PHILADELPHIA | Lowrise/General Developments Thread

[Redddog]

Originally Posted by Londonee

I'll be really disappointed if the city and CCD don't focus their efforts to clean up Market East once this half-billion dollar city owned project opens in a few weeks. It's literally the heart of tourist town. If Kirk Goldsberry did a shot chart for which streets see the most tourists per day, this stretch of Market Street would be bright red. It's 1 street, like 8 blocks, get it right and clean it up for f**k's sake.

Can anyone confirm when the Methadone clinic lease is up? I feel like that will make big difference. But yeah, without knowing any of the intricacies regarding how you "clean" people from the streets, they really have to do something. But as I said before, the tourists are what brings the panhandlers out.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by Londonee

I'll be really disappointed if the city and CCD don't focus their efforts to clean up Market East once this half-billion dollar city owned project opens in a few weeks. It's literally the heart of tourist town. If Kirk Goldsberry did a shot chart for which streets see the most tourists per day, this stretch of Market Street would be bright red. It's 1 street, like 8 blocks, get it right and clean it up for f**k's sake.

I don't think there are any easy options. I mean you can't really force homeless and addicts off the streets if they aren't blocking sidewalks or harassing people. The private security guards at Wawa can barely keep the area in front of the East Market location clear- they will stop people from standing directly in front of the door, but that's about it. They have toughened enforcement inside the Headhouse as you enter Jefferson Station- but that just means they have pushed those bodies outside for all to see on Market and Filbert.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by Redddog

Can anyone confirm when the Methadone clinic lease is up? I feel like that will make big difference. But yeah, without knowing any of the intricacies regarding how you "clean" people from the streets, they really have to do something. But as I said before, the tourists are what brings the panhandlers out.

I don't see much panhandling- it's not really about harassment- just the aesthetics of seeing so many destitute people standing or laying around 12th and Market. The addicts are so out of it, the last thing they would be doing is begging for money.

[iheartphilly]

TBH...I've seen addicts/panhandlers fight (both physical and verbal) against one another on both the entrances and around the 12th and Market and 8th and Market Sts. Kind of a strange thing to see when they are under the influence of something. But hey, that's one of the flavors of a big city.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by PHL10

My feeling exactly. I went from being really PO'd to just mildly disappointed with the loss of the original structure but excited about this new addition.

I'll wait to see what the actual building looks like in person. Anyone can draw a pretty picture. This could be as misleading as most DAS renders...

[DudeGuy]

Originally Posted by summersm343

CDR Submission - Large mixed-use development coming to 10th & Berks

Located between Temple University and the Temple SEPTA station

View PDF here:
https://www.phila.gov/media/20190822...10thStreet.pdf

This is a marked improvement, although I am disappointed they didn't opt for more density given the proximity to the regional rail station.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by DudeGuy

This is a marked improvement, although I am disappointed they didn't opt for more density given the proximity to the regional rail station.

A lot of the money is federal- they are trying to provide X number of affordable units to replace what has been removed from the inventory. They dont have the flexibility or funding to simply build the maximum amount of units the code allows.

[PhilliesPhan]

Originally Posted by cardeza

A lot of the money is federal- they are trying to provide X number of affordable units to replace what has been removed from the inventory. They dont have the flexibility or funding to simply build the maximum amount of units the code allows.

I wonder if parking is a part of the federal requirement for funding. Having a surface parking lot next to a transit hub is ridiculous. Regardless, these new units are a huge upgrade over what used to be there!

Secretly, I wish the land could have been bought by Temple. Having campus extend to the Regional Rail stop would have been even larger of an upgrade for the area. Due to the relationship between long-term residents and my alma mater, however, something like that wouldn't have happened without a drawn out fight.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by PhilliesPhan

I wonder if parking is a part of the federal requirement for funding. Having a surface parking lot next to a transit hub is ridiculous. Regardless, these new units are a huge upgrade over what used to be there!

Secretly, I wish the land could have been bought by Temple. Having campus extend to the Regional Rail stop would have been even larger of an upgrade for the area. Due to the relationship between long-term residents and my alma mater, however, something like that wouldn't have happened without a drawn out fight.

PHA is not giving up an prime plots of land. They cant afford to buy NEW land so they have to hold on to what they have. They are not a private landholder that exists to make profit. Whether people like it or not, many working class people work in the burbs and heavily rely on cars- building housing that ignores the realities of how the intended tenants live makes little sense- especially considering there is very little on street parking around this site which is hemmed in by RR tracks and Temple.

[eixample]

Originally Posted by cardeza

PHA is not giving up an prime plots of land. They cant afford to buy NEW land so they have to hold on to what they have. They are not a private landholder that exists to make profit. Whether people like it or not, many working class people work in the burbs and heavily rely on cars- building housing that ignores the realities of how the intended tenants live makes little sense- especially considering there is very little on street parking around this site which is hemmed in by RR tracks and Temple.

