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.
It's hard to tell. I was wondering that myself, but South Philly which I'm mostly referencing does have commercial street corridors and with blocks taking you a pretty short distance given the street and block lengths so you aren't that far from them much of the time and yet the small corner operation is just scattered all around along with that. I wonder if there's something about more permissiveness for retail/commercial use whether from early on or a later change in policy or perhaps having to do with having fairly few identifiably broader commercial main streets because it did strike me as really odd. You'd think that they'd collect more of them at specific points. In that sense, and with how small the blocks and streets are, it reminded me of the way some East Asian cities randomly have shops at places. It's odd, but I really like it.
Yea, corner stores were pretty prevalent in Philadelphia at one time outside of major corridors.
Many still take on that form, but have unfortunately been converted to residential and thus have likely lost their grandfathered status.
But for the corner commercial establishments that do remain, it's still likely more common in Philly than most other cities and a quirky vestige of more permissive zoning.
It's hard to tell. I was wondering that myself, but South Philly which I'm mostly referencing does have commercial street corridors and with blocks taking you a pretty short distance given the street and block lengths so you aren't that far from them much of the time and yet the small corner operation is just scattered all around along with that. I wonder if there's something about more permissiveness for retail/commercial use whether from early on or a later change in policy or perhaps having to do with having fairly few identifiably broader commercial main streets because it did strike me as really odd. You'd think that they'd collect more of them at specific points. In that sense, and with how small the blocks and streets are, it reminded me of the way some East Asian cities randomly have shops at places. It's odd, but I really like it.
I'd have to go back to look at the map of Brooklyn to confirm this, but it's probably the case that Brooklyn has more streets that lend themselves to being commercial corridors than Philadelphia does.
Don't forget that the original 1682 plan for the town of Philadelphia had only two wide thoroughfares, Broad and High (now Market) streets. All the other streets were (a) much narrower (b) undifferentiated.
And that grid was extended to the north and south of the original town with no alterations. That is, streets that were narrow in the original town are narrow to the north and south. To the west, on the other side of the Schuylkill, the streets were made a little wider when they were extended out that way, but most of the streets that continue the grid aren't commercial corridors either save for the one with a rapid-transit line running under/over it, Market Street.
Most of the Philadelphia streets that I would call "commercial corridors" are the ones that cut across the grid on a diagonal in some way: Passyunk Avenue, Germantown Avenue, Ridge Avenue, Baltimore Avenue, Lancaster Avenue, Woodland Avenue, Frankford Avenue, Kensington Avenue (over which a rapid transit line runs; North Front Street also has some commerce for the same reason).
Aside from those, the only other streets that might be considered commercial corridors are the wider-than-mornal east-west ones: Oregon, Snyder, Washington, Girard and Allegheny avenues. Plus 52d and 60th streets in West Philadelphia, the Italian Market on South 9th Street and the former market stretches of North Third Street in Northern Liberties and South Second Street in Society Hill (the only "market street" where the market shed survives).
Just about everywhere else, commerce took the form of the random corner store. I'd have to look at the zoning map, but I believe that the city's zoning map zoned in the facts on the ground in many places, and thus the buildings with street-corner retail might be zoned CMX (commercial mixed-use) or RMX (residential mixed-use) where the lots abutting them are zoned RSA-5 (residential single-family attached, highest density allowed) or RM-1 or RM-2 (residential multifamily, two lowest densities).
I'd have to go back to look at the map of Brooklyn to confirm this, but it's probably the case that Brooklyn has more streets that lend themselves to being commercial corridors than Philadelphia does.
Don't forget that the original 1682 plan for the town of Philadelphia had only two wide thoroughfares, Broad and High (now Market) streets. All the other streets were (a) much narrower (b) undifferentiated.
And that grid was extended to the north and south of the original town with no alterations. That is, streets that were narrow in the original town are narrow to the north and south. To the west, on the other side of the Schuylkill, the streets were made a little wider when they were extended out that way, but most of the streets that continue the grid aren't commercial corridors either save for the one with a rapid-transit line running under/over it, Market Street.
Most of the Philadelphia streets that I would call "commercial corridors" are the ones that cut across the grid on a diagonal in some way: Passyunk Avenue, Germantown Avenue, Ridge Avenue, Baltimore Avenue, Lancaster Avenue, Woodland Avenue, Frankford Avenue, Kensington Avenue (over which a rapid transit line runs; North Front Street also has some commerce for the same reason).
Aside from those, the only other streets that might be considered commercial corridors are the wider-than-mornal east-west ones: Oregon, Snyder, Washington, Girard and Allegheny avenues. Plus 52d and 60th streets in West Philadelphia, the Italian Market on South 9th Street and the former market stretches of North Third Street in Northern Liberties and South Second Street in Society Hill (the only "market street" where the market shed survives).
Just about everywhere else, commerce took the form of the random corner store. I'd have to look at the zoning map, but I believe that the city's zoning map zoned in the facts on the ground in many places, and thus the buildings with street-corner retail might be zoned CMX (commercial mixed-use) or RMX (residential mixed-use) where the lots abutting them are zoned RSA-5 (residential single-family attached, highest density allowed) or RM-1 or RM-2 (residential multifamily, two lowest densities).
As far as I can tell, in Brooklyn commercial streets strictly follow zoning. It doesn't matter if it is a diagonal street or on the grid, a wide avenue or a narrower street, etc. However, there are some areas where you have just a random store or a doctor's office in an otherwise completely residential block. I have no idea how that is zoned.
As far as I can tell, in Brooklyn commercial streets strictly follow zoning. It doesn't matter if it is a diagