But, and I have asked this before, what is a neighborhood and why do neighborhood wishes have to be pushed aside.

I can agree if there are huge moral or social issues involved. But do the people who live and work and, yes, own businesses, in a neighborhood have to roll over everytime a developer wants to throw up something new, something that they find wrong for their neighborhood.

If that makes me a NIMBY, then I am one.

cc, I'm curious . . . and you don't have to answer this if you don't want. I know you live (as you proclaim) in Center City. I'm curious as to what sort of street, in what kind of structure, etc.

What is it that seems to make you so absolutely unforgiving of neighborhood wishes and so willing to back nearly any development project.

I don't understand it.

__________________
“Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody.” - Jane Jacobs

All these "know-it-all" kids will be in the suburbs in another 10 years!

If it was up to you, would you plow down all existing structures and build a brand new city?

There's no fear of a domino effect. The fear is of ugly, unplanned developments that will destroy the existing historic ambience of the neighborhood. Open your eyes and take a look around.

Communism would be another interesting topic. ;-)

It's not that. Rather, it is the fact that very often the opposition builds up because the activitists use slippery slope arguments. During the whole Wheeler building debate in Rittenhouse, people kept saying how Philadelphia is loosing its walkable streetscape bit by bit as if allowing this one building would open the doors to several more just like it. As I said, each project should be analyzed under its own merit. Too often people oppose things because they assume that the worse case scenario (in their minds) would result. If this same standard had been applied to every large project over the past 200 years then this city would be more like Charleston or Savannah (and maybe that's the way some of these people want it). It certainly wouldn't be the city we recognize today.

Actually I live in the Rittenhouse area, right in the epicenter of NIMBYdom. If you ask me, what made the Rittenhouse area what it is is that, compared to most other areas of Philadelphia which are either primarily residential with a few commercial streets or historical artifacts (Society Hill), Rittenhouse is a living breathing neighborhood that's continually evolving. It is one of the few special areas of urban America that is capable of rising to the challenge of being a first class neighborhood and the fact that it was ranked 6th in North America in an urban survey proves this. Rittenhouse can rise to the challenge because it evolves to meet it. I see the NIMBYism that's rampant there today as the beginning of a process that might squelch this. I wouldn't oppose it as much if it weren't for the fact that the NIMBYism often takes on less of the appearance of a true debate and mroe of the appearance of a provincial turf war. The truth is, some of the most vocal opponents are not people like yourself, Jayfar, or Hal but people who have some idiosyncrtic reason. I'm not saying that they don't have a right to be heard. However, things can and do get really out of hand. There's that 30-story building at 17th and Rittenhouse that's being opposed to death by only a few property owners because it would block their views. Despite compensation being offered, they are still fighting (and it is my understanding that, irony of ironies, some of these opponents are in the Medical Arts Tower which itself would violate the height rules if built today). Then there were the people who opposed the PPA project not because it was to be a garage (which I could have understood) but because it was to include a movie house as if the movie house would bring in too many people and ruin their quality of life. I mean if I moved to the busiest neighborhood in the city, I should expect that movie houses would be built. Then tehre are the people who want Rouge to remove one row of their sidewalk chairs even though there is ample room to walk (people jsut don't want to be slowed down). In many ways, what I see are the suburban values being imposed on the city - people complaining about loss of views, loss of sunlight, too many people around, sidewalks too crowded, etc.

Nobody is disputing who was on the Development Corp board that imposed the moratorium; I'm sure it sounded great to the current restaurant owners at the time. But the reality is that it did backfire and it hurt the synergy of Main Street and it will take some time for it to straighten itself out now.

Policies like a "moraturiom" always have far reaching, and often times unintended consequences, most of which are nearly impossible to predict. Development and planning boards are notorious for over-reacting to problems. Nobody should have to live with people urinating or defecating or puking on their front step, but I fail to see how limiting the number of restaurants that are allowed to open would have solved that problem. In retrospect, it might have been better to encourage the restaurant growth and use the increased tax revenue to put some more cops on the street in the residential areas of neighborhood.

__________________
"Life's tough, and it's a lot tougher if you're stupid." My Dad

No it's the developer who uses the slippery slope argument to blur the lines between legal and illegal conduct-

"if I can't build my overside building, and then the city will fall apart".

The opposition actually uses the opposite, a bright line argument -
"the law says 300 feet tall, that MEANS 300 feet, therefore you can't build 400 feet tall."

The "opposition" is merely arguing to apply apply the law equally,
it is the developer is arguing for a flexible, slippery law.
But what possible use is an irregular rule?

Well, close, but really, you're mixing what people want,
and the rules that protect what they want.

You are right that people have said
1) "I don't want my neighborhood changed"
however, the important point is that they follow up with
2) therefore, the city should apply the law.

By analogy, I see your argument against enforcing heigh limits to be the same as an argument to not ticket cars illegally parked infront of fire hydrants.
Yes, the homeowners are complaining because they don't like people illegally parking infront of the fire hydrands,
But I find your "merit" argument to be the equivilent of saying you'd be happy to move your car if there really was a fire.

You're really missing the point of why people are opposing things, either by miscommunication or for the purpose of rhetorically redirecting the argument.

There's a close tie between
1) the person doesn't like it
2) it's illegal.

Nobody denies the first part - people don't want Wheeler's tower
but you're carefully skippnig over the second part -

The people are effective in the oppositoin becasuse they're taking action to enforce the law.


Ah, that's where we disagree.

Each project should be analyzed based on the law.


Of couse people oppose things- that's the fire hydrant argument.
People enact laws to prevent people from doing things that are good for them, that harm others.

The residents are not willing to risk their neighborhood hoping that the worst case doens't happen, they're being prudent.

Prudence is why cars have spare tires, and why it is still illegal to park infront of fire hydrants at anytime, not simply when there are fires.

Of course "on the merits" there's no harm to parking infront of a fire hydrant when there's no fire. However, it's still illegal.

So, when the neighbors don't like somebody breaking the law-
either building a highrise or habitually parking infront of a fire hydrant -=> what matters on one level is that, yes, the neighbors are against it even though it's not "doing any harm" right now.



Hal

I think you've got me wrong. I'm as much as an urbanist as you and Chris. We just have different views on how this is best achieved. Yes, ugly unplanned developments would be bad but few of the developments I've challenged are really ugly or unplanned (in fact many had to go back to the drawing board many times to cater to people's desires). That may be only my opinion, but it is still my opinion.
Getting back to Main Street, as I said, the shoe fits. The business owners were NIMBYs and I suspect that the true reason behind thier championing of the moratorium was not because they feared someone would come around and tear down Main Street but rather because they wanted to squelch competition. Yet, comeptition is what this country is about. If they didn't like the heat then they were free to move their businesses elsewhere (and in the process redevelop another neighborhood). Putting down a moratorium is not the way to go about it.

You hit the nail on the head. the moratorium was for exactly what you said, because the people (Dan N.) who put it in place did not follow it.

cc:

Suggested reading for followups in this thread, uncannily relevant to the Manayunk experience, is Chapter 13, "The self destruction of diversity" in Jane Jacobs' "The Death and Life of Great American Cities."

__________________
Cheers,
Jayfar
--
“I am indeed well aware of the history of Conventional (sic) Hall, both globally and locally, and can assure you that we are carefully exploring avenues for its future.” -- Penn President Amy Gutmann 5 days before demolition began.

I just bought that jayfar!

__________________
Philadelphia SEO consultants | Commercial Collection Agency|Luxury Apartments in Philadelphia