Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree and disagree. Most blocks in CC have a ton of historically designated structures anyway, so its not like a developer could swoop in, level Pine St and building 40 story building. However, I think many people in Center City (older residents) are so scared of growth and I guess "Manhattanization"
A recent example was the former parking lot at 22nd and Walnut, prime space for a 20-40 story highrise in one of the densest parts of the city. The developer presented a plan for a 7 story building (already disappointing) and I believe and was shot down by neighbors for too much height/density and parking concerns, and now we have another 4 story blob being build.
I don't think every part of Center City needs to be tall buildings, but certain corridors and thoroughfares have had so many missed opportunities, due to overly concerned neighbors, poorly planned/designed projects, and the city standing around as these projects either go through or get denied.
1706 Ritt and the Medical Arts Building across the street are great examples of integrating a sleek highise into a developed rowhome block. One Riverside in Fitler is a little to hulking for that location IMO.
We will never be like Houston, thats not a worry I have.
I wouldn't say we disagree too much. The opposite end of unbridled development is stifling NIMBYism. One such example of the latter since I've been here was a group of neighbors up in arms that a beloved mural was being displaced by homes that would be occupied by taxpayers. Jeesh
Speaking of North Broad, anyone remember this large project covering the two lots at Broad and Callowhill? Being developed by Parkway Corp. and and Hanover Co. with retail and 339 apartments. The project has a large parking garage regrettably, though it seems to be well wrapped and covered by the building. I guess that's what you can only expect for this part of town though. Still, looks awesome and will add the momentum along that corridor. Can't wait for the Divine Lorraine and the 1300 Fairmount project.
As for the discussion about zoning, I'd say that Philly has plenty of undeveloped/underutilized land and buildings that can absorb a lot of growth before we have to worry about tearing things down. I think the city could revamp the zoning code to allow higher densities on currently undeveloped lots (or parking lots). I also agree that there have been many missed opportunities however due to neighborhood opposition, like at 22nd and Walnut. If you want to live in a major city, you have to deal with highrises and density, and maybe even parking issues. Period. That's what you sign up for. It's equivalent to "coming to the nuisance."
When you ARE a major city, you have to "deal with" the issues that come with being one. Dealing with this includes, among other things, adequately addressing congestion, parking, and infrastructure in order to make things work. You don't just let developers build as much as they can or want to. We have a city planning commission for a reason.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,706,106 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyPhan95
Speaking of North Broad, anyone remember this large project covering the two lots at Broad and Callowhill? Being developed by Parkway Corp. and and Hanover Co. with retail and 339 apartments. The project has a large parking garage regrettably, though it seems to be well wrapped and covered by the building. I guess that's what you can only expect for this part of town though. Still, looks awesome and will add the momentum along that corridor. Can't wait for the Divine Lorraine and the 1300 Fairmount project.
As for the discussion about zoning, I'd say that Philly has plenty of undeveloped/underutilized land and buildings that can absorb a lot of growth before we have to worry about tearing things down. I think the city could revamp the zoning code to allow higher densities on currently undeveloped lots (or parking lots). I also agree that there have been many missed opportunities however due to neighborhood opposition, like at 22nd and Walnut. If you want to live in a major city, you have to deal with highrises and density, and maybe even parking issues. Period. That's what you sign up for. It's equivalent to "coming to the nuisance.
That's not what a lot of older residents signed up for. They may have been there before you were born. There is such a thing as respect.
Are you sure you really want this? Do you want developers purchasing SH townhomes, tearing them down and building 40 story buildings in the middle of varous blocks? How about a 25 story condo overlooking Fitler Square?
I lived in Houston, which believe it or not, has no zoning despite being the 4th largest city in the US. I really don't want to see Philly become a city in which developers have the deck stacked in their favor. Slowing down growth so that the city can be deliberate and catch its breath is a good thing.
