PHILADELPHIA | Lowrise/General Developments Thread

[1487]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

Ironically, this is part of what makes it riper for decline: unlike Roxborough and Mt. Airy, the Far Notheast isn't in the region's favored quarter. Nor is it close to other major centers of regional investment.

The Near Northeast, especially Oxford Circle, has largely shifted from a working-class white population to a much more demographically diverse working-class population. It is dominated by spacious and pretty airlite architecture. The Far Northeast, on the other hand, is (beyond being far from any center of investment) dominated by postwar airlites that generally need a lot of work ... while at the same time dominated by an aging demographic without the resources to maintain their houses.

The Far Northeast today is, in short, much like lower North Philly ca. 1920, in the twilight of its middle-class status with its initial population slowly dying. And with the Near Northeast's relative stability (black and Hispanic working-class homeowners are still ... working-class homeowners), I can easily see some of the city's poorest populations getting pushed out here due to investment pressure in the inner core in the not too distant future; I can just as easily see increased immigrant spread into the Far Northeast as they fill out the Near Northeast.

The area around the Philmont station would be wonderful for TOD IMO.

For an East Coast city Philadelphia is large. The notion that there is so much gentrification that lower income people will soon be "forced" to look at Somerton or Pine Valley is insane for a host of reasons. Gentrification has pushed people into all kinds of areas- mostly areas that have good transit connections and low prices. The Far NE doesn't qualify on either count. When you look at the TYPE of housing that is prevalent in the far NE it doesn't fit the bill at all. There aren't a lot of rentals or rowhomes or multifamily homes up there. Mostly singles and twins and relatively poor transit access. Areas like Logan, West Oak Lane, Frankford, Mayfair, Oxford Circle, etc. are and will continue to be much more viable options for people who can't afford to live in parts of North Philly or Kesington any longer. There are so many houses and apt buildings in struggling areas that offer an option for people leaving due to price pressure. The far NE isn't close to being on the radar for these folks.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

Ironically, this is part of what makes it riper for decline: unlike Roxborough and Mt. Airy, the Far Notheast isn't in the region's favored quarter. Nor is it close to other major centers of regional investment.

The Near Northeast, especially Oxford Circle, has largely shifted from a working-class white population to a much more demographically diverse working-class population. It is dominated by spacious and pretty airlite architecture. The Far Northeast, on the other hand, is (beyond being far from any center of investment) dominated by postwar airlites that generally need a lot of work ... while at the same time dominated by an aging demographic without the resources to maintain their houses.

The Far Northeast today is, in short, much like lower North Philly ca. 1920, in the twilight of its middle-class status with its initial population slowly dying. And with the Near Northeast's relative stability (black and Hispanic working-class homeowners are still ... working-class homeowners), I can easily see some of the city's poorest populations getting pushed out here due to investment pressure in the inner core in the not too distant future; I can just as easily see increased immigrant spread into the Far Northeast as they fill out the Near Northeast.

The area around the Philmont station would be wonderful for TOD IMO.

I hope we're wrong, but I agree. And I don't see the demand or desire some others see to live in the Far Northeast among those who are not among the poorest but can't afford to live in parts of North Philly or Kensington. I think the Far Northeast is at the beginning of its decline, not its end. And that is why, we haven't seen a tremendous shift yet. In the next 10 years, a lot of existing homeowners will die off and I see them being replaced by those at much lower income levels. Others will choose to live in more transit friendly, accessible, and/or urban areas or just leave the city entirely.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by 1487

average price in LM vs NE isn't even close. That was my point. I didn't say there weren't any homes in LM for under $300k. But they are few and far between and will be on average smaller, in worse condition and sitting on smaller plots vs a similarly priced home in NE Philly. And that's before you get to taxes. Not everyone has school aged kids so the prospect of paying more for for a school district isn't appealing to all homeowners.

I don't think so. In my cursory search, I saw lots of houses and/or condos of comparable size and cost to Far Northeast in Wynnewood, Ardmore, and even Bryn Mawr. We'll see how it all shakes out over the next decade...

[3rd&Brown]

All this talk of decline in the Northeast is overblown / outdated.

You all do realize Port Richmond is on fire, in terms of development?

You realize that Harrowgate and the areas east of the Somerset El Stop are about to pop?

You realize that much of Tacony has already stabalized and if anything, is seeing reinvestment.

In 2008 I walked much of Mayfair knocking on doors for Michael Nutter. I was surprised by how stark the divide was between "East" and "West" Mayfair, the latter being far far nicer than the former. The former, which merges somewhere with Tacony, looks better today than it did in 2008.

