Make of it what you will. Certainly it will reinforce your already held view. To me it means that these guys are not thinking. They are just doing what everyone else is doing. Monkey see, monkey build.


Developers object
But if anyone was anxious about the plan colliding with political realities, they had only to wait 30 seconds after Weixler spoke. Craig Schelter, a former city planning commissioner now representing developers on the waterfront, stood to address the crowd.

“The development community is frankly shocked to hear this is your last meeting,” Schelter said, outlining several sweeping changes called for in the plan. “For this group not to hear from developers is a huge mistake.”

Current city planning director Janice Woodcock shot back, saying she’d seen what the development community had planned for the riverfront (more than 20 new high rise towers): “I’ve seen the proposals, and frankly, if all of them were built, it would not be the kind of waterfront we all want.” You can see the proposals by clicking here.

But have developers been excluded?

At numerous citizen forums leading up to the Praxis plan, developers and land owners have been notable mostly for their absence. In August, however, Councilman Frank DiCicco brokered a special meeting between Praxis leader Harris Steinberg and about 40 members of the development community. Response to the plan that day was muted.

On Thursday it appeared the development community was seeking a stronger hand. In a two-page letter (page 1, page 2) distributed to board members, noted real estate attorney Michael Sklaroff argued that the vision was “fundamentally flawed,” due to a lack of specificity and a “failure to consider economic realities at stake.” The letter, undersigned by 24 developers and attorneys, asks for a meeting with Praxis and the Planning Commission “as soon as possible.”

A Battle on the Grid?
One major point of contention is the street grid. The Praxis plan calls for breaking up many large parcels in Northern Liberties, Fishtown and South Philadelphia with a new grid of city streets.

To Steinberg, this dense street grid means bringing Philadelphia back to the river, and avoiding mega-projects more suitable for the suburbs. On sites like Wal-Mart and Ikea, the Praxis plan envisions a human-scaled “Rittenhouse on the river” neighborhood. It’s an idea that grew directly out of the earliest public planning sessions, where citizens clamored for a more urban, Philadelphia-style feeling along the water.

To some developers, however, running new city streets across their property is tantamount to a public taking. What’s worse, Schelter said, is the location of these new streets seems to change with every iteration of the plan. Speaking after the meeting, Schelter argued that developers followed the market, and the market was calling for large-lot gated communities similar to Waterfront Square. He said the project was unfairly maligned for blocking public access to the river.

“There are a lot of people coming in from the suburbs who don’t want the rest of the world walking through their project,” Schelter said.

A fight to eliminate the grid would be a battle indeed. Beside the planned “Delaware Boulevard” running along the river, the grid is the most prominent aspect of the plan, rendered on plan maps with little yellow blocks. Opposition to gated communities, meanwhile, is close to an article of holy faith on the Advisory Group, at Penn Praxis, and among architects and citizens who helped build the Praxis plan.

“I’m just dumbfounded,” said advisory group member Ira Upin of Northern Liberties. “These guys think it’s all just child’s play until the developers show up … These were public meetings. Why didn’t I see any developers at the meetings?”

I think the bloggers who reject "capping" I-95 might not have considered the major purpose of such a project. It would be far more than to “beautify the wealthiest section of the city," in zur's words (though Front St. is far from being the wealthiest section of the city!). Nor would it necessarily mean simply extending the often empty park that covers the expressway at some points.

Instead, it would be no less than an attempt to erase the artificial seam that has divided much of the city from the river. The Delaware was Philadelphia's economic engine for almost 300 years, and could be restored to some prominence in city life.

Front St., for example, could be a rialto that people would flock to because of its proximity to the Delaware and its river views. Why is it that buildings on this street have been allowed to crumble over the last 40 years and replaced by parking lots? Why has it been so difficult to rent properties on the 100 block of Market St., when the 200 block is often crowded with people?

The main reason for the lack of activity on these blocks is that Market St. at Front essentially backs into a dead end — or, worse, an expressway entrance. The natural flow of people to the river has been blocked. Furthermore, the potentially extraordinary Front St. river views are marred both by the expressway and by the ugly labyrinth of concrete ramps and platforms that is Penn's Landing.

Belatedly, a few condo buildings have been erected on Front. St. in the recent period. The land is relatively cheap compared to other sections of Center City, and the buildings are tall enough to give interesting views for people who can afford to live there. But as yet Front St. sees few pedestrians, and commercial activity there (and on most adjacent streets) is lackluster. Even the liveliest street, Chestnut, as we have seen, has been allowed to whither at its Front St. end.

