Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Probably a post for another thread, but forcing somebody to sell property below market is a good thing?
It's called affordable housing and D.C. takes care of their own unlike most other cities. We have a huge minority population that should be able to afford housing in the city and we make sure they can.
Lol no... North Philadelphia is gentrifying and a lot of people are moving into the areas. All those neighborhoods I listed are in Lower North Philadelphia. The area will probably be completely gentrified in 20 years or so.
Have you not heard of Urban Renewal or Gentrification? You even said neighborhoods in DC are being revitalized... well guess what it's not just happening in DC. Sure there are still some bad areas in North Philly, but North Philly is a big area. There are a lot of awesome neighborhoods in North Philly today and some more that are "up and coming"
Not all of North Philly is ghetto and gentrification and urban revitalization is spreading quickly in Lower North Philly
Can all those residents in the urban renewal projects come back to the new plush developments like they can in D.C.? Do new buildings being built have to include low income units? D.C. and Philadelphia are different animals. We take care of our own.
Actually, most of these are ugly, too. I understand it's supposed to be a matter of opinion, but it still boggles my mind that anyone would consider these things attractive in any way.
Again, there's a distinction between unattractive and uninspiring; sounds like you have very specific taste, since there's been a massive variety of buildings displayed in this thread. Not trying to be snarky, but it really just seems like you're generally not a fan of today's urban architecture.
Can all those residents in the urban renewal projects come back to the new plush developments like they can in D.C.? Do new buildings being built have to include low income units? D.C. and Philadelphia are different animals. We take care of our own.
Gentrification has its positives and its negatives. Please do not try and act as though Washington D.C. has somehow figured out how avoid all of the negatives associated with it. It's attempts to fight off the breaking up of communities and relocation of long time residents is admirable. But the fact of the matter is there are similar tactics in place in other cities as well.
DC is hardly the only city that has mixed income housing and affordable housing.
And despite their efforts it's already plain as day to see that when you look at population and demographic statistics that DC has far from totally avoided the negatives of gentrification. There are PLENTY of people that have been priced out of DC in the past 20 years, to say otherwise means ignoring loads of evidence to the contrary.
The public housing projects that you pointed out earlier in the thread in Philly are a failure, were a failure from the beginning. However it's not as though Center City is surrounded by dismal failures like this. As others have pointed out Philly is today building affordable housing developments and mixed income developments that are honestly very similar to ones you praise in dc. Not to mention the fact that Philadelphia still has large swaths of affordable housing in safe neighborhoods... not exactly something dc has in spades, thus the impetus for creating more affordable housing in the city.
You highlight the extreme negatives in philly while highlighting the most positive aspects of D.C. There is a flip side to both coins. Some of dc's effort to ensure affordable housing are fairly different than those found elsewhere. They look like decent ideas today but it will be 20 or 30 years before these ideas can be truly judged in hindsight. The very legislation you praise has been viciously fought against by many in DC who believes it will hinder dc going forward. Time will tell.
In the meantime, lets try to not act like DC has miraculously solved the thousands of years old problem of what to do with poverty in urban environments.
Last edited by phillies2011; 03-15-2012 at 10:30 PM..
Can all those residents in the urban renewal projects come back to the new plush developments like they can in D.C.? Do new buildings being built have to include low income units? D.C. and Philadelphia are different animals. We take care of our own.
You're grossly misinterpreting reality here. No offense, but DC is really one of the last cities that should be critiquing other cities about their affordable housing. Two points in response to your previous posts:
1. The "law" you refer to in DC pertaining to a minimum amount of affordable housing actually only requires 8-10 percent (not 20 percent as you initially claimed) of units set aside for "moderate-to-low income" individuals, or up to 80 percent of AMI. This means that a developer could set aside all of their supposedly "affordable housing" units to families of 4 making an income of 70K a year -- not exactly a demographic of particularly low means. This rule also can be exempted depending on zoning district. In other words, this rule doesn't really do a whole lot to serve the truly struggling demographic of people who cannot afford quality housing.
2. The impetus for creating more affordable housing is far more necessary in DC than Philly. You said it yourself that these cities are two different animals, and you're exactly right. There is far more quality, affordable housing currently existing in Philly than DC without the need to create an "affordable housing" mandate for new large developments. This is because Philly seems to have stronger up-front constituent involved planning that works to preserve the existing affordable housing stock.
Actually, most of these are ugly, too. I understand it's supposed to be a matter of opinion, but it still boggles my mind that anyone would consider these things attractive in any way.