I see Civic Associations all over the Northeast, smitten with their jealousy of Center City, doing work to make their main streets more vibrant and pedestrian friendly. Hell, there was just an article in either Plan Philly or on Billy Penn how residents of the farthest Northeast neighborhoods (Somerton, Pine Valley, Bustleton, etc) are clamoring for more pedestrian/town center development.

Northwood (finally) also seems to be improving.

I simply don't get it. From Juniata Park all the way out to the Bucks County line, the maginot line of decline seems to have stopped moving, and if anything, it is being beat back toward Frankford from Tacony/Wissinoming/Northwood and Lawncrest/Rhawnhurst.

And that the neighborhoods that have the highest increase in summer's list are Frankford/Tacony/Wissinoming is not a fluke. I think people are probably already moving to those places from York Dauphin/Somerset/and Berks. Harrowgate is 5 years away. Frankford 10.

In 15 years, the only areas of this city that will still have severe dereliction and abandonment will be North Philadelphia West of Broad, south of Erie, roughly North of Cecil B Moore, perhaps parts of Haddington, and far Southwest Philly/Kingsessing.

Take my word for it.

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by 1487

For an East Coast city Philadelphia is large. The notion that there is so much gentrification that lower income people will soon be "forced" to look at Somerton or Pine Valley is insane for a host of reasons. Gentrification has pushed people into all kinds of areas- mostly areas that have good transit connections and low prices. The Far NE doesn't qualify on either count. When you look at the TYPE of housing that is prevalent in the far NE it doesn't fit the bill at all. There aren't a lot of rentals or rowhomes or multifamily homes up there. Mostly singles and twins and relatively poor transit access. Areas like Logan, West Oak Lane, Frankford, Mayfair, Oxford Circle, etc. are and will continue to be much more viable options for people who can't afford to live in parts of North Philly or Kesington any longer. There are so many houses and apt buildings in struggling areas that offer an option for people leaving due to price pressure. The far NE isn't close to being on the radar for these folks.

First off, just because a neighborhood is SF today doesn't mean it will be tomorrow. Look at Diamond Street for an example. 2nd generation populations tend to subdivide ... Detroit's Brush Park's mansions were subdivided into boarding houses, for example. And the larger a dwelling is, the greater the financial pressure on the homeowner to subdivide: a second tenant offsets the high maintenance costs large homes incur.

Or are you just that financially illiterate?

Second, population movement through the city acts like a wave regardless of political boundaries. Just like an earthquake off the coast of Japan can set off a tsunami that reaches Hawaii, so too does core investment set off a catalytic chain that reverberates throughout the region.

Third, you're assuming that housing near transit remains cheap. If you bothered to shed your myopic blinders and check what our neighbors are doing for once, you'd notice this need not necessarily be the case: some of the most valuable land and most expensive housing in both New York and DC are those with the best transit connections. The same seems to hold true in Boston. Another way of putting it is: there's clearly a point after which transit access throughout the region is strongly correlated with positive land values and its attendant knock-on effects. Once you pass that, the less transit-rich a community is, the less valuable it becomes. This is something that bodes better for the Near Northeast than the Far Northeast.

[summersm343]

CDR Submission

1413-27 Germantown Ave - Olde Kensington - luxury apartment/ground floor retail/industrial - two 6 floor buildings



PDF:
http://www.phila.gov/CityPlanning/pr...ownAve_Web.pdf

[summersm343]

CDR Submission

St. Mary's Redevelopment - Manayunk - large project with at least a dozen buildings.

PDF:
http://www.phila.gov/CityPlanning/pr...7s_website.pdf

[summersm343]

Aramark HQ - 2400 Market - office/retail - 10 floors

[summersm343]

Lincoln Square - Broad & Washington - luxury apartments/commercial/retail - 9 floors

[summersm343]

218 Arch - luxury apartments/retail - 10 floors

[summersm343]

313 Race - luxury condos/retail - 7 floors

[summersm343]

Broad & Callowhill - luxury apartments/retail - two 6 floor buildings

East building:


West building:

[summersm343]

Penn Perelman Center for Political Science and Economics - 36th and Sansom - Academic - 7 floors

[summersm343]

2108-10 Walnut - luxury condos/retail - 9 floors

[McBane]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Aramark HQ - 2400 Market - office/retail - 10 floors

Are they building 10 add'l floors? Or the total height of the new building will be 10 floors. I forgot.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by McBane

Are they building 10 add'l floors? Or the total height of the new building will be 10 floors. I forgot.

Total height will be 10 floors.

[br323206]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

First off, just because a neighborhood is SF today doesn't mean it will be tomorrow. Look at Diamond Street for an example. 2nd generation populations tend to subdivide ... Detroit's Brush Park's mansions were subdivided into boarding houses, for example. And the larger a dwelling is, the greater the financial pressure on the homeowner to subdivide: a second tenant offsets the high maintenance costs large homes incur.

