Quote:
Originally Posted by Insoluble
Just because some long time Philadelphians believe something doesn't make it true. PHA housing does not increase litter and crime. You mention "a lot of research" without actually citing any. The PHA developments I'm familiar with don't seem to have any more crime or litter than other surrounding neighborhoods though. It may be that some lifelong residents have a serious dislike for them. But I'll bet you that there are WAY more long time residents that detest any development denser than a 3-story row home. I doubt that most of the folks on this forum would actually be happy if Philadelphia was developed based on what the majority of long term residents want.
This is one of the two that I live closest to, the other being the one on the south end of Queen Village. The irony is that both these developments have way less litter than the surrounding mid to high income neighborhoods. I check crime stats regularly and there doesn't seem to be a higher concentration of crime in these projects than in the neighborhoods to the east and west. That being said, Londonee has a point in that these developments do feel very out of tune with their surrounding neighborhoods due to how much space in them is dedicated to parking and to the strange way the layouts do not actually have housing fronting all streets. These projects are still much better than older pubic housing developments, but that doesn't mean they couldn't be improved.
|
Yea I think the nonsense people are posting about increased crime and this and that is nothing more than... well let's not even start something and go there, but it is not a fact based argument.
Over a decade back I actually rented a place directly across from that Queen Village development. All of the places in that development were very well maintained, were always decorated for the holidays and graduations etc. Honestly across the street on my side of the block, which I think may have consisted entirely of rentals was in much worse shape aesthetically and in terms of litter. I think in general, whether you're talking about PHA homes or market rate development if the person living in the unit has some type of ownership stake, they're going to care for their home much better than a landlord just concerned with the bottom line. Money is a factor with maintenance of course, but I assure you, poor people can sweep a broom and trim a bush. You'd think stuff like this would be obvious to people, but it seems some people need to be reminded that just because someone qualifies for PHA housing, that doesn't mean they're some type of drug addled incompetent.
My criticism with these types of projects is strictly architecturally. In a city in which developers just can't help but build houses that all look the same, PHA always manages to stand out and not in a good way. There is nothing explicitly wrong with the houses, I'm not saying they're built poorly or they're ugly, but they always manage to make it abundantly clear that they're subsidized housing. You just look at it and know there is no way anyone would build a market rate home with so much parking and open space.
I just mentioned that the perception that these places are some type of public nuisance is unfounded. But perception really matters. A big reason why I rented that apartment out of college is because I was looking in the area, and I couldn't find anything else that was remotely as cheap. I'm sure there was no shortage of people who looked at that apartment and were scared off by the projects across the street.
I'm glad that PHA doesn't just follow the boring trends that market rate developers mostly follow these days, but I wish they fit in with their surroundings a bit more. I think the best case scenario for PHA housing is PHA housing where no one would even know it is PHA housing. They're come along way from the flat out suburban styled housing they once built, but I hope they continue to improve.