If a person on Market St. has a desire to walk along the river, they first have to enter a ramp far back at 2nd St., then walk (or drive) one block to Front St., travel a second block over I-95 and Columbus Blvd., and another half-block over parking lots until they begin to get close to the water. Along the route, there's not much to occupy them except for the views of the distant city and river. Even then, there is no shelter on the ramps from the hot sun or the rain. It's no wonder that few people bother to make the trek.

The main objective that "capping" the expressway would achieve is to re-establish the direct connection between Market and Front Streets and the waterfront (Chestnut and Walnut Sts. are not quite as disconnected as Market is). This would allow the present system of ramps between Penn's Landing and the rest of the city to be demolished. As a result, the northern side of Market St. street could be revitalized with new shops and other construction. Columbus Blvd. and Front St. would have their river views restored.

Such a task would not necessarily require that the entire expressway be covered. The bridges over Market, Chestnut, etc., for example, might be lined with shops or other structures (like, perhaps, an open-air theater or music pavilion) that span I-95, while sections of expressway behind them (which would be somewhat hidden) remain open.

Extending Market St. over I-95, however, would probably require lowering the roadway of the expressway beneath the new bridge, and possibly re-aligning or lowering the route of the subway as it makes the turn up to Frankford. And the automobile entrance onto the expressway at that point would have to be adjusted. It would not be easy, or cheap. But since rebuilding of I-95 is on order in the near future, such a project might be incorporated into it.

Nanyika

The Penn Praxis plan is a joke. It ignores economic realities and existing conditions. In Harris Steinberg's world, IKea doesn't exist, casinos won't exist and low rise development at the river's edge is economically feasible.

Last week's public meeting provided a perfect example of Penn Praxis's failure to do its homework. For the first time, the group presented a plan that included a relocation of the Independence Seaport Museum. But Steinberg was obviously surprised to learn the common sense reasons that make moving the museum impractical, if not impossible (though not nearly as surprised as the museum's new director was to learn of the proposed relocation). Penn Praxis decided the museum's future without consulting the people who run the facility just as it decided what shoulld be built along the river without consulting the people expected to build it.

Michael Sklaroff's letter, read in its entirety, presents valid criticisms of a flawed plan that resulted from a flawed process. Kudos to Sklaroff and those who had the courage to join him.

Sklaroff seems like a nice guy and his letter carries some truth, but it did not require courage. He's doing it for money not the betterment of the city, as are his co-signers. There is nothing wrong with money, but there has to be a balance between those who want to make money and those who want to make a better city. Sometimes these are the same people and sometimes these aren't.

Michael took a high profile position opposing an agency -- the Planning Commission -- that reviews every city development project his office handles and with which he'll have to continue working on a regular basis in the future. He and the others who signed the letter certainly understood the kind of backlash it was likely to incite. Writing it anyway may not qualify as courage in your world, but it certainly does in mine. The easier and far safer course (from a business perspective) would have been to simply ignore the Penn Praxis "vision" and let it die on its own lack of merit.

Eh, I'm not convinced. If the Penn Praxis plan had a little merit as you suggest, and was as doomed to failure as you suggest, it seems to me that Sklaroff and the other developers would have just let it die. There's no return on the kind of bravery you suggest he was exhibiting, and developers are interested in nothing more than return on investment. No, I think a more likely explanation is that the developers have figured out that the Penn Praxis plan has real legs, both with the city and with the neighbors, and that they need to try and nip it in the bud if possible. The only question now is whether it's too late or not.

I would urge people to really read and watch the text and videos on this site. http://www.planphilly.com/node/1976
of course, if you do not come with an open mind all these things will reinforce what you already think.

But many of Portia's claims seem to be...well, lets see...

Quote:

Originally Posted by portia The Penn Praxis plan is a joke. It ignores economic realities and existing conditions. In Harris Steinberg's world, Ikea doesn't exist, casinos won't exist and low rise development at the river's edge is economically feasible.

Okay, it is not a joke. It is a serious attempt to put forth a 'best case scenario' for the Delaware, based on
a) responses of citizens of Philadelphia
b) planning principles which have been shown to work in other cities.

If someone were to, for example, watch the first 16 seconds of the top video on the page linked above, you would ALREADY hear the term 'big box store' which refers to Ikea and Wal-Mart etc. as well as the mention of gated condominiums.

