Because we are attempting to add and addition to a house that is falling down.


We have how many "salvagable" neighborhoods...already laid out in the manner Penn Praxis is trying to fabricate.

Areas like Strawberry Mansion, Germantown, heck...even SW Philly...areas with parks, existing mass transit, schools, highways,...and even retail.


Yet we want to spend millions or even billions to make this...


something we already have.


I would much rather....actually I demand the city at least attempt to spend the same amount of money this would cost in infrastructure for the Plan on existing areas of the city.


It's a fantasy...that would be expensive for the city (in infrastructure...schools, roads, sewers, removal of old, etc...) expensive for developers (superfunds, engineering, protests/lawsuits and delays caused by community bitchi..er input)

While huge chunks of city lay blighted...


A waterfront should be a destination...not just some homes.


2-4 story housing would be the biggest waste of that land in my opinion...especially considering how much we have laying around under or unused

http://www.philaplanning.org/plans/a...areaplans.html

__________________
"

Provocative or not, Zur does make valid points. The riverfront planning process needs to be based in reality. Most Americans drive cars. There is, however, a difference between car friendly and car centric.

Also there's the chicken and egg thing with Penn's Landing. Its a couple of blocks from my house and I'll bet I was down there 5 or 6 times all summer. Its not hard to get to but there's nothing there. We should spend millions making it an attraction rather than billions making it more accessable.

Like it or not, we shouldn't expect a Big Dig/Millenium Park type of project and that's not Negadelphian but is reality. Taking an all or nothing approach will leave us with nothing (that is Negadelphian).

This is dead on Zur.

Philadedelphia needs to make use of its existing underutilized infrastructure. The last thing it needs is more neighborhoods. Low rise or High rize Philly does not need MORE neigborhoods it needs more people in its existing neighborhoods. Development of the waterfront should be for civic purposes. It should be for the whole city not just they lucky few who can afford a waterfront condo

Here is someone who seems to know how the economy functions. His name is Paul Levy. He seems to think parks on the waterfront are what bring people to cities nowadays. He includes examples (which you have never done Zur). Mr Steinburg also had examples.

But what IS the role of fact in this discussion? What role SHOULD it play? (perhaps a new thread to discuss that?)

http://www.centercityphila.org/docs/...defJobDesc.pdf

We should host a Bikini Contest on the river front.

__________________
"who pissed in your cheerios of life"?

I never said no parks. I like Paul Levy. He's a great thinker and had a awesome plan for Market East.... Residential Towers.

I'm for parks... but parks aren't free to build or free to maintain.

And the only attract current residents to them..

One way to have parks and the maintain them is to build towers...and use the remaining land as parkspace.


But that's against the Praxis Plan of low density "walkable" areas.

NYC did it the tower way...as did Chicago...especially Chicago...one way they have such a great waterfront is tower living surrounded by parkland.


I was always for density... hence my issue with this "recreation" of Rittenhouse with less buildings and height that the Praxis plan suggests.

..and parks aren't free to build or maintain (for effect)


Basically...the Penn Praxis plan is... give us billions and we'll give you a copy of an existing neighborhood you're ignoring...ONLY THIS WILL BE "ON THE WATER" .. right...won't it be great...lotsa bikes like the pictures...right guys? right?

__________________
"

I actually don't care if you like Paul Levy. It doesn't make him any more or less correct.

If you didn't like him and he said something true, what then?

Zur, what you are describing is not what they are suggesting as a design for the waterfront.

What it IS, is PART of a suggested design for the waterfront.

You are taking two things: 1) a cap on 95 and 2) taking the street grid to the waters edge, and rejecting the plan wholesale. (and rejecting the system and the planners and people who want something you don't want)

Those are two parts to a larger plan.
Some of which is financially do-able by the city RIGHT NOW.

I would urge you to go to the site. Watch the videos and read the articles and know what you are talking about. Constantly ranting about cars and towers and caps, which are only part of the proposal, makes you look loony.

Maybe you need someone to go through the plan and show you, piece by piece, all the different parts. Well YOU GOT IT! That is the finishing move of the Praxis plan. (My finishing move is to turn into a dragon and bite the head off of my opponent (left-right-left-right-up-down-up-down-A-B-B-A))

I read/watch the site and the videos..

It was the videos that made me feel as though it was a bunch of removed from the economics of it, super-educated planners in white towers on the committee and NIMBYish ultra-progessives in the audience...


Overall...it seems they are pushing for a transit heavy overall low density new neighborhood...that would just end up to be a couple more blocks of South Philly and Fishtown.

..and that seems to be the biggest misuse off the waterfront I can think of.


I would love to see a Millenium type park... or towers..things that draw people..things that create jobs and create revenue for the city...people, especially new residents...tend to be very costly to a city initially due to the amount of investment a city must "build" to accommodate them.

Ikea and Walmart... they don't need a new school or a park. They generate taxes. Seems this plan removes them for homes. While I hate Walmarts lot ...it is full..all the time.


But a continued grid which would require Millions upon millions in property aquisitions and then at least a several billion in infrastructure (95 rebuilds or capping, transit, a couple dozen new streets and associated utilities..)




It just pisses me off...cause while huge chunks of the city rot we're figuring out ways to spend billions to build new sections.

that don't really address Philly's biggest issue...

a lack of jobs...not homes...we have tons of salvageable residential sections...


But hey...we need a trolley right?

__________________
"

zur, i think you're missing the point. the difference in property values between front and second at market is the same as the difference between property values between chestnut hill and greys ferry...one sides got neon parking signs and abandoned warehouses which could easily be converted into lofts, and the other's got cute little cafes. it isnt just about usage, its also about property values.

__________________
This, this, this, and this are my new favorite things.

These two, not so much.

but building ten dozen ubercondos doesn't a waterfront make, zur. while i agree that there are a good many blighted areas in the city, i don't think that concentrating higher-income families along a las vegas-strip waterfront and in center city is quite the answer. that being said, nor is building rowhomes down to the delaware...or adding a new park...none of those are answers in and of themselves. i don't mind the condos, if they are integrated somehow into the fabric of the rest of northern liberties.

but, zur, you do have a good point, and that is that even the penn praxis plan is only local in scope. we have several competing development plans for the del, the schuylkill, north philly, center city, and every other nook and cranny in the city. what we need is a comprehensive citywide redevelopment plan including the addition of new business districts outside of center city, and the metro to get to them, reintegrating the human element into some industrial-***-residential areas of the city, like northern liberties.

__________________
This, this, this, and this are my new favorite things.

These two, not so much.