Brush Park is right next to downtown. It's not miles away in a suburban enclave that just happens to be within the city limits like the Far Northeast. And it is absolutely true that single-family detached dwellings in a suburban setting are less likely to become multi-family than rowhouses in an urban neighborhood. Not to mention that the zoning in the far Northeast won't allow it.

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

Or are you just that financially illiterate?

No need to insult people just because you disagree.

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

Second, population movement through the city acts like a wave regardless of political boundaries. Just like an earthquake off the coast of Japan can set off a tsunami that reaches Hawaii, so too does core investment set off a catalytic chain that reverberates throughout the region.

Where did he refer to political boundaries? He's just saying that displacement due to redevelopment isn't going to suddenly jump over closer neighborhoods and hit the far Northeast. That lines up perfectly with your tsunami analogy.

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

Third, you're assuming that housing near transit remains cheap. If you bothered to shed your myopic blinders and check what our neighbors are doing for once, you'd notice this need not necessarily be the case: some of the most valuable land and most expensive housing in both New York and DC are those with the best transit connections. The same seems to hold true in Boston. Another way of putting it is: there's clearly a point after which transit access throughout the region is strongly correlated with positive land values and its attendant knock-on effects. Once you pass that, the less transit-rich a community is, the less valuable it becomes. This is something that bodes better for the Near Northeast than the Far Northeast.

I think you missed his point completely on this one too. He never said housing near transit remains cheap. He was saying that people who get displaced are going to find areas that happen to have transit access and are cheap first. There are plenty of them in Philly, so gentrification isn't going to gobble them up any time soon. Sure, those places will (possibly? likely?) take off someday too--but it's a slow process.

[1487]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

First off, just because a neighborhood is SF today doesn't mean it will be tomorrow. Look at Diamond Street for an example. 2nd generation populations tend to subdivide ... Detroit's Brush Park's mansions were subdivided into boarding houses, for example. And the larger a dwelling is, the greater the financial pressure on the homeowner to subdivide: a second tenant offsets the high maintenance costs large homes incur.

Or are you just that financially illiterate?

Second, population movement through the city acts like a wave regardless of political boundaries. Just like an earthquake off the coast of Japan can set off a tsunami that reaches Hawaii, so too does core investment set off a catalytic chain that reverberates throughout the region.

Third, you're assuming that housing near transit remains cheap. If you bothered to shed your myopic blinders and check what our neighbors are doing for once, you'd notice this need not necessarily be the case: some of the most valuable land and most expensive housing in both New York and DC are those with the best transit connections. The same seems to hold true in Boston. Another way of putting it is: there's clearly a point after which transit access throughout the region is strongly correlated with positive land values and its attendant knock-on effects. Once you pass that, the less transit-rich a community is, the less valuable it becomes. This is something that bodes better for the Near Northeast than the Far Northeast.

Philly is not like NYC or DC in that it has many thousands of vacant lots and abandoned or underutilized houses. There is no space crunch in Philadelphia. I don't care if the land near every subway/EL station in the city becomes valuable in the next 10 years there would still be PLENTY of room for lower income people to live in North, West, South and lower NE Philly. Philly is laid out for 2 to 2.5M people and only has 1.6M people- there is plenty of space and you need scarcity of land and housing to truly reach a tipping point where poor people have to move to outlying neighborhoods and the suburbs as is the case in many (often smaller) cities. Currently, most of Philly's most stable neighborhoods border the suburbs. Exceptions would be parts of SW Philly and West Oak Lane.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by summersm343

Lincoln Square - Broad & Washington - luxury apartments/commercial/retail - 9 floors

I just drove by and there's a crane (or something similar) on site now. I'm far from an expert, but based on where they're at now, I feel like it's a bit early for this guy to show up.

[Larry King]

Originally Posted by 1487

Philly is not like NYC or DC in that it has many thousands of vacant lots and abandoned or underutilized houses. There is no space crunch in Philadelphia. I don't care if the land near every subway/EL station in the city becomes valuable in the next 10 years there would still be PLENTY of room for lower income people to live in North, West, South and lower NE Philly. Philly is laid out for 2 to 2.5M people and only has 1.6M people- there is plenty of space and you need scarcity of land and housing to truly reach a tipping point where poor people have to move to outlying neighborhoods and the suburbs as is the case in many (often smaller) cities. Currently, most of Philly's most stable neighborhoods border the suburbs. Exceptions would be parts of SW Philly and West Oak Lane.

not to mention we have tons of affordable suburbs in all directions that are relatively well served by public transit - our metro will never have the problems you see in SF, NY and Boston