PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread X

[Skintreesnail]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

Probably more reasonable than shutting everything down, but ultimately unlikely to succeed. Assuming the usefulness of lockdowns as a delaying tactic, which is not clear, we now have more effective treatment protocols and therapeutics, such that the death rate (knock on wood) appears to be much lower as a percentage of cases. With an apparently successful vaccine program, we've definitely arrived at the point of diminishing returns for such draconian measures. For quite a stretch there have been fewer COVID deaths than traffic fatalities. Every life is irreplaceable and precious, but by the standard being employed by local authorities, we should shut down the highways.

I know I'm not going to be changing anyone's minds, so I'll stop after this, but the preliminary data from the previous lockdown does indicate it was effective. and the more effective protocols aren't really being used to their full extent (re: contact tracing). And do you really think that everything will be hunky dory if we just open everything up and forget about restrictions? No, people will not be going out because not everyone is reckless. Most businesses will continue to be hurting and probably close. So in the end we end up in a similar place economically but with more dead people. Super.

[eixample]

Originally Posted by PhilliesPhan

I don't understand the point of blaming the city when this is a federal issue. COVID has been, and continues to be, a nationwide issue propagated by a lack of leadership coming out of Washington, D.C. Instead of trying to play off the significance of the virus, our elected "leaders" could have been busy working towards ensuring that those affected (individuals and small, locally-owned businesses) by shutdowns would be properly taken care of. If other first-world nations can get this done, why can't we? Instead, someone who I won't mention by name would rather let bills sit on his desk while continuously attempting to lowball the American people.

The city is simply being more proactive than the country as a whole, when, in reality, the country should be implementing similar measures. Our federal government--one that we pay a lot of taxes towards--has failed us more than too many people realize.

I agree with you. Our local/state governments haven't gotten everything right, but they have done a decent job and I understand why they want to shut many places down now even if it is a crappy decision in other ways. Just to name two obvious reasons for new shut-downs, we need to make sure that hospital ERs don't fill up (which is bad for all sick people) and we need to do what we can to keep the community infection rate low to keep covid out of prisons and nursing homes where it has disastrous results. The CDC was unfortunately neutered early on in this process, but they could have taken a much more active role in setting standards and guiding local governments. And the federal government has essentially unlimited pockets in times of emergency that could have paid for all sorts of things that would have kept people safer and our economy doing better. Just the fact that we are still nowhere near cheap, quick, at-home testing months after we figured out the technical side is mind-boggling for living in the most advanced scientific community on Earth.

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by eixample

Just the fact that we are still nowhere near cheap, quick, at-home testing months after we figured out the technical side is mind-boggling for living in the most advanced scientific community on Earth.

At home testing has been around for a while. Google "Pixel by Labcorp." - have done it a few times and is quite good. Free if you have insurance.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by PhilliesPhan

I don't understand the point of blaming the city when this is a federal issue. COVID has been, and continues to be, a nationwide issue propagated by a lack of leadership coming out of Washington, D.C. Instead of trying to play off the significance of the virus, our elected "leaders" could have been busy working towards ensuring that those affected (individuals and small, locally-owned businesses) by shutdowns would be properly taken care of. If other first-world nations can get this done, why can't we? Instead, someone who I won't mention by name would rather let bills sit on his desk while continuously attempting to lowball the American people.

The city is simply being more proactive than the country as a whole, when, in reality, the country should be implementing similar measures. Our federal government--one that we pay a lot of taxes towards--has failed us more than too many people realize.

How is it a federal issue? Is it even a state issue? Philadelphia is making these decisions entirely on its own. The federal government is supposed to be a bailout machine I guess. I won't waste folks time on a skyscraper page pointing out your other questionable assertions.

[summersm343]

OK, conversation ends here. I see I opened a can of worms. My bad.

[City Wide]

Originally Posted by summersm343

OK, conversation ends here. I see I opened a can of worms. My bad.

That's too bad. This detour has gone pretty good, all things considered and compared to past detours (taxes, and income inequality). Personally I learned alittle bit about how the other side claims to think, and in our battle scarred society even little bits of communication are good.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by City Wide

That's too bad. This detour has gone pretty good, all things considered and compared to past detours (taxes, and income inequality). Personally I learned alittle bit about how the other side claims to think, and in our battle scarred society even little bits of communication are good.

Okay, you can keep the conversations going! Sorry, I needed to clean up a few posts and I was busy earlier. I just read through the rest and the rest are fine, so continue convo!

[mcgrath618]

With Hallahan closing, do we think that it will be demolished? Is it historically protected? It's a prime spot for development.