This is why I was initially hesitant to post this. While I believe that CMX-5 should be in greater use in Center City, buildings that are too tall may go against the character of the neighborhood. It can be very beautiful, too. I recently saw a picture of the FMC Tower from Fitler Square on Skyscraperpage. The ability with the old to blend in with the modern was stunning. Fitler Square will also see this with One Riverside's construction, Graduate Hospital with CHOP Tower's construction, and Old City with The Bridge's construction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rotodome
This doesn't quite make sense to me. Adequate parking is a necessary piece of infrastructure. Is your point that the other 4 largest cities have cripplingly inadequate parking, and so Philly should too? Is that a fact?
Many on this forum seem to want Philly to aspire to Manhattanization (ie: Density! Density! Tall Buildings!), but...in addition to having very good public transit, there are TONS of parking lots in Manhattan, both public and private. And even with its density, Manhattan is already easier to park in than present-day Center City. And in Philly, where many more people per capita rely on cars for commuting and reverse-commuting, and parking is already very difficult, deliberately failing to increase parking infrastructure would IMO be a hugely negligent mistake for the well-being of the city. Developers don't care about those things, they care about closing deals and getting $$. But the city and its residents absolutely should care.
MY OP was referring to people who do not want developments to occur for the sake of preserving surface parking lots. It also refers to the people who fear a loss of parking with developments that have underground parking, similar to 1100 N. Delaware. While I realize that parking is vital and not everyone can live car-free, I can't stand to see surface lots remain. They are my pet peeve. There is no vibrancy to be found around surface parking lots. That would be like taking a trolley to 22nd and Market to see the huge, ugly surface lot that currently sits where a sleek new tower could be. I think that the City manages parking very well; however, people who own multiple cars in Center City constrain and tie up parking for others.
When it comes to "Manhattanization", I don't mind it when it stretches the skyline east towards the Delaware and west towards University City. I would also love to see a tall cluster of buildings in Market East. I guess you could call it "visual Manhattanization". However, I don't believe Center City should totally become like Manhattan. The thing that makes Philly so magical in my eyes has to do with the low-density development. I love how the 4-story 19th century Federal-style homes on 20th and Delancey Street perfectly coalesce with the modern skyscrapers to the north on Market, Chestnut, and JFK. Society Hill/Old City never fail to take my breath away. If Philly does aspire to become like Manhattan, then our subway system must keep up.
That's not what a lot of older residents signed up for. They may have been there before you were born. There is such a thing as respect.
While I do agree with this in a sense, people must realize that cities, especially major ones like Philly, are fluid, dynamic, and change over time. In order for Philly to continue to succeed and provide services via tax revenues, it must grow dense in certain areas. What worked for Philly back in their time, won't necessarily work for Philly today. Philly is very relevant in my Millennial generation, and must continue to change and innovate to keep attracting Millennials as it has done so well already.
This is why I was initially hesitant to post this. While I believe that CMX-5 should be in greater use in Center City, buildings that are too tall may go against the character of the neighborhood. It can be very beautiful, too. I recently saw a picture of the FMC Tower from Fitler Square on Skyscraperpage. The ability with the old to blend in with the modern was stunning. Fitler Square will also see this with One Riverside's construction, Graduate Hospital with CHOP Tower's construction, and Old City with The Bridge's construction.
I'm glad you are not on our city's planning commission.
As for the discussion about zoning, I'd say that Philly has plenty of undeveloped/underutilized land and buildings that can absorb a lot of growth before we have to worry about tearing things down. I think the city could revamp the zoning code to allow higher densities on currently undeveloped lots (or parking lots). I also agree that there have been many missed opportunities however due to neighborhood opposition, like at 22nd and Walnut. If you want to live in a major city, you have to deal with highrises and density, and maybe even parking issues. Period. That's what you sign up for. It's equivalent to "coming to the nuisance."
