I'm pretty sure it hasn't. As one of the tallest buildings in the city, I assume it would have made the news. Keep your fingers crossed.

__________________
The idealistic are no longer concerned with influencing public opinion and creating a free world of responsible and ethical social choices, but rather imposing opinion through legislation, mandating these ethics, and outlawing choice in what the loudest sample finds offensive.

Ban the Bans. It's a slippery slope between Idealism and Fascism.

Since this is the Delaware development thread, I'm sure Praxis Information belongs here. Keep in mind a report outlining the Planning Process as well as the design ideas will be submitted to Mayor Street and incoming elected city officials. The public presentation of the plan will be the evening of Wednesday, November 14, at the Pennsylvania Convention Center ...

This is recently released...

http://www.planphilly.com/files/Exec..._hms_2_mtg.pdf

(for Zur, the problems to development are listed on page 9, that should help you get started. Unfortunately for you it is followed directly by opportuities...)

The central Delaware Riverfront in Philadelphia is an area of enormous social, economic, and cultural potential.

The more than 1100-acres stretched over nearly seven miles represent a signal opportunity for Philadelphia to foster high quality urban development based on sound planning principles that are derived from a rich civic conversation about the future of this important public asset.

The vision calls for bringing existing neighborhoods to the river’s edge with mixed-use development that extends the traditional Philadelphia grid under and over I-95 to the river’s edge; the creation of new parks, trails and open spaces; and the implementation of sound economic policies and development controls to enable the creation of a humane, walkable, dense urban riverfront.

• Ensure public access to the riverfront through zoning, conservation easements and acquisition of public spaces.

• Protect and enhance the natural and historic aspects of the area.

• Invest in high-quality public infrastructure - streets, mass transit, parks, trails, storm water management, and interstate design - to spur and support high-quality urban development.

• Capture significant future economic value along the riverfront with progressive economic policies such as tax increment financing districts to help fund the public infrastructure investments.

• Pursue federal funding for transformative urban infrastructure investments.

• Ensure economic diversity with a mix of uses from the active port to the knowledge economy.

• Implement a comprehensive traffic, parking and mass transportation policy to minimize automobile dependency along the corridor.

• Create an open and transparent management and implementation strategy to facilitate the design, implementation and maintenance of the public spaces as well as coordinate neighborhood, city and multi-state stakeholders.

• Execute early action projects to demonstrate public commitment to goals of civic vision.

• Maintain a public process for future development initiatives.

and on and on...it is a long wordy release which gives a lot of background info.

haha!

Look..

Overall I just want stuff to be built in places where nothing is.


I want a better city.


I'm willing to pay for it .. but not at the expense of existing city.

That's all..

So I'm somewhat against adding new neighborhoods when there so many existing blighted ones..

Kinda like..why would anyone help them if given the alternative.



and designers love to fantasize about a mixed use transit heavy love fest..

but fail to see the actual uses..

We end up with Brazillia or the Gallery or dozens of other "build it they will come" debacles.

and my primary issue with the plan is with spending BILLIONS to cap 95 when that money could be used for so many other things.

when our existing caps are so lightly used. (if at all)

and people drive until Density forces otherwise..

and not everyone wants or can ride a bike.

Only places I've ever seen full transit use is only becuase of density.. and we have a whole city to fill "up" before we see a drop in car use.

and this plan is for mixed to low density...

__________________
It's too tall..! it ruins the feel of the city..! It casts massive shadows..! It's an architectural nightmare..! We should stand together and fight this monstrosity that threatens our homes..! ...but amazingly no one tore down the Eiffel Tower.

or.. why we shouldn't always listen to "neighborhood groups" and critics.

"So I'm somewhat against adding new neighborhoods when there so many existing blighted ones..

Kinda like..why would anyone help them if given the alternative."


but zur, you are also against keeping and trying to fix old buildings. I think you are against everything. Including keeping things the same. You are just...the opposition. You are very consistent.

This probably relates more to Penn's Landing than other Delaware River development, but part of the problem with the Cap I-95 Dream is that there's an assumption that capping 95 will automatically create a pedestrian surge to the riverfront. Sure, people will walk over there if there's a nice park leading from Society Hill and the Historic District to the waterfront, but there's nothing over there to pay for it all. It would just be a very expensive bridge to nowhere. People who want to go to the few things that take place there - to the Seaport Museum, or to the Spirit of Philadelphia - they manage get there just fine as it is. We're not missing out on any revenue just becase I-95 is visible.

