HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Highrise & Supertall Proposals

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2015, 3:16 AM
Cro Burnham's Avatar
Cro Burnham Cro Burnham is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: delco
Posts: 2,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Londonee View Post
This is true, unfortunately this area's ability to really transform into a special urban area went out the window when the fucking asshats at the PHA decided to plop this down - 1 mile from City Hall:

What an astoundingly stupid waste of land and value. I wonder why exactly it is that public housing bureaucrats are perpetually about exactly 36 years behind in adopting the best ideas of the times.

The low-density inner city thing was the latest amazing novel advance in public housing right about the time suburban people and developers began to embrace density and transit oriented design. Now we just have to wait another 15 years for PHA to catch on. How sad and foolish.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2015, 3:23 AM
Cro Burnham's Avatar
Cro Burnham Cro Burnham is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: delco
Posts: 2,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by summersm343 View Post
move some of these residents to their new Sharswood development . . . . They can keep some of these residents in the area, but knock down blocks and rebuild urban. Mix in low income/subsidized housing and market rate housing, and then sell some blocks to developers as well. Until this is done, these projects will be a huge hole in the doughnut of development.
Though this is so obviously a very smart logical approach, isn't it interesting how most of us realize, in the pits of out stomachs, that PHA will ever be so forward thinking as to sell off its most valuable underutilized land like this to to subsidize the expansion of denser, more efficient affordable housing opportunity elsewhere.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2015, 12:43 PM
1487 1487 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 3,061
Even if you have detached housing there is nothing suburban about the transit connections and distance from center city. The bus runs right through that area. North philly has lot of open space. The idea that a few low density housing developments in that area will have any substantial impact on the urban character of north philly is a joke. Unlike some other east coast cities Philadelphia has a host of semi-detached and detached housing in the middle of what are essentially urban neighborhoods that are completely walkable and served by public transit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2015, 1:52 PM
Cro Burnham's Avatar
Cro Burnham Cro Burnham is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: delco
Posts: 2,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1487 View Post
North philly has lot of open space.
I assume you mean the vacant parcels that used to be filled with row houses.

Quote:
The idea that a few low density housing developments in that area will have any substantial impact on the urban character of north philly is a joke. Unlike some other east coast cities Philadelphia has a host of semi-detached and detached housing in the middle of what are essentially urban neighborhoods that are completely walkable and served by public transit.
To clarify, you are suggesting that these PHA tract-style projects are not uncharacteristic (note the double negative) of inner city neighborhoods in Philadelphia?

Just seeking clarification on your comment so I can better understand your point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2015, 5:17 PM
Londonee Londonee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cro Burnham View Post
I assume you mean the vacant parcels that used to be filled with row houses.



To clarify, you are suggesting that these PHA tract-style projects are not uncharacteristic (note the double negative) of inner city neighborhoods in Philadelphia?

Just seeking clarification on your comment so I can better understand your point.
I'm pretty sure 1487 is just trolling the site now?

Otherwise, he's just a terribly informed iconoclast, which is far less interesting.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2015, 5:28 PM
hammersklavier's Avatar
hammersklavier hammersklavier is offline
Your 2016 AAC Champs!
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Polis Philou Adelfou
Posts: 5,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1487 View Post
Even if you have detached housing there is nothing suburban about the transit connections and distance from center city. The bus runs right through that area. North philly has lot of open space. The idea that a few low density housing developments in that area will have any substantial impact on the urban character of north philly is a joke. Unlike some other east coast cities Philadelphia has a host of semi-detached and detached housing in the middle of what are essentially urban neighborhoods that are completely walkable and served by public transit.
Umm if you recall a post a couple of weeks ago showed that Philly has the least detached housing of major American cities. More than 50% of our housing stock is rowhomes.

Also technically speaking the Allen Hole is semi-attached.

That said, the redevelopment was done in the early '90s and is very much a product of the urban thinking of its time. Unlike Clarke and PHA's Sharswood plan, which is clearly a generation out of date.
__________________
Urban Rambles | Hidden City

Who knows but that, on the lower levels, I speak for you?’ (Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2015, 7:22 PM
1487 1487 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 3,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cro Burnham View Post
I assume you mean the vacant parcels that used to be filled with row houses.