If PHA cared so much about building on every inch of land they have, they wouldn't build surface lots. I don't get why people in public housing need government subsidized off-street parking when their neighbors that pay market rate for our housing costs make do without.

[DudeGuy]

Originally Posted by cardeza

PThey cant afford to buy NEW land so they have to hold on to what they have.

They could afford to buy new land if the city upzoned lots like this and sold them to the highest bidder, provided a minimum affordable housing %.

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by eixample

If PHA cared so much about building on every inch of land they have, they wouldn't build surface lots. I don't get why people in public housing need government subsidized off-street parking when their neighbors that pay market rate for our housing costs make do without.

Agreed. There's a ton of PHA subsidized parking in housing complexes about 10 blocks from where I live. Where I live, I'd pay an extra $1mm for parking at my house. Not sure the economics make sense. Would much rather they build another 40-50 low-income houses and scrap the parking/open space - or find another solution. It's just bizarre.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by Londonee

Agreed. There's a ton of PHA subsidized parking in housing complexes about 10 blocks from where I live. Where I live, I'd pay an extra $1mm for parking at my house. Not sure the economics make sense. Would much rather they build another 40-50 low-income houses and scrap the parking/open space - or find another solution. It's just bizarre.

Seriously. It's not like they couldn't just create parking permit zone and give the residents parking permits. It's an imperfect solution and would like mean that some late arriving residents might be circling blocks forever and parking an ungodly distance away. But hey, that's what my wife has to do when she gets home late and basically all of our neighbors. It's annoying but it didn't stop us from buying our house and likely wouldn't stop anyone from deciding to live in this subsidized housing.

The idea that money that could otherwise be spent to house families should be pissed away on a parking lot, could have only developed in Philadelphia, a city whose residents have a completely unreasonable expectation of free parking.

Will these residences cater to the elderly? Perhaps if they anticipate a lot of residents would qualify and have a need for handicapped parking, a lot would make sense. But I doubt there's a reasonable explanation for this besides the understanding that people would be pissed if there was no parking.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by eixample

If PHA cared so much about building on every inch of land they have, they wouldn't build surface lots. I don't get why people in public housing need government subsidized off-street parking when their neighbors that pay market rate for our housing costs make do without.

Im not sure what this development will entail in terms of rentals vs ownership units, etc. Some PHA projects have mixed income goals and will offer ownership units- this was done in East Falls, South Philly and other places in the city. PHA owns the land- I'm not sure I follow the "subsidized" parking accusation. I dont know the zoning of this parcel, but Im not sure why anyone would've expected 2 story units to be replaced with some CC type density considering the location. There are very few mid or high rise buildings in this areas outside of TU's campus- mostly 2 story rowhouses to the east.

edit- 44 spaces for 133 units? That is what people consider excessive parking for this site? Sorry, I think Philly has much bigger fish to fry.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by DudeGuy

They could afford to buy new land if the city upzoned lots like this and sold them to the highest bidder, provided a minimum affordable housing %.

In case you missed it, this entire approach to providing affordable housing is very controversial and the law that was passed was relatively anemic in terms of unit production after extensive negotiation and compromise with the development community. I'm not exactly clear where some folks think its acceptable for poor or working class people to live. You seem to be saying this plot of land should've been sold off so a for profit developer could build something near Temple and then PHA could use the money to house poor people on the outskirts of the city. Which is interesting because others were saying the proximity to transit is the reason this place shouldn't include any parking.

[eixample]

Originally Posted by cardeza

Im not sure what this development will entail in terms of rentals vs ownership units, etc. Some PHA projects have mixed income goals and will offer ownership units- this was done in East Falls, South Philly and other places in the city. PHA owns the land- I'm not sure I follow the "subsidized" parking accusation. I dont know the zoning of this parcel, but Im not sure why anyone would've expected 2 story units to be replaced with some CC type density considering the location. There are very few mid or high rise buildings in this areas outside of TU's campus- mostly 2 story rowhouses to the east.

edit- 44 spaces for 133 units? That is what people consider excessive parking for this site? Sorry, I think Philly has much bigger fish to fry.

Public housing in the US, including PHA, is a massive whale of a problem that we need to harpoon, carve up and boil down the blubber. They spend massive amounts on these new units (more than $400k per unit, I believe) - money that could be spent much, much better and provide much more housing to people who need it. Or maybe we should take that money and subsidize home repairs for houses that are falling apart rather than spending so much for such little housing output. Like public transportation and infrastructure (which are also massively wasteful with their funds compared to similar developed nations), I would love to have a huge increase in spending for housing for the poor, disabled, elderly, etc. But not in our current wasteful system. Admittedly, this is a far bigger problem than the city can address on its own.