If I-95 is ever going to be capped, the waterfront is going to have to start generating a lot more cash. And that's not just for those who want I-95 capped, but anyone who wants the waterfront to be more desirable. Ways to do start doing this would be making the waterfront more tourist friendly. Aside from a stark museum and lots of concrete, there is absolutely nothing there.

Set up a souvenir driven shopping center and food court like Baltimore has in it's Inner Harbor. Look at what other cities do on their rivers. In the summertime, lease some of the vast spanses of concrete to carnival vendors, throw a fair on the weekends, craft shows, farmer's markets, flea markets, how about a giant Eye of Philadelphia ferris wheel sponsored by Comcast, whatever - it's low maintenance space that goes completely unused.

Everyone seems to want a lot at once or nothing at all. That attitude doesn't get things built. It's like the city and the developers are holding this chunk of property in such high regard, that no plan for the waterfront is ever good enough, so it just continues to go untouched. However that seems to be the Philadelphia way, where surface parking lots and vast urban bald spots are better than any growth that doesn't appeal to every neighborhood association or save-the-oysters lobby group in town.

__________________
The idealistic are no longer concerned with influencing public opinion and creating a free world of responsible and ethical social choices, but rather imposing opinion through legislation, mandating these ethics, and outlawing choice in what the loudest sample finds offensive.

Ban the Bans. It's a slippery slope between Idealism and Fascism.

As far as buildings here ya go.

Old Convention Center.. tear it down because Penn is more valuable as an employer and entity.

New Convention Center.. save what can be save but doesn't impede the Center's ability to function.

Various Center City blocks for condos/parking. DON'T just tear down one building for something similar. I was against those projects.

Fairmount Tower of Doom. Build it..the only people against it were going to have their tower views blocks.

Capping 95. Waste of money (for now). What's really "over" 95 worth seeing?

I am for more mass transit, better use of existing RR lines within the city, better integration of the Bus and RR network, Unified fares for NJ and PA but I'm against a Blvd Subway becuase we have 3 train lines in the NE already than can be used. I am for a Pennsy Ave line..it makes sense if it goes to Rox or K of P.

I'm for a land use tax.. to reduce surface parking lots...it's a disgrace they exist near 20th, near Vine, and near the Convention Center.

I'm against the conversion of the Loft District before we even try to do the same for a dozen other already existing hoods....simple becuase the developers come in...make huge profits...then leave the city to pay to make the area livable.

I'd be for free shuttle buses from the CC RR stations.. I'd be for a free Septa Zone from Vine to South River to River.

I'm for the casinos..in their locations...I think it would allow for massive growth along the river and provide jobs and money for the city. I am near one now..it's harmless.

I'm also for the riverfront to be used for anything... but not for attaching so many strings to development it stagnates any growth at all.

I don't trust developers... but I trust biased "community" groups even less.

I distrust politicians...will do/say anything they think will get the motivated behind them...if it's good or not for the city.

Cause motivated activists become automatic campaign drones (see: Nutter, Michael campaign)


I definitely steer more towards growth than preservation. We have more than enough preserved around here that we can barely maintain what we have (Fairmount park for example)

__________________
It's too tall..! it ruins the feel of the city..! It casts massive shadows..! It's an architectural nightmare..! We should stand together and fight this monstrosity that threatens our homes..! ...but amazingly no one tore down the Eiffel Tower.

or.. why we shouldn't always listen to "neighborhood groups" and critics.

Zur. Let me explain this so even a child can understand.

If your mom gives you money for new shoes, You MUST buy new shoes. You can't buy candy or beer with the money. If you don't want new shoes, you don't get the money. This is how the federal government works. If they allocate money to cap I95. We can't buy candy or beer with the money. The money can only be used to cap I95.

P.S. We don't actually get the money. We just get the shoes. ...I mean the highway project.

P.P.S. The city would still have to kick-in some money, but the resale value of several acres of regained real-estate would far outweigh the money spent.

__________________

This is the chicken or egg question.
Why cap 95 if there's nothing there?
Why build something if nobody goes over there.