To clarify, you are suggesting that these PHA tract-style projects are not uncharacteristic (note the double negative) of inner city neighborhoods in Philadelphia?

Just seeking clarification on your comment so I can better understand your point.
They are different from the types of homes generally found in north philadelphia. There are homes in other parts of philadelphia that are similar in density and those areas are still "urban" in the sense that they are completely walkable and connected to transit. When you consider what was there before and NP's prospects at the time when these projects were conceived its not hard to see why some though lower density housing would be a positive change.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2015, 7:26 PM
1487 1487 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 3,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier View Post
Umm if you recall a post a couple of weeks ago showed that Philly has the least detached housing of major American cities. More than 50% of our housing stock is rowhomes.

Also technically speaking the Allen Hole is semi-attached.

That said, the redevelopment was done in the early '90s and is very much a product of the urban thinking of its time. Unlike Clarke and PHA's Sharswood plan, which is clearly a generation out of date.
yeah, no need for the lessons on Philly housing stock- I'm fully aware that this city is mostly rowhomes. But its also has a higher % of demi detached and (intentionally) detached single family homes than some other large east coast cities (and probably some others) so this is not unprecedented in Philly, even if it is a little out of place in lower north philly. Then again, if you go to other parts of the city you will find similar mixes of housing styles in a very small geographic area. In areas like Germantown, Mt. Airy and Wynnefield/Overbrook there are blocks of large single family homes adjacent to rowhouse blocks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2015, 7:38 PM
Knight Hospitaller's Avatar
Knight Hospitaller Knight Hospitaller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Greater Philadelphia
Posts: 1,697
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1487 View Post
yeah, no need for the lessons on Philly housing stock- I'm fully aware that this city is mostly rowhomes. But its also has a higher % of demi detached and (intentionally) detached single family homes than some other large east coast cities (and probably some others) so this is not unprecedented in Philly, even if it is a little out of place in lower north philly. Then again, if you go to other parts of the city you will find similar mixes of housing styles in a very small geographic area. In areas like Germantown, Mt. Airy and Wynnefield/Overbrook there are blocks of large single family homes adjacent to rowhouse blocks.
I think what makes this not just an issue of walkability and transit access is, as you say, the "out of place" location. It's very low density for its proximity to the city's core. Other than detached single family homes, I can't imagine anything lower density for this area than returning the Northern Liberties to grazing livestock. At least the cows could walk to the bus!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2015, 9:02 PM
hammersklavier's Avatar
hammersklavier hammersklavier is offline
Your 2016 AAC Champs!
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Polis Philou Adelfou
Posts: 5,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1487 View Post
yeah, no need for the lessons on Philly housing stock- I'm fully aware that this city is mostly rowhomes. But its also has a higher % of demi detached and (intentionally) detached single family homes than some other large east coast cities (and probably some others) so this is not unprecedented in Philly, even if it is a little out of place in lower north philly. Then again, if you go to other parts of the city you will find similar mixes of housing styles in a very small geographic area. In areas like Germantown, Mt. Airy and Wynnefield/Overbrook there are blocks of large single family homes adjacent to rowhouse blocks.
I smell a rat but I'm too lazy to check the housing stats...

The problem with the Allen Hole is that a hundred years ago it was rowhomes. Then they were razed and replaced with first-generation (1930s) public housing, which actually lasted a generation until nationwide changes in public housing policy in the 1960s pretty much made the whole place go to shit.

Then they were flattened (except for one block) and rebuilt in their current condition around the city's early 90s' nadir. There's a whole chapter about it in Fixing Broken Cities.

It would be nice if, in the next replacement cycle, the PHA elected to reproduce and MLK-style redevelopment on this site. But that would probably require recreating the circumstance that led to the MLK projects being replaced with rowhomes (i.e. everything around the project was gentrifying) in the first place. In any event, the Allen Hole can't be that high on the PHA's replacement list.