Also to answer your question, the parking is taxpayer funded because the publicly funded agency bought or acquired the land and then decided not to build houses on it or sell it to fund other development but instead pave it over for parking.

[EastSideHBG]

Originally Posted by reparcsyks

Sources tell me that Coradino will be decking out the Black Israelites in the latest fashions from H&M, some hot guy-liner from Ulta and sweet kicks from Nike.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by eixample

Public housing in the US, including PHA, is a massive whale of a problem that we need to harpoon, carve up and boil down the blubber. They spend massive amounts on these new units (more than $400k per unit, I believe) - money that could be spent much, much better and provide much more housing to people who need it. Or maybe we should take that money and subsidize home repairs for houses that are falling apart rather than spending so much for such little housing output. Like public transportation and infrastructure (which are also massively wasteful with their funds compared to similar developed nations), I would love to have a huge increase in spending for housing for the poor, disabled, elderly, etc. But not in our current wasteful system. Admittedly, this is a far bigger problem than the city can address on its own.

Also to answer your question, the parking is taxpayer funded because the publicly funded agency bought or acquired the land and then decided not to build houses on it or sell it to fund other development but instead pave it over for parking.

Its funny that people spout off these assertions about cost per unit without any context or proof. WHat is the average cost per unit for new construction in a privately funded development? On projects of similar size is there any notable difference in cost? Rehabbing older homes sounds great- except for the fact that taking a many decades old home and bringing it up to today's code is as (if not more) involved as building ground up. If you knew anything about construction you know that doing X amount of work in one location is ALWAYS more economical than doing X amount of work over 50 sites. Good luck producing 133 units scattered amongst 133 old rowhomes all over the city for the same amount as whatever this project costs. If a unit costs 400k (including all site work, design, permitting, stormwater management costs, etc.) and is expected to last 75 years as affordable housing- is that really an outrageous sum? Just because a housing unit isnt luxury housing does not mean that construction cost scale down in proportion to what the house would sell for. You seem to be implying that a philly developer special (full of low cost exterior materials) costs far more to build than a new home built for working class people. Labor costs, site costs, permit costs, CM costs, design costs, etc. are relatively constant regardless of who is supposed to live in the house. And unlike private developers, public agencies are typically very committed to adhering to code or striving for LEED performance since they aren't designing/managing to make money on the final product.

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by allovertown

Seriously. It's not like they couldn't just create parking permit zone and give the residents parking permits. It's an imperfect solution and would like mean that some late arriving residents might be circling blocks forever and parking an ungodly distance away. But hey, that's what my wife has to do when she gets home late and basically all of our neighbors. It's annoying but it didn't stop us from buying our house and likely wouldn't stop anyone from deciding to live in this subsidized housing.

The idea that money that could otherwise be spent to house families should be pissed away on a parking lot, could have only developed in Philadelphia, a city whose residents have a completely unreasonable expectation of free parking.

Will these residences cater to the elderly? Perhaps if they anticipate a lot of residents would qualify and have a need for handicapped parking, a lot would make sense. But I doubt there's a reasonable explanation for this besides the understanding that people would be pissed if there was no parking.

This is just such a waste of space:

https://goo.gl/maps/AFiwsBjPMaeGhzoY7

[Frontst17]

Originally Posted by cardeza

Its funny that people spout off these assertions about cost per unit without any context or proof. WHat is the average cost per unit for new construction in a privately funded development? On projects of similar size is there any notable difference in cost? Rehabbing older homes sounds great- except for the fact that taking a many decades old home and bringing it up to today's code is as (if not more) involved as building ground up. If you knew anything about construction you know that doing X amount of work in one location is ALWAYS more economical than doing X amount of work over 50 sites. Good luck producing 133 units scattered amongst 133 old rowhomes all over the city for the same amount as whatever this project costs. If a unit costs 400k (including all site work, design, permitting, stormwater management costs, etc.) and is expected to last 75 years as affordable housing- is that really an outrageous sum? Just because a housing unit isnt luxury housing does not mean that construction cost scale down in proportion to what the house would sell for. You seem to be implying that a philly developer special (full of low cost exterior materials) costs far more to build than a new home built for working class people. Labor costs, site costs, permit costs, CM costs, design costs, etc. are relatively constant regardless of who is supposed to live in the house. And unlike private developers, public agencies are typically very committed to adhering to code or striving for LEED performance since they aren't designing/managing to make money on the final product.

Preach brotha. These are literally the conversations that ended up in the bulldozing of neighborhoods to create project towers, that are now being torn down across the country. “This land is too valuable to have poor people live here. Let’s bulldoze all the lawns and driveways in the northeast then put high density subsidized housing where we can stick the poor people. Next we’ll build “luxury” homes in place. That way we can create our enclave in the city to squeeze more taxes from wealthy people.” Its a cycle and it’s a crap trickle down bs.