philly and get annoyed at new development too, but I am dispassionate enough to realize that development is just the way things are and we shouldn't push for retrograde zoning code changes to protect my parking spot. Parking minimums push up costs for purchases and rentals (which maybe you'd like if you are a home owner but it is not a good thing for the city's future) and make development spread out farther to make more neighborhoods feel these pressures. The market should be allowed to take it's course and we should definitely not downzone or put in more parking minimums in areas of the city with great transit access, which west Philly north of Walnut and Kensington are.

[PHL10]

Originally Posted by ScreamShatter

I support it. Living in Kensington -- parking is getting kinda crazy. I'd like to not see this area become as unlivable as Fairmont or CC -- as parking is important especially for younger families being able to live in the city.

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

I agree. We are not an island like Manhattan NYC where prices are crazy even for parking. Land and space is limited there so more parking doesn't make sense where land can no longer be created. In Philly, we are landlocked and many people have a need to own a vehicle for business or personal reasons and travel to and from NJ/DE or the 5 counties in the Philly Metro area. They should fine a happy balance to meet the needs of both city and non-city residents. It's a symbiotic relationship.

So I get that there is support for not wanting to have a Center City like street parking situation but we really need to get away from assuming that legislation intended to correct a problem, actually does so and doesn’t make things worse. I also find it offensive for Council to complain about the lack affordable new construction and then push this type of legislation which will dramatically impact the cost of market rate housing.

Originally Posted by eixample

Sorry and will due respect, but you are beimg Nimbys. I live in South Philly and get annoyed at new development too, but I am dispassionate enough to realize that development is just the way things are and we shouldn't push for retrograde zoning code changes to protect my parking spot. Parking minimums push up costs for purchases and rentals (which maybe you'd like if you are a home owner but it is not a good thing for the city's future) and make development spread out farther to make more neighborhoods feel these pressures. The market should be allowed to take it's course and we should definitely not downzone or put in more parking minimums in areas of the city with great transit access, which west Philly north of Walnut and Kensington are.

Agreed.

[mja]

Originally Posted by ScreamShatter

I support it. Living in Kensington -- parking is getting kinda crazy. I'd like to not see this area become as unlivable as Fairmont or CC -- as parking is important especially for younger families being able to live in the city.

Speaking as someone who's been raising a family of 5 in Fairmount for the last 13 years, the parking situation is overblown. Is it hard to find parking sometimes? Sure. But worst case scenario is I drive around for 5 minutes and have to park 3-4 blocks away. And that's really only at certain times - like after 7 p.m. It's easy to find parking on my block during the day.

[iamrobk]

Just IMO but I have some level of sympathy re: parking, although I'm not sure what the solution is (and don't think it's this bill). But we find ourselves in a situation where we have a lot of people who genuinely want to live in the city but need regular access to their car because they work in the suburbs or an area of the city which is poorly served by mass transit. This isn't really a new phenomenon - look at how bad the 'reverse' commute out 76 has gotten - and while I don't think we need to go too far to embrace this situation, given the City's precarious population situation, I think it's worth discussing ways to make at least some mild reforms.

All that said, I'd prefer we fix the systemic issues of (1) improving mass transit quality and (2) getting more jobs in the City itself, but frankly doing something about parking is a hell of a lot easier. And the more people we have living here who want to live here, the more jobs will follow.

[City Wide]

Originally Posted by eixample

Sorry and will due respect, but you are beimg Nimbys. I live in South Philly and get annoyed at new development too, but I am dispassionate enough to realize that development is just the way things are and we shouldn't push for retrograde zoning code changes to protect my parking spot. Parking minimums push up costs for purchases and rentals (which maybe you'd like if you are a home owner but it is not a good thing for the city's future) and make development spread out farther to make more neighborhoods feel these pressures. The market should be allowed to take it's course and we should definitely not downzone or put in more parking minimums in areas of the city with great transit access, which west Philly north of Walnut and Kensington are.