Part of what people miss about the tall buildings is that it will only create further demand for car storage in a city like Philadelphia where most people with the means to do so own cars. It's about a third of city households that don't have cars - I often wonder what the number of households above the poverty rate who don't have cars is. From my own personal experience, I don't make a ton of money (and neither do my co-workers) but they mostly all drive. And a lot of people feel bad for me and my wife because they think I can't afford a car - which I absolutely could - and offer to give us rides to places that you don't need a car to get to to the point of obnoxiousness.
Parking garages that are part of a building are different than empty lots, sure. But one of the best examples of building high density for cars as opposed to regular city density (and one I've probably overused on this forum) is 8th and Walnut Street. Stand at that intersection - look to the north on 8th Street and see a solid city block (and if you don't like jewelry, imagine something else - because that's just the programming, it could be anything else occupying the buildings), and look to the south on 8th Street and see your high density, car-obsessed city.
Philadelphia isn't an amazingly dense city, taken as a whole, despite having several sections with very high density, and I'd love to see proper uses of urban land fill in around the 90% of the city that has nothing to do with Center City. Philadelphia's population density comes in at around 11.5k per square mile, for example. Queens, NY - often characterized as "suburban" has a population density of almost twice that (also a similar population density to Paris, another places that gets density without towers). Perhaps more comparable, another city I've lived in, Minneapolis, a not-particularly dense city, has a population density of 7.5k per square mile - despite not having any neighborhoods that even come close to the density of a Rittenhouse Square, Castor Avenue, South Philly - or any tight row home neighborhoods (which should theoretically tip our population density fairly high). It speaks to the volume of having occupied buildings and land that isn't vacant is the point - which is the main thing Philadelphia has to address to achieve greater vibrancy, density, walkability, transitability....not lack of skyscrapers.
Tall buildings always going up in Center City, yet so much of what I pass by on the bus or train from NW Philly to Center City is so unbelievably underutilized. It's where the bulk of the population and business losses happened, and ultimately will have to be where it's made up.
Speaking of North Broad, anyone remember this large project covering the two lots at Broad and Callowhill? Being developed by Parkway Corp. and and Hanover Co. with retail and 339 apartments. The project has a large parking garage regrettably, though it seems to be well wrapped and covered by the building. I guess that's what you can only expect for this part of town though. Still, looks awesome and will add the momentum along that corridor. Can't wait for the Divine Lorraine and the 1300 Fairmount project.
I'm glad you are not on our city's planning commission.
But people like him will be eventually. He, as you know, is a millennial which, as you also know, is the largest generation now. The oldest of their generation is about 30 years old therefore what they say and believe will increasingly matter. While what Boomers(I think you are one, like me and Southbound295) believe won't matter quite so much as we pass from,and disappear from, offices of power and influence.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,706,106 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilliesPhan2013
While I do agree with this in a sense, people must realize that cities, especially major ones like Philly, are fluid, dynamic, and change over time. In order for Philly to continue to succeed and provide services via tax revenues, it must grow dense in certain areas. What worked for Philly back in their time, won't necessarily work for Philly today. Philly is very relevant in my Millennial generation, and must continue to change and innovate to keep attracting Millennials as it has done so well already.
Many of us made a go of it in a deeply wounded city. Thousands had to leave & chase their jobs down to North Carolina. The eds & meds kept the city going enough that Philadelphia didn't become Detroit. There are tons of sites that need work. There's 40 or 50 years worth of sites that need attention. 4 floors is better than no floors. The city needs to retain human scale. Without it, it changes the nature of Center City. The human scale in Philadelphia makes the city warm & welcoming. Being in a canyon of skyscrapers gives a very cold & impersonal feel.
Just remember, the Gallery has been a blot on Center City since Rizzo allowed a suburban developer to go in, tear down perfectly good buildings from the 1820s & put a suburban monstrosity in their place. Market St would look infinitely better today if Rizzo had done what the people wanted & found a developer who would tunnel through those buildings & use them as the facade of a mall. Don't think that that never crosses the minds of people who make those decisions. Sometimes the people really know best.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