I think that modern architecture has it merits. I honestly appreciate anyone who attempts something different.
I love the old georgian and federal rowhomes in philadelphia. I love old architecture. In some neighborhoods like society hill, I like that new construction conforms to the very cohesive and beautiful architectural style that has existed there for centuries.
In other neighborhoods that have less conformity though I appreciate people taking a chance and doing something different. Unless you're building in a historical neighborhood that requires it, what is the point of building buildings that are in the style of the 17 or 1800s? Architecture is an art form. It needs to move forward, it needs to try new things.
Many of the architectural styles that we so adore today were ridiculed when they first came into style.
When it was first built a lot of people thought this was an architectural monstrosity:
Today the works of Frank Furness are respected across the globe and buildings like this are among the most respected in the city and people cry thinking about how many of his great works were torn down because they weren't appreciated in their time.
I mean honestly even Philadelphia's City hall was thought to be ugly when it was first built... imagine that.
I'm not comparing these buildings to the works of a legend like furness or a masterpiece like Philly's city hall, but who knows how they'll be viewed 100 years from now? In 100 years this building may be looked at like how we view victorian townhouse today.
You're grossly misinterpreting reality here. No offense, but DC is really one of the last cities that should be critiquing other cities about their affordable housing. Two points in response to your previous posts:
1. The "law" you refer to in DC pertaining to a minimum amount of affordable housing actually only requires 8-10 percent (not 20 percent as you initially claimed) of units set aside for "moderate-to-low income" individuals, or up to 80 percent of AMI. This means that a developer could set aside all of their supposedly "affordable housing" units to families of 4 making an income of 70K a year -- not exactly a demographic of particularly low means. This rule also can be exempted depending on zoning district. In other words, this rule doesn't really do a whole lot to serve the truly struggling demographic of people who cannot afford quality housing.
2. The impetus for creating more affordable housing is far more necessary in DC than Philly. You said it yourself that these cities are two different animals, and you're exactly right. There is far more quality, affordable housing currently existing in Philly than DC without the need to create an "affordable housing" mandate for new large developments. This is because Philly seems to have stronger up-front constituent involved planning that works to preserve the existing affordable housing stock.
Actually, Philadelphia has a lower cost of living because of the lack of demand. Cost of living is defined by the consumer. Demand is what drives it. New York, Washington D.C., Boston, and San Francisco are expensive metro area's for a reason. These cities also happen to have the most educated population in the nation. There is a distinct correlation. Most developments in D.C. choose to include 20% in low income housing. If you haven't noticed, this ground breaking policy has not even put a dent in stopping multi-family housing in D.C. It has actually just preceded the biggest building boom in D.C. since the 1940's. Developers are flocking to D.C. from all over the world to build new housing here and 2013 is going to be even bigger year which is just mind boggling. This law has not stopped any developers from wanting to spend money in D.C.
Philadelphia reminds me of an urban Atlanta in that the city is overbuilt from a population vs. housing inventory. The one thing that is common between D.C., NYC, Boston, and San Francisco is that there is a lack of land which is why these cities have to build up. It makes land more valuable. A good comparison would be to measure the vacant housing data for Philadelphia versus D.C.
Gentrification has its positives and its negatives. Please do not try and act as though Washington D.C. has somehow figured out how avoid all of the negatives associated with it. It's attempts to fight off the breaking up of communities and relocation of long time residents is admirable. But the fact of the matter is there are similar tactics in place in other cities as well.
DC is hardly the only city that has mixed income housing and affordable housing.
And despite their efforts it's already plain as day to see that when you look at population and demographic statistics that DC has far from totally avoided the negatives of gentrification. There are PLENTY of people that have been priced out of DC in the past 20 years, to say otherwise means ignoring loads of evidence to the contrary.
The public housing projects that you pointed out earlier in the thread in Philly are a failure, were a failure from the beginning. However it's not as though Center City is surrounded by dismal failures like this. As others have pointed out Philly is today building affordable housing developments and mixed income developments that are honestly very similar to ones you praise in dc. Not to mention the fact that Philadelphia still has large swaths of affordable housing in safe neighborhoods... not exactly something dc has in spades, thus the impetus for creating more affordable housing in the city.
You highlight the extreme negatives in philly while highlighting the most positive aspects of D.C. There is a flip side to both coins. Some of dc's effort to ensure affordable housing are fairly different than those found elsewhere. They look like decent ideas today but it will be 20 or 30 years before these ideas can be truly judged in hindsight. The very legislation you praise has been viciously fought against by many in DC who believes it will hinder dc going forward. Time will tell.