The Poplar homes, by contrast, can be reurbanized by market processes.
__________________
Urban Rambles | Hidden City

Who knows but that, on the lower levels, I speak for you?’ (Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2015, 9:28 PM
Cro Burnham's Avatar
Cro Burnham Cro Burnham is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: delco
Posts: 2,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller View Post
I think what makes this not just an issue of walkability and transit access is, as you say, the "out of place" location. It's very low density for its proximity to the city's core. Other than detached single family homes, I can't imagine anything lower density for this area than returning the Northern Liberties to grazing livestock. At least the cows could walk to the bus!
My sentiments exactly.

It is absurd and ironic, for example, that at the Hawthorne low income housing (not bad looking row house replicas), a block from the Broad Street line and 50 bus lines, half of each block is wasted with a freeway-width "back alley" for parking and lawns. Meanwhile, 100 yards away, new (and existing) market rate housing selling for $500K+ is packed together with no lawns or vast rear parking right of ways.

This striking juxtaposition highlights the stupidity the PHA planners: blatantly waste a valuable and precious resource (i.e, land in close proximity the CBD) for parking and BBQ grills, while people making a few hundred thousand a year are willing to fork over $600K for a house with no parking and a 14'x5' enclosed concrete yard a half a block away.

At the same time we frequently hear the somewhat valid claim that not enough resources are allocated to low income housing . . . as if the housing agency is not wasting its most valuable resource for parking and BBQs that even the richest folks nearby can't afford with their beautiful, new (but land use efficient) townhouses.

When the advent of the 21st century eventually dawns on the brilliant minds at work at PHA sometime in the next couple decades, one of them will look up brightly and say:

"Hey, wow, cool IDEA: we can sell our valuable land near the CBD for a mint and use all that money to build lots more housing for many more needy people lacking adequate housing somewhere else in the city where the land is less valuable! WoW!"

Then, a colleague will say: "Um, so are you going to ask our existing impoverished tenants to sacrifice their three car parking driveways and BBQ party lawns just so we can build more and more cost efficient low income housing options elsewhere for everyone else who needs a hand?"

". . . oh, yeah. Um, I guess not".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2015, 9:35 PM
Cro Burnham's Avatar
Cro Burnham Cro Burnham is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: delco
Posts: 2,396
Let me be clear, I am not suggesting, as a few of you might like to believe, that low income housing should not be on valuable land. It should be, up to a point at least.

But valuable centrally located land should be wasted on parking and suburban back yards that the rich people across the street don't have and can't even afford. It's an idiotic use of land near transit and the CBD.

PHA should leave the houses where they are, but sell those huge mid-block parking rights of way and rear lawns in Hawthorne (and elsewhere) NOW, and use the money to build denser new housing for poor people on less central empty land all across the inner city.

That way, we can increase the density around Center City, take better advantage of its transit access, and have more money to fill in and densify parts of the inner city that need more people and development.

But you would have to ask PHA tenants to give up three car parking and expansive back lawns - and this is where any innovative thinking will come screeching to a halt. No politician would be caught dead risking being attacked for depriving the poor of necessities like three car parking and nice downtown back lawns.

This is why the low-density "solution" of the 90s was so stupid and lacking in vision: once you give away these amenities, it's very hard to take them back. Anyone with vision would have realized that the way they designed the land use would hamstring any new innovation for that property long into the future. It's sad.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2015, 9:58 PM
PHL10's Avatar
PHL10 PHL10 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cro Burnham View Post
But valuable centrally located land should be wasted on parking and suburban back yards that the rich people across the street don't have and can't even afford. It's an idiotic use of land near transit and the CBD.
Thanks Cro. That’s my biggest aggravation with those MLK Homes. If that was a private development, how much would each unit have to sell for the developer to get the same return if he built them at twice the density? One million per unit? It’s nuts. That shit is ok in Packer Park or Andorra or the far Northeast. Not in Center City.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2015, 12:14 AM
Cro Burnham's Avatar
Cro Burnham Cro Burnham is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: delco
Posts: 2,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHL10 View Post
Thanks Cro. That’s my biggest aggravation with those MLK Homes. If that was a private development, how much would each unit have to sell for the developer to get the same return if he built them at twice the density? One million per unit? It’s nuts. That shit is ok in Packer Park or Andorra or the far Northeast. Not in Center City.
I think alot of this really backward thinking has to with the fact (and this is a FACT that I know from long work experience with such people) that, at least until a decade ago, the "economic and community development" people who worked and helped shape "development" policy for the City were predominantly (no, not exclusively, but predominantly) people who lived in places like Andorra, East Mt. Airy, the Far NE . . . and only lived there (vs. Cheltenham, Delco or Gloucester or Lower Bucks) because of the City's residency requirement. These were/are predominantly people (black or white but little else), who believed in the late post war suburban dream of big driveways and lawns.