Bringing out the NIMBY term is over the top to describe those who would like larger multi family housing projects to provide more off street parking. I doubt that many NIMBY's are following this site; its sortof self selected for people who are generally pro development. What's the point of throwing insults out there, dumb ass!
I agree that UC north of Walnut is in a very good transit access zone (hell, most of UC hasn't got much to complain about when it comes to having good access to SEPTA and Penn's buses) but that hasn't seemed to have had much effect on most/many peoples choice about owning a car. Social engineering through public policy and laws, which I'm ok with to a certain point, is good when it works, but if the people consistently speak against the policy---as in continuing to own cars---then its time to acknowledge that fact and change the policy. That could happen in several different methods, requiring some developments to have more off street parking is just one tool. Higher ownership fees on cars would be another, so would increasing mass transit, etc.
I don't get why so many people don't want to address what many people, in many neighborhoods, see as THE issue, lack of parking spaces. If you don't think its a problem, then that's a different issue. Personally I think anyone who drives even somewhat regularly would admit that traffic, and in many areas, parking is a problem. Not doing anything about it is just going to lead to the problem getting bigger, and just hoping the problem will work itself out has never worked (IE Manhattan island, density we all like, subways all over the place, and terrible traffic)
If someone wanted to put up a 200 unit building and it was a given that unless improvements were made, everyone in the neighborhood would have a marked decrease in their water pressure, who would willing OK that. I think most of us would want the developer to take responsibility to do what was required so no one, new and old alike, would 'suffer' because of the new building. It's not apples to apples, but I see parking in the same terms.

[Baconboy007]

Build more mix use parking decks like the one at 10th and Chestnut and put together a local resident discount program for monthly parking. There's plenty of dilapidated lots in Blackwell's district that could be turned into this and spur development at the same time. In areas like Kensington, Fairmount, and other neighborhoods throughout the city you're just screwed for parking and maybe that's a good thing. People are moving to those areas for what have to offer in local restaurants and shops. Not for parking. I have zero sympathy for parking though as I ride a bike everywhere or take public transportation when needed so maybe I'm biased.

[Skintreesnail]

Originally Posted by Baconboy007

Build more mix use parking decks like the one at 10th and Chestnut and put together a local resident discount program for monthly parking. There's plenty of dilapidated lots in Blackwell's district that could be turned into this and spur development at the same time. In areas like Kensington, Fairmount, and other neighborhoods throughout the city you're just screwed for parking and maybe that's a good thing. People are moving to those areas for what have to offer in local restaurants and shops. Not for parking. I have zero sympathy for parking though as I ride a bike everywhere or take public transportation when needed so maybe I'm biased.

I think this is kind of an interesting idea, kind of parking nodes for neighborhoods. I still don't think parking is that bad though and city council definitely should not be pushing for this. Out of all the issues residents are faced with, I would imagine parking would be on the bottom of the list. Such a bill will:
- Negatively impact pedestrian safety by introducing more driveways that interfere with the pedestrian right-of-way
- Increase housing costs since developers will pass the additional cost of parking onto the buyer or renter
- Encourage more car ownership in a city where traffic is already congested and mass transit options are plentiful
- Dissuade new development by forcing developers to work the required parking into their plans, even when it is not cost-effective or practical to do so
- Negatively impact the streetscape and character of Philadelphia, which is a dense rowhouse city, by encouraging street-facing garages and surface parking lots
- Insert negative here.

If I wanted my own private parking spot, I'd move to the suburbs. Besides, once all the self-driving vehicles hit the road, people will rely on car ownership less and less.

[iheartphilly]

^
I think they do tasteful parking garages down in the DC metro area. Not sure if the county owns or operates them, but patrons pay to park when they are need to use their vehicles. Silver Spring, MD or Bethesda MD comes to mind.

[Milksteak]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

I agree. We are not an island like Manhattan NYC where prices are crazy even for parking. Land and space is limited there so more parking doesn't make sense where land can no longer be created. In Philly, we are landlocked and many people have a need to own a vehicle for business or personal reasons and travel to and from NJ/DE or the 5 counties in the Philly Metro area. They should fine a happy balance to meet the needs of both city and non-city residents. It's a symbiotic relationship.

I will pipe in as one of those who chose to live in the city strictly because I wanted to. I was commuting 100 miles/day out past Princeton during my tenure in CC/South Philly, if I didn't have a place to park for an affordable price, I literally would never have moved to the city. I have very mixed feelings on this bill, but parking for me was a necessity, and it wasn't as simple as just finding a new job before we go down that road (pun not intended).

I like the idea of neighborhood parking areas, mixed use parking garages, or parking areas that generally don't look like shit. If I lived and worked in the city, I would 100% be one of those saying screw all parking and cars, but having done the reverse commute...it is kind of a necessary evil unless you want to drive out (more puns) everybody who doesn't also work in the city.

[iheartphilly]

Originally Posted by Milksteak

I will pipe in as one of those who chose to live in the city strictly because I wanted to. I was commuting 100 miles/day out past Princeton during my tenure in CC/South Philly, if I didn't have a place to park for an affordable price, I literally would never have moved to the city. I have very mixed feelings on this bill, but parking for me was a necessity, and it wasn't as simple as just finding a new job before we go down that road (pun not intended).