Somebody has to take the giant leap. Thats where your tax dolars come in. I know you don't like that (you are a republican), too bad. Thats how it is, and it's not going to change because very few reasonable businessman are going to build anything expensive over there without major government investment first.

There is no difference between what is going on in Portland, or Brooklyn (Token : Philly is not NY) and what Praxis suggests we do here. Check out the case studies...http://www.planphilly.com/node/314...those things have already happened. They have already succeeded. There is no phsical difference in Philly. The difference is that by my count 11 times we have been told that we are going to develop Penns landing, and 3 times somebody ended up in prison. I can understand your attitude. I am being sincere.

One of the functions of government is to build infrastructure. To take the leap. You wouldn't live in the NE if they didn't build the roads for you drive on. You probably think this is different, since the 'cap' is just a nicety, and the roads are nessesary.

I disagree, the cap will generate tremendous cash for the city inso far as it will help create a park on the Delaware. That's no opinion, Chicago's millenium park is the #1 tourist destination in the country right now. Its a park on the water. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...&t=h&z=15&om=1

Look at the skoo-kill river park. Look at how many people go there to be across from a highway for chirst sakes. Imagine if it was a real river like the delaware, imagine if it was wide enough for four people to walk abreast and remain on the trail.

You dont think anything will work, because in your lifetime, you have seen the great and powerful Rizzo and slimeball Street and poor old mayor Goode fuk everything up, then come back and fuk it all up again. I would be a hater too if I lived through such incompetance. I believe you, like about a million other citizens, have given up on this city.

Good things can happen. This thing works in other cities. You should NEVER let yourself believe that it won't work in Philly. Not if you love this city.

Anyway argue all you like. This thing is proven. The only question left is how many favors The Honorable Councilwoman from West Phildelphia will want to allow it to pass.
Please read in your most ominous inner dialogue: (She has grown powerful...too powerful)

The way I see it, not having a cap on 95 isn't stopping people from going to the few things that are there. There are several fairly decent routes to the waterfront from South Street and Society Hill. The Seaport Museum and the Spirit of Philadelphia aren't losing business because there isn't a ten block long covering.

I'm not against covering I-95, one day, but the city, the state, or the feds aren't going to caugh up the money to do so if they're not going to see it come back. In the meantime, we can do something with that vast wasteland of nicely designed concrete that goes unused for most of the year.

Look at what other cities do on their waterfront, tourists love cheesy souvenir malls and food courts like the one in Baltimore's Inner Harbor, rent the outdoor space to carnivals, farmer's markets, flea markets, recreate London's Eye of Philadelphia sponsored by Comcast, whatever.

The city and developers seem to hold that chunk of land in such high regard it's as if nothing is ever good enough for it. There should be something there every weekend of the year - day and night - concerts, festivals, you name it. It's low maintenance space that should be generating money and it's not living up to it's potential, and until it is, no government treasury is going to find it financially feasable to cap I-95.

I go to Penn's Landing at least once a week in the summer time, either jogging, walking, or just to relax, and you better believe that if there was something to do down there, I'd be spending money. I-95 isn't stopping people from going to the river, our reluctance to develop it is.

__________________
The idealistic are no longer concerned with influencing public opinion and creating a free world of responsible and ethical social choices, but rather imposing opinion through legislation, mandating these ethics, and outlawing choice in what the loudest sample finds offensive.

Ban the Bans. It's a slippery slope between Idealism and Fascism.

I'm all for park space on the river.


But 95 isn't a barrier. It's not... the elevation is the barrier.


And if...10 years down the road there's lots of stuff... then cap it.


But we are going to need that Fed money to replace our existing roads...or build a subway or new runway.

Not to beautify the wealthiest section of the city.


Wanna cap something? Cap Vine... that at least makes more sense.



I'm for a light rail on Del Ave. I'm for a trail.

Crazy me is even for making Del Ave harder to drive on IF... and really... IF... you add at least 4 more ramps on 95.

Use 95...it sits there somewhat underused from Vine to Broad.




View of Interstate 95 from Penn's Landing. (Alex Nitzman)

__________________
It's too tall..! it ruins the feel of the city..! It casts massive shadows..! It's an architectural nightmare..! We should stand together and fight this monstrosity that threatens our homes..! ...but amazingly no one tore down the Eiffel Tower.

or.. why we shouldn't always listen to "neighborhood groups" and critics.