That's fine for them, I guess, personally. But the mistakes, from a policy perspective, are:

a) the delusion that installing the superficial physical trappings of the burbs will somehow help transform the dysfunction of impoverished inner city neighborhoods into a communities emulating idyllic suburban middle class mores;

b) the tract housing they developed is ugly and produces starkly underpopulated, still-impoverished low-density neighborhoods. The emptiness does nothing to alleviate crime, and the lack of density means it is more challenging to cost effectively establish needed retail/commercial and social service amenities;

c) it wastes the opportunity of ample public transit to serve dense populations; and

d) did I mention it is hideous (oh, I did) and totally incongruous in appearance with the adjacent relatively dense neighborhoods.

Dumb dumb dumb dumb. So infuriatingly dumb. Just looking at that photo makes me want to hit somebody.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2015, 4:11 PM
summersm343's Avatar
summersm343 summersm343 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 11,449
Supermarket Plus Apartments for 1300 Fairmount Avenue
Article from Naked Philly

http://www.ocfrealty.com/naked-phill...irmount-avenue
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2016, 5:49 PM
New2Fishtown New2Fishtown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 101
Construction permit on file

the city's map shows that a zoning/use permit was filed for the project on January 21st, but there's nothing more recent. Anyone have insights on the status of this one? We've got a crap ton of great stuff in the pipeline right now, but this one sits up there near the top for me (along with East Market) for its potential is a gamechanger.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2016, 5:59 PM
hammersklavier's Avatar
hammersklavier hammersklavier is offline
Your 2016 AAC Champs!
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Polis Philou Adelfou
Posts: 5,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by New2Fishtown View Post
the city's map shows that a zoning/use permit was filed for the project on January 21st, but there's nothing more recent. Anyone have insights on the status of this one? We've got a crap ton of great stuff in the pipeline right now, but this one sits up there near the top for me (along with East Market) for its potential is a gamechanger.
I wouldn't hold my breath until we see shovels moving earth. For one thing, this is a New York firm that's never done a project in Philly before ...
__________________
Urban Rambles | Hidden City

Who knows but that, on the lower levels, I speak for you?’ (Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2016, 11:50 PM
summersm343's Avatar
summersm343 summersm343 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 11,449
From Center City District Report:

1300 FAIRMOUNT

DEVELOPER:
RAL Development Services, LLC

LOCATION:
1300 Fairmount Avenue

SIZE:
783,760 sf

RESIDENTIAL UNITS:
486

START DATE:
Summer 2016

COMPLETION DATE:
2018

STATUS:
Announced

INVESTMENT:
Approximately $200 Million

DESCRIPTION:
New York City-based RAL Development
Services, LLC is developing an assemblage of
vacant lots at 13th Street and Fairmount Avenue
adjacent to the Divine Lorraine Hotel. The project
includes a retail and structured-parking podium
supporting a residential rental apartment building
with up to 486 apartments. The parking will support both the retail and residential components.
Additionally the project includes an enhanced
public streetscape with an approximately 6,000-sf
public plaza with fixed seating, landscaping and
bicycle parking. RAL is seeking a $15 million grant
from the Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program (RACP).

http://www.centercityphila.org/docs/...pments2016.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2016, 12:21 PM
1487 1487 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 3,061
let's hope that info is real.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2016, 4:07 AM
Larry King Larry King is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 780
Has anyone heard anything on this lately?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Highrise & Supertall Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:29 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.