If someone were to watch the video at the bottom of said page, it goes over the ACTUAL PLAN to carry the street grid to the water edge, it is stated that though the drawing he shows does not include casinos, casinos could be easily integrated into the plan. And in fact they were integrated into the street grid plan as released July 23rd in both the north and the south. (find the .pdf here) go down to page 9, if you can't read the writing, I can. The line from the purple section says:
"Entertainment zone is arranged as immediately accessible site to I-95 exit. thus reduce its traffic impact to nearby neighborhoods to a minimum level. In this area there will be a bus stop/station, multimodes center, a movie theater, several casinos, two or three mid size hotels to serve casinos, retail, restaurants..."

Again, I urge you to look at the site and find out what is really being suggested.

This plan is to set a framework.
Again, in the video, 0:50 seconds in, the speaker says, "We believe that the central Delaware is a generational challenge to Philadelphia, here is a moment to take something that is hotly contested with all sorts of challenges and impediments but with tremendous opportunities to the future yield on a economic social and cultural level. How do we go about establishing a framework to make that happen. This plan is not about saying 'Thou shalt do this' or 'Thou shalt not do this'. But how do we seize what we believe is a generational challenge."

Should we all sit back and hope for the best? Or should we do what we can to try to make sure that this city grabs this opportunity. And makes the most of the natural resources it has, in a way that the most Philadelphians possible can enjoy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by portia Last week's public meeting provided a perfect example of Penn Praxis's failure to do its homework. For the first time, the group presented a plan that included a relocation of the Independence Seaport Museum. But Steinberg was obviously surprised to learn the common sense reasons that make moving the museum impractical, if not impossible (though not nearly as surprised as the museum's new director was to learn of the proposed relocation). Penn Praxis decided the museum's future without consulting the people who run the facility just as it decided what should be built along the river without consulting the people expected to build it.

For starters, Homework:
"...Indeed, in the last three months, since Mayor Street signed the executive order authorizing our work, we have engaged more than 1,500 people in a broad series of public events, from forums to presentations, from riverfront walks to a fact-finding trip to New York. ..."

Next, this a recommendation. Praxis has no power. Praxis does not 'decide the future' of anything.

Also, it is not uncommon to have a city decide what can be built where for planning purposes. Actually, that is most of what planning is. It is east to imagine the mess we would have if there was no plan for a city. The most profitable project is not always the most liveable or sustainable.


Finally, as can be clearly read from my earlier post, which is copied from the site I linked above, the developers WERE consulted. They are undoubtedly not thrilled to be told there will be restrictions to what they can build. And that they will have to do something other than what they planned to do. But there was a meeting.

QUOTE:
"At numerous citizen forums leading up to the Praxis plan, developers and land owners have been notable mostly for their absence. In August, however, Councilman Frank DiCicco brokered a special meeting between Praxis leader Harris Steinberg and about 40 members of the development community. Response to the plan that day was muted."

Oh well. What are we supposed to do. Call a do over? They didn't know it was for real? They didn't know they wouldn't like the outcome? It's not fair? What? Screw em. They don't have to LIKE IT. Its business. They can sell to someone else. We have rules around here. That's life. Tough ****.

I guess I'd have to ask what you consider "real legs." Do the developers believe there's any chance of Praxis's vision becoming a reality? Absolutely not; they know the economics just wouldn't work. But are they fearful Janice Woodcock will ignore all practical considerations and push for zoning legislation implementing Praxis's vision? Of course. Because the effect might be to bring all development on the delaware to a screeching halt.

But, hey, if you're willing to bet on long term, "generational" change, good for you. So long as you understand the cost might be living with an abandoned, derelict riverfront for a few more decades.

Current city planning director Janice Woodcock shot back, saying she’d seen what the development community had planned for the riverfront (more than 20 new high rise towers): “I’ve seen the proposals, and frankly, if all of them were built, it would not be the kind of waterfront we all want.”


What they want is Rittenhouse..


Guess what... we already have one.


You can't just build a new one.


Low density wth public access?


Who's going to fund it? Banks who want low returns or none at all?


I'm for the Boulevard... but pushing grids... who's going to pay for it?


Again... how much wasted "grid public low density" areas do we already have.

I just don't get it... they (Praxis) keeps trying to build something we have already...that isn't being used.

And for it to be successful...it has to be desirable...

and if it isn't fund-able... or sell-able... then what's the point.


Engaging the public ...never actually means engaging them..


It mean those who are fanatical show up and act like experts.

__________________
"

Right on Que!

(Jeeze which one to pick ? )

I CAN'T DECIDE!