Quote:
Originally Posted by CityMaps
Lower-rise mixed-use buildings and townhomes mixed with renovated industrial structures...narrower streets with better ped crossings and more trees...there is always something to nurture in an urban environment. The land is still pretty damn valuable, although on speculation...lowering the height (and therefore parking requirements) would spread some of the development furteher up river and in to other areas of the city.
Being from DC, you should know that, for example, the changes happening in SE would not be as widespread if the height limits were relaxed.
|
I agree, I guess I've been in Philly too long and often take the "any development is good development" attitude knowing full well how many extremely valuable chunks of land are sitting vacant or as parking lots (Market East, Broad and South, Broad and Washington).
I think it would be great to work towards a SE DC style re-development, which uses existing street patterns (for the most part) and street level retail and entertainment. It's true DC has height restrictions that cause development to spread out rather than up, but as long as there's a walkable grid and life on the sidewalk it can work with high-rises too.
You're absoutley right though, none of these developments have taken the pedestrian into consideration. The SE DC redevelopment is actually becoming more pedestrian friendly than before. It used to be much more suburban (and extremely dangerous), and it was far more car oriented.
I like adding height to the city and extending the skyline, and a few of the designs I find pretty dam cool, but you're right, they should be paying more attention to what's going on on the street rather than just creating a cluster of unorganized skyscrapers on the waterfront. I think with a little more planning and organization for that area we'd not only wind up with a better end-result, but the developers involved would be less likely too pull out.