I like the idea of neighborhood parking areas, mixed use parking garages, or parking areas that generally don't look like shit. If I lived and worked in the city, I would 100% be one of those saying screw all parking and cars, but having done the reverse commute...it is kind of a necessary evil unless you want to drive out (more puns) everybody who doesn't also work in the city.

Nicely said. Another example: Media is very walk-able town and they have at least one parking garage off Main St that I've used before on the weekends since parking on main or side street can be difficult. Park in the garage and pay the machine and place ticket on dash, then have more time to do what you need to do instead of circling for an open space.

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by iheartphilly

I agree. We are not an island like Manhattan NYC where prices are crazy even for parking. Land and space is limited there so more parking doesn't make sense where land can no longer be created. In Philly, we are landlocked and many people have a need to own a vehicle for business or personal reasons and travel to and from NJ/DE or the 5 counties in the Philly Metro area. They should fine a happy balance to meet the needs of both city and non-city residents. It's a symbiotic relationship.

Sure, and this all was determined by planning professionals the last time they updated and developed the zoning code (2 years ago).

Bear in mind, as far as I understand, this is only in areas which are zoned for multi-family (like CC and UC). So a lot of the more standard rowhome neighborhoods this would not affect/touch.

[City Wide]

Originally Posted by Londonee

Sure, and this all was determined by planning professionals the last time they updated and developed the zoning code (2 years ago).

Bear in mind, as far as I understand, this is only in areas which are zoned for multi-family (like CC and UC). So a lot of the more standard rowhome neighborhoods this would not affect/touch.

My understanding is that the parking provisions in proposed law would effect multi-family projects of 10 units or larger.

In the national news: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/05/17/w...se-its-progress-on-parking-requirements/

[EastSideHBG]

I get why the hardcore urban folks are anti car and anti parking but it's just not realistic and I do feel that there is a happy medium. I had to park in the city on a very busy night recently and I spent so much time circling and looking for parking and I couldn't help but think how bad this was for the environment, as there were dozens upon dozens of other drivers doing the same thing (there were no garages in this area). I know many people that live in the city and they can be held hostage on some days because they don't want to lose their spaces. Yes I know, first world problems and the cost of city living but why not work with people and try to find solutions instead of immediately shutting the discussion down? Philly is an old city with many very narrow streets so we do have a unique problem.

And blocks upon blocks of cars parked bumper to bumper is not a pretty sight to me and that can lead to a danger for cyclists and pedestrians (the traffic calming argument doesn't hold much weight with me because it is negated by further narrowing a narrow street).

[El Duderino]

to me, the issue boils down to this: do you value marginal convenience for a small group of immediate neighbors over increased traffic congestion, higher housing costs, more negative environmental impact and a less inviting urban, human-scale environment?

there is no right to parking, especially in one of the densest cities in the country. not one of the superstar cities in this country is at that level because of more parking, and if we believe we belong in that discussion, we should act as such. or at least bring this proposal up in the future when we are above 70% occupancy in public and private parking in University City (per https://www.phila.gov/CityPlanning/projectreviews/PDF/2017%20UC%20Parking%20Inventory.pdf). there is no suggestion in this report to build more parking, but to try reduce vehicular traffic in the most transit-accessible areas and optimize the parking we already have available. i know facts can be inconvenient these days, but come on.

i’m also reminded of the crap people gave to the river walk project about the garage; if you’re in favor of this law, sign yourself up for a big dose of that, though probably much uglier and even less pedestrian friendly.

[EastSideHBG]

Originally Posted by El Duderino

to me, the issue boils down to this: do you value marginal convenience for a small group of immediate neighbors over increased traffic congestion, higher housing costs, more negative environmental impact and a less inviting urban, human-scale environment?

there is no right to parking, especially in one of the densest cities in the country. not one of the superstar cities in this country is at that level because of more parking, and if we believe we belong in that discussion, we should act as such. or at least bring this proposal up in the future when we are above 70% occupancy in public and private parking in University City (per https://www.phila.gov/CityPlanning/projectreviews/PDF/2017%20UC%20Parking%20Inventory.pdf). there is no suggestion in this report to build more parking, but to try reduce vehicular traffic in the most transit-accessible areas and optimize the parking we already have available. i know facts can be inconvenient these days, but come on.

i’m also reminded of the crap people gave to the river walk project about the garage; if you’re in favor of this law, sign yourself up for a big dose of that, though probably much uglier and even less pedestrian friendly.

