If you were a developer, you'd probably realize that you wouldn't be able to sell these condos without parking. And if you couldn't selll the condos, then you couldn't get financing. And if you couldn't get financing, well, then you'd go away. And if you went away, the riverfront would remain in the same sad state it's in today.

The reality is that capping 95 isn't going to happen. The big dig got federal funding because Boston had Tip O'Neill and the times were different. There's no reason to believe any of our representatives in Congress has the clout or the desire to push for 20 billion dollars (probably an underestimate) to fulfill Harris Steinberg's "vision." Which means the waterfront is going to remain cut off from the rest of the city.

That being the case, do you really expect that someone able to afford one of these condos would be willing to buy it without parking? Think about it: would you buy a million dollar condo on the waterfront if you had to take the train or walk to Bridgeman's View to get your car?

http://www.planphilly.com/node/1989

Among other choice quotes:

"But to dismiss new projects because of current problems is “very short-sighted,” says Nando Micale, a senior associate at Wallace Roberts & Todd, the planning and design firm that is helping to draft the Penn Praxis vision.
“Planning by its nature is about looking toward the future. So if you take the approach that because we’ve not addressed maintenance of our existing structure, therefore you can’t plan for our future infrastructure, you end up with the same problems down the road,” Micale said. “Failure comes in many forms. Maintenance of existing structures can prevent structural failure, and planning for infrastructure can prevent functional and economic failure.”

And then this one (please forgive me if you too get the PlanPhilly e-mails, most people dont get them and some who do dont read them, this is just a teaser)

http://www.planphilly.com/node/1994

"...These days, many more Philadelphians understand planning. In fact, neighborhood associations have become their own community’s advocates and, at times, vocal critics of what gets built where.
Still, Heller and the other planners and architects who led last night’s discussion think it might be time for another big planning exhibition to get Philadelphian’s thinking about their city’s future.
Many are already talking about redeveloping the city’s waterfront. Penn Praxis recently unveiled a vision that calls for extending the Center City street grid out to the Delaware River. Those who attended planning meetings this past summer often came to talk about what they didn’t want – the two proposed casinos. But they also passionately talked about what they wanted: access to the water. Green space. A healthy port and small-scale commercial and residential development.
And Philadelphians recently voted to overhaul the city’s zoning code. A Commission charged with updating and simplifying the code, as well as removing any inconsistencies, began meeting last month.
“At the moment, I feel a swing back in the direction of planning,” said architectural historian David Brownlee. “People are fed up with private interests dictating what happens in a peace meal way.”..."

But perhaps the most compelling quote of all:


"...One section explained that city planning was really not so different from the kind of planning regular people do in their lives. It showed a sports team planning their next moves, a young couple planning to marry, even a squirrel planning to save nuts for the winter. The only person shown not planning for the future was a bum...."

You know, I actually made it to the end of your post before realizing you weren't repeating these quotes for their humor value.

It must be very nice not to deal with real world concerns.

Of course, the result is that Penn Praxis's "vision" has about as much value as my plans for spending my superball lottery winnings.

This was an indulgent, academic exercise and a wasted opportunity to do something meaningful. Worse yet, it may end up violating that old rule (granted, from another discipline) of first doing no harm.

This time, we may agree on something: this is a compelling quote, though I doubt we take the same meaning from it.

Planning is, or should be, like the first examples. Sports teams assess their strengths and weaknesses before planning their next moves; young couples consider their incomes before committing to a mortgage; and squirrels ration their nuts based on what they'll need to survive through the winter. It's only the bum who indulges in delusional dreams of grandeur while lacking the discipline to attend to day to day necessities.

Do I need to say which I consider Penn Praxis to be in this analogy?

Late to the party ...

Someone is giving us the money to cap 95?

__________________

Only in Voodoo's and Harris Steinberg's dreams.

Witty, but not a good analogy.

It's more like your mom giving you money to buy a ferrari while letting your siblings go without shoes.

Oh, and that "regained real estate" -- sorry, but if it's regained, it goes back to the adjacent property owners from whom it was originally taken. So the city would have to buy it before it could sell it. Not much profit in that, I'd guess.

If I recall, part of it was also the fact that they had built interstate before the big federal plan for it, so they said "hey we never got part of that pie, so how about you throw some money in for this project".

Of course that was also when they thought the project was easier and cheaper.

__________________

Even better analogy. Spending 20 years working at McDonalds while trying to get Yale to give you a full ride scholarship when you could have had a full ride to Temple the whole time and got on with your life.

__________________

That is better. Especially to a Temple grad like me.