Philadelphia 2035 (York, Columbia, Franklin: cottage, brownstone, bungalow)

[nimshady123]

Originally Posted by MarketStEl

You did catch an overnight train, then.

The overnight consists are only three cars long. Five-car trains go back into service at the start of the regular service day. Where did you catch your train, and in which direction did you travel? Usually, the first trains of the regular service day depart Fern Rock southbound right around 5 a.m.

I caught it at Cecil B Moore headed south. I can't remember the exact time but it was roughly before 5

[cpomp]

Originally Posted by Duderino

Tall towers are not meant to be in every neighborhood, even in Center City. A major part of the allure of Philadelphia for many, if not most, people is that it's not "Manhattanized" -- it has an appealing human-scaled sense of place. In this case, I think the downsizing was actually a good move, even if it was done for market reasons. The redesign looks very attractive and much more fitting for that area. This is a major upgrade for that corner of Chestnut.

I think it's great that Center City and environs continues to densify with infill and overbuilds, but a balance with Philly's traditionally low-rise environment is crucial to take into consideration.

I didn't say that, but 20th and Chestnut is where they should be if anywhere. I find a slender taller tower to be less invasive and usually more attractive (due to its minimalist design because of the height) then a 200 ft tall shoe box. Most of the new residential towers IMO in Philadelphia are mammoth vertically challenged mid-rises, which I think stick out more and feel more out of place then a 600' tall slender tower on a podium, which is virtually hidden from street level, but looks fantastic from a skyline standpoint. But in the end it comes down to cost vs earnings and supply vs demand, so Philadelphia won't get the same treatment as NYC and Chicago, (I already know that, I still am frustrated by the B- designs and the ho-hum outlook from residents and officials regarding development, especially dense/ tall development).

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by cpomp

But in the end it comes down to cost vs earnings and supply vs demand, so Philadelphia won't get the same treatment as NYC and Chicago, (I already know that, I still am frustrated by the B- designs and the ho-hum outlook from residents and officials regarding development, especially dense/ tall development).

Well, no city can compete with NYC in terms of sheer scale and investment that drives the "high design" of many of its towers.

Economically, more "boutique-y" cities like SF and Boston come closest in terms of having extremely high price per square foot price points that are akin to Manhattan, but certainly not anywhere close to the same scope of NYC. Chicago comes closest in size, but even its price per square foot measure doesn't remotely approach Manhattan levels.

That being said, as the price of land in the core of Philadelphia continues to rise (and there's every reason to believe that it will, as vacant/underutilized parcels become increasingly scarce and the city is pushing its economy in a very encouraging direction), you can bet that more "eye-catching" designs will pop-up more and more, as is the case in other land-scare major cities where high design is seen as way to recoup investments and "make a statement."

[kyb01]

Originally Posted by cpomp

But in the end it comes down to cost vs earnings and supply vs demand, so Philadelphia won't get the same treatment as NYC and Chicago, (I already know that, I still am frustrated by the B- designs and the ho-hum outlook from residents and officials regarding development, especially dense/ tall development).

As long as you stay in New York all this is is an "opinion". It's great to have an opinion because it obviously means that you care enough to comment.

But until the jobs issue improves and/or the population growth really takes off it's probably foolhardy to have your kind of expectations.

[Pine to Vine]

It’s not as though Philly has a boring skyline. I was thinking about this discussion the other day when I crossed the South Street bridge. We have a pretty interesting skyline - one I find more attractive than our peers SF and Boston. Recent additions such as the FMC tower, CHOP and the new Comcast tower make it even more attractive. Additionally, I was a little concerned One Riverside would obscure the skyline but it blends in nicely.

I do agree with cpomp that there are plenty of boring midrise glass boxes, quite a number of which have gone up in the 7 short years I’ve lived here, but that seems to be changing for the better. Market East is pretty interesting and at ground level, the new building in the 1200 block of Walnut struck me as downright Manahattanish at street level when I walked by recently. But I am hoping the city doesn’t become Manahattan South. There’s already a Manahattan up the road. Philly’s strength will be in how it maintains its charm, while continuing to wedge in more interesting infill to replace non-descript/vacant building stock and surface lots scattered here and there.