[Justin7]

Originally Posted by thoughtcriminal

A meme I saw on social media earlier:
If the first lockdowns worked, why are we doing them again?
If the first lockdowns didn't work, why are we doing them again?

Please post more idiotic takes from Twitter. Exactly what this forum needs.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

Probably more reasonable than shutting everything down, but ultimately unlikely to succeed. Assuming the usefulness of lockdowns as a delaying tactic, which is not clear, we now have more effective treatment protocols and therapeutics, such that the death rate (knock on wood) appears to be much lower as a percentage of cases. With an apparently successful vaccine program, we've definitely arrived at the point of diminishing returns for such draconian measures. For quite a stretch there have been fewer COVID deaths than traffic fatalities. Every life is irreplaceable and precious, but by the standard being employed by local authorities, we should shut down the highways.

This is hyperbole. How many people die per day in Philadelphia in traffic accidents?

[summersm343]

As demand for lab space rises, Philadelphia-area developers step up to meet the growth

The growth in Philadelphia's life sciences industry is driving the need for more lab space, and developers are shifting their focus to meet the demand.

Full article behind paywall below. Who can read it? Anything new?
https://www.bizjournals.com/philadel...ut-region.html

[Raja]

Reasons to limit in-person contact:

- A quarter million deaths and counting in eight months.

- COVID is still a new disease. We do not understand the long-term implications, and it appears increasingly likely that there are many. COVID will continue to cost Americans their health and money for a long time.

- COVID patients are extraordinarily high-maintenance. They require several machines, the course of the disease is lengthy, and the high transmission rate requires precautions that slow acute treatment. Consequently, COVID spikes are an enormous burden on the health system as a whole. On the consumer side, patients suffer a severe depletion of access. For example, the Jefferson ER has already been on divert several times in the past few weeks, meaning they are full and CANNOT receive patients by ambulance. Those patients must go elsewhere. Doctors from other fields must be pulled to help cover COVID patients. Heart patients, lung patients, etc. etc. do not receive the same level of acute care they otherwise would enjoy. The burdens trickle down, and every health care consumer suffers. On the provider side, hospitals must cancel the elective procedures that generate most of the revenue. Hesitant patients visit less frequently. Ask any health administrator in Philadelphia. They will all tell you that COVID could bankrupt the system.

Reasons not to limit in-person contact:

- In-person social interaction has important mental health benefits, particularly for children.

- Brick-and-mortar retailers, including restaurants and--yes--transit agencies, rely largely on in-person interaction. These businesses will suffer greatly if social movement and interaction is reduced. The farther they fall, the longer it will take to build them back up.


The American worldview starts from the premise of freedom of choice. In an ideal world, individuals would be left to weigh these costs and make their own decisions about how to approach COVID. In an ideal world, those choosing to risk contracting COVID could sign a waiver agreeing not to seek treatment, and to compensate the damages befalling any individual to whom she spreads the disease. But unfortunately, such a system is cumbersome, and medical ethics do not permit it anyways. American behavioral norms--demanding and blame-deflecting--do not jibe with the American worldview, and free rider problems abound.

So what to do? Perhaps take an incremental approach. Require masks, reduce capacity, require brief closures if necessary. In other words, do exactly what we're doing. And at the same time, provide financial support. I mean, christ, if we can spend a trillion dollars a year on national defense during times of peace, then we can do the same for other national force majeures.

Also, the development of two highly efficacious vaccines in eight months has been remarkable.

[EastSideHBG]

Originally Posted by Raja

Reasons to limit in-person contact:

- A quarter million deaths and counting in eight months.

- COVID is still a new disease. We do not understand the long-term implications, and it appears increasingly likely that there are many. COVID will continue to cost Americans their health and money for a long time.

- COVID patients are extraordinarily high-maintenance. They require several machines, the course of the disease is lengthy, and the high transmission rate requires precautions that slow acute treatment. Consequently, COVID spikes are an enormous burden on the health system as a whole. On the consumer side, patients suffer a severe depletion of access. For example, the Jefferson ER has already been on divert several times in the past few weeks, meaning they are full and CANNOT receive patients by ambulance. Those patients must go elsewhere. Doctors from other fields must be pulled to help cover COVID patients. Heart patients, lung patients, etc. etc. do not receive the same level of acute care they otherwise would enjoy. The burdens trickle down, and every health care consumer suffers. On the provider side, hospitals must cancel the elective procedures that generate most of the revenue. Hesitant patients visit less frequently. Ask any health administrator in Philadelphia. They will all tell you that COVID could bankrupt the system.