In the meantime, lets try to not act like DC has miraculously solved the thousands of years old problem of what to do with poverty in urban environments.
Actually, urban planners have been trying to get this passed all over the country. D.C. is a leader in this arena.
People complaining that their house is worth too much and they can't afford the taxes to their super lucrative house is not something I feel sorry about. They often sell for a huge profit and move to a bigger house in a safer neighborhood. The people who are truly displaced are the low income renters that have their buildings knocked down and their lease not renewed. That is who D.C. takes care of. By the way, D.C. residents can now apply for tax help to keep their homes also.
The part many people aren't talking about is how most black people are leaving D.C. by choice because they want a bigger house in the suburbs. African Americans don't desire to live in the city like many Caucasians do now. Most African American's don't have this new found infatuation to live in an urban environment because we have been doing it for the last 70 years and we don't have the same experience as the transplants moving into the cities around the nation now. African Americans are moving to the suburbs by choice all around the county for big houses and expensive cars. We are doing what most Caucasians did in the 1950's and they are doing what we did in the 1940's when we came to the cities looking for work from the south.
Last edited by CaseyB; 03-16-2012 at 04:12 AM..
Reason: off topic
Actually, Philadelphia has a lower cost of living because of the lack of demand. Cost of living is defined by the consumer. Demand is what drives it. New York, Washington D.C., Boston, and San Francisco are expensive metro area's for a reason. These cities also happen to have the most educated population in the nation. There is a distinct correlation. Most developments in D.C. choose to include 20% in low income housing. If you haven't noticed, this ground breaking policy has not even put a dent in stopping multi-family housing in D.C. It has actually just preceded the biggest building boom in D.C. since the 1940's. Developers are flocking to D.C. from all over the world to build new housing here and 2013 is going to be even bigger year which is just mind boggling. This law has not stopped any developers from wanting to spend money in D.C.
Philadelphia reminds me of an urban Atlanta in that the city is overbuilt from a population vs. housing inventory. The one thing that is common between D.C., NYC, Boston, and San Francisco is that there is a lack of land which is why these cities have to build up. It makes land more valuable.
That may well be true and that's great to hear but that's only half of what we're talking about. As duderino pointed out a lot of these affordable housing units are going to people well above the poverty level and are not necessarily preventing the negative effects of gentrification.
People are being priced out of dc. The statistics to show this are plentiful... despite your "we take care of our own" claims to the contrary.
In event we're getting pretty far off topic here. Philadelphia may have open lots and available housing in some neighborhoods... but that is simply not the case downtown and the surrounding area... and that is what we are talking about here: downtowns. There are still some empty lots in center city philadelphia and the surrounding nabes but they are grower ever rarer and in any event they don't prevent Philly from having a vibrant downtown... as the poll obviously attests to.
That may well be true and that's great to hear but that's only half of what we're talking about. As duderino pointed out a lot of these affordable housing units are going to people well above the poverty level and are not necessarily preventing the negative effects of gentrification.
People are being priced out of dc. The statistics to show this are plentiful... despite your "we take care of our own" claims to the contrary.
In event we're getting pretty far off topic here. Philadelphia may have open lots and available housing in some neighborhoods... but that is simply not the case downtown and the surrounding area... and that is what we are talking about here: downtowns. There are still some empty lots in center city philadelphia and the surrounding nabes but they are grower ever rarer and in any event they don't prevent Philly from having a vibrant downtown... as the poll obviously attests to.
Yes, people are being priced out of D.C. The point is, there is also a large amount of housing reserved for families making 30%-50% of AMI. D.C. proper is not going to slow down in development. The city is so small with so much potential that D.C. proper will not slow down till the entire city reaches full buildout of multi-family high rises and row houses. It's the area that is most in demand in the region and that is only getting more intense as the city improves. This is also true for most downtown's across the nation. I do think D.C. is headed towards a Manhattan type demographic sooner rather than later of all rich people. That is why this policy was so important. That is the only way to combat the demand in the market that is skyrocketing D.C.'s housing value. It is the only way low income people will be able to remain in the city over the next few years.
As for people under the poverty level, all the major redevelopments have replacements units for every single housing project unit.
That includes:
Barry Farms
Sursum Cordas
Sheridan Station
Park Morton
Cappers Carrol
etc.
etc.
etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