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by kyb01

As long as you stay in New York all this is is an "opinion". It's great to have an opinion because it obviously means that you care enough to comment.

But until the jobs issue improves and/or the population growth really takes off it's probably foolhardy to have your kind of expectations.

And - sad to say - if those things "really take off," we do face the prospect of actually becoming unaffordable.

There are some advantages to having a "Goldilocks economy," and if that means we get relatively unexciting architecture, it might be worth the tradeoff. Real estate investors are learning about those advantages, according to the latest "Emerging Trends in Real Estate."

We are seeing the very real problems the neither-rich-nor-poor face in those superstar cities, and so far, none of them have come up with effective solutions to those problems. We may have a chance to get it right here.

[AJNEOA]

Originally Posted by MarketStEl

And - sad to say - if those things "really take off," we do face the prospect of actually becoming unaffordable.

There are some advantages to having a "Goldilocks economy," and if that means we get relatively unexciting architecture, it might be worth the tradeoff. Real estate investors are learning about those advantages, according to the latest "Emerging Trends in Real Estate."

We are seeing the very real problems the neither-rich-nor-poor face in those superstar cities, and so far, none of them have come up with effective solutions to those problems. We may have a chance to get it right here.

The only potential I see with fixing our poor issue is to generate jobs where our hard-working poor are able to occupy and sustain family life. If our existing poor do not have these types of jobs available, then all is lost IMO. As you know, that's what makes gentrification such a complex issue. Even if jobs increase, it's rarely "jobs" that an individual can sustain on. TBH, that's probably the one hope I'd have with Amazon coming to town; the generation of warehouse/delivery jobs that pay better than middle wage. And while we'll get some of those (already have) even if HQ2 doesn't land here, I think it would be more widespread if it did.

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by MarketStEl

We are seeing the very real problems the neither-rich-nor-poor face in those superstar cities, and so far, none of them have come up with effective solutions to those problems. We may have a chance to get it right here.

Well said, and I think that point cannot be overstated. Philly is literally the only large, coastal, and classically urban city left in the US that remains pretty darn affordable to the middle class.

Its balanced industry mix allows for much more moderate housing price gains in comparison to income growth (the recent release of the Global City Housing Affordability Index pegs it at #3 in the world: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ook-dirt-cheap). That's a huge asset that, if it can be properly maintained, will continue to be a major selling point.

[southbound_295]

Originally Posted by kyb01

Right. You and most of my first cousins were born between 1952 and 1958, the height of the Boom.

It gets more confusing because lately some people( the media?) want to create a subset of younger Boomers who were born between 1960-1964. Obama is in this group. I can see the point of doing this because, in truth, Obama, and folks like him, don't have that much in common with older Boomers who were born a decade earlier than him.

Interestingly enough would there have been a boom at all if birth control pills or legal abortion had been available? I say, no.

The boom was the result of the soldiers coming home from war coupled with an improved economy that had depressed birthrates during the Depression & the rationing during the war, for the few men who weren't drafted. The pill & legalized abortion wouldn't have made a significant difference.

[nimshady123]

Originally Posted by Duderino

Well said, and I think that point cannot be overstated. Philly is literally the only large, coastal, and classically urban city left in the US that remains pretty darn affordable to the middle class.

Its balanced industry mix allows for much more moderate housing price gains in comparison to income growth (the recent release of the Global City Housing Affordability Index pegs it at #3 in the world: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ook-dirt-cheap). That's a huge asset that, if it can be properly maintained, will continue to be a major selling point.

That's what I love about Philadelphia and part of the reason that I want to come specifically back to Philly when I graduate. We have a chance to get it right and I think we are at a key point in the cities history. We can go down the path of nearly every other large urban city that has experienced gentrification and now the negative consequences over the past 50 years. Or we can make it equitable for all. Philadelphians have never really been the type to conform with everyone else so I believe.