Reasons not to limit in-person contact:

- In-person social interaction has important mental health benefits, particularly for children.

- Brick-and-mortar retailers, including restaurants and--yes--transit agencies, rely largely on in-person interaction. These businesses will suffer greatly if social movement and interaction is reduced. The farther they fall, the longer it will take to build them back up.


The American worldview starts from the premise of freedom of choice. In an ideal world, individuals would be left to weigh these costs and make their own decisions about how to approach COVID. In an ideal world, those choosing to risk contracting COVID could sign a waiver agreeing not to seek treatment, and to compensate the damages befalling any individual to whom she spreads the disease. But unfortunately, such a system is cumbersome, and medical ethics do not permit it anyways. American behavioral norms--demanding and blame-deflecting--do not jibe with the American worldview, and free rider problems abound.

So what to do? Perhaps take an incremental approach. Require masks, reduce capacity, require brief closures if necessary. In other words, do exactly what we're doing. And at the same time, provide financial support. I mean, christ, if we can spend a trillion dollars a year on national defense during times of peace, then we can do the same for other national force majeures.

Also, the development of two highly efficacious vaccines in eight months has been remarkable.

Amen! I am furious about the closures not because they aren't necessary but because of how the government is responding to them financially. If there is money for six figure salaries, pet projects, etc., there is most certainly money to hand out to people who desperately need it. Telling hardworking small business owners who took a chance and set up shop in the city when it is never easy to do so to go pound sand for six more weeks is disgusting and this will most certainly chase business away once we are through this.

Philly is a cool city but there is a lot of competition outside of its borders and they need to wise up. I have no doubts that the surrounding counties may be in a similar boat soon and my same feelings will apply there as well.

[summersm343]

I don't believe what I'm seeing. They have to be fucking idiots. Go ahead, keep making Philadelphia less desirable to do business in. Especially in a year where companies are hesitant to keep their businesses in major cities because of the pandemic and so much civil unrest. That's exactly the reason so many of your residents are poor and in poverty you fucking morons. Drive businesses out right when we're starting to make traction on getting businesses and jobs to come back to the city.

Philly City Council to weigh reduction in commercial tax abatement

Read more here:
https://www.inquirer.com/news/tax-ab...-20201119.html

[mcgrath618]

Why is Clarke hell bent on destroying this city?

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by mcgrath618

Why is Clarke hell bent on destroying this city?

LOL. Exactly.

What's crazy is, I would be all for reducing the commercial property tax abatement, and/or increasing commercial property taxes if it meant a reduction or elimination of the Wage Tax and the BIRT tax.

Clarke is a career politician. He's not trying to solve poverty. He's trying to halt gentrification. Because all of this means he is at risk of being re-elected in the future.

You know what would instantly put money in your constituent's poverty ridden pockets? Paying 2% to 2.8% less in wage taxes. You know what would help to start reducing poverty in the City of Philadelphia? A growth in jobs paying living wages.

[eburress]

It's been very interesting following this discussion. I realize we're on a pro-development skyscraper forum, but the viewpoints being expressed are far more Libertarian than I might have expected.

Living in Dallas, we've been benefiting from the influx of people and companies fleeing places like what you're describing. I've seen first-hand that you folks are right to have the concerns you do.

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

This is hyperbole. How many people die per day in Philadelphia in traffic accidents?

Not really. I Googled the stats back in the summer and did the math to get an average number per week or day, and that was larger than the COVID average, which was 1 or fewer per day at that point. Gun violence was more deadly too at the time. [CAVEAT: I was looking at last year's traffic data. The impact of COVID on that is not clear. One would expect fewer accidents during the times with greater restrictions, but I also heard that there was an increase in accidents (perhaps due to foolhardy driving on more open roads)]

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by summersm343

I don't believe what I'm seeing. They have to be fucking idiots. Go ahead, keep making Philadelphia less desirable to do business in. Especially in a year where companies are hesitant to keep their businesses in major cities because of the pandemic and so much civil unrest. That's exactly the reason so many of your residents are poor and in poverty you fucking morons. Drive businesses out right when we're starting to make traction on getting businesses and jobs to come back to the city.

Philly City Council to weigh reduction in commercial tax abatement

Read more here:
https://www.inquirer.com/news/tax-ab...-20201119.html

Let's all go out for dinner and a drink after the vote! Oh, wait.....

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Because all of this means [WE ARE] at risk of [CLARKE] being re-elected in the future.

Fixed it.