Definitely a fair point and not saying that this law is the answer but I don't think that completely shutting parking discussions down is very realistic, especially if you want to attract a well rounded demographic. "Philly needs more families that stay," is mentioned often and if you want to go for that bunch cars/parking will have to be a part of the discussion.

And for the record I am for multi-pronged approaches when it comes to cars and transportation but that is a bigger discussion and not all of it within the city's control so can get quite complicated.

[El Duderino]

Originally Posted by EastSideHBG

Definitely a fair point and not saying that this law is the answer but I don't think that completely shutting parking discussions down is very realistic, especially if you want to attract a well rounded demographic. "Philly needs more families that stay," is mentioned often and if you want to go for that bunch cars/parking will have to be a part of the discussion.

And for the record I am for multi-pronged approaches when it comes to cars and transportation but that is a bigger discussion and not all of it within the city's control so can get quite complicated.

Totally hear you and I didn’t mean to imply that talking about a hot button issue is bad - I just think this approach at this time is a bit of a cop out on the Council’s part. Keeping families in the city is very important for so many reasons, but I question how many families are looking at multi-family (I am cringing at this built in contradiction as I type it) compared to single-family for a long term option in the specific areas this bill is meant to cover.

If this does get passed, I hope there’s a provision similar to the affordable unit/height allowance where developers can choose to give funds to SEPTA or some other entity that focuses on transit in lieu of building more parking. Basically i think this is a BS solution to a real, if perhaps overblown, issue.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by El Duderino

to me, the issue boils down to this: do you value marginal convenience for a small group of immediate neighbors over increased traffic congestion, higher housing costs, more negative environmental impact and a less inviting urban, human-scale environment?

there is no right to parking, especially in one of the densest cities in the country. not one of the superstar cities in this country is at that level because of more parking, and if we believe we belong in that discussion, we should act as such. or at least bring this proposal up in the future when we are above 70% occupancy in public and private parking in University City (per https://www.phila.gov/CityPlanning/projectreviews/PDF/2017%20UC%20Parking%20Inventory.pdf). there is no suggestion in this report to build more parking, but to try reduce vehicular traffic in the most transit-accessible areas and optimize the parking we already have available. i know facts can be inconvenient these days, but come on.

i’m also reminded of the crap people gave to the river walk project about the garage; if you’re in favor of this law, sign yourself up for a big dose of that, though probably much uglier and even less pedestrian friendly.

[City Wide]

Originally Posted by El Duderino

Totally hear you and I didn’t mean to imply that talking about a hot button issue is bad - I just think this approach at this time is a bit of a cop out on the Council’s part. Keeping families in the city is very important for so many reasons, but I question how many families are looking at multi-family (I am cringing at this built in contradiction as I type it) compared to single-family for a long term option in the specific areas this bill is meant to cover.

If this does get passed, I hope there’s a provision similar to the affordable unit/height allowance where developers can choose to give funds to SEPTA or some other entity that focuses on transit in lieu of building more parking. Basically i think this is a BS solution to a real, if perhaps overblown, issue.

Right now this idea of increasing off street parking for new multi family buildings is coming from Blackwell, and she along with council in general doesn't seem to process issues that have multiply and interconnected parts. I fully accept that in a small part of her district that the supply of on street parking has gotten tight. Certainly traffic is a related problem that will be effected by more housing units opening. As you've mentioned zoning and affordability can be included in the mix. But expecting the City council to consider the interconnectedness of all these issues is just not practical, its just not going to happen.

I don't know how it works in other neighborhoods, but in UC where access to all forms of SEPTA is very good, many cars just sit for much of the week. Meaning---I don't think providing a 100 or so additional off street parking spots is going to effect parking and local traffic in general as much as having 400 or 500 apartment units coming on line is going to have, especially when half of these units have 3 or more bedrooms (and cars most likely). In UC I don't buy into the notion that induced demand is going to be in play as much as the very simple fact that building more housing units in a dense area is going to be bringing a lot more cars into that area, even if many of them just sit parked for days on end. The point being is whether you or I like it or not more housing units is going to create on street parking difficulties. The question is if the City is going to look at 'root' issues or just slap a feel good change into the zoning law, declare victory, pat themselves on the back, and not much changes in reality.

BTW---because of the nature of grad students (approx. 10K of them at Penn) theres always been a small market for families renting in the old apartment buildings in UC. With the advent of having a VERY good public neighbor school in the area I've heard that some of the apartment buildings along Spruce St are now marketing to young families, since buying in the area has gotten SO expensive. If you are a landlord which sounds better, renting to a family with a kid or two who might stay there for at least several years, or a group of students who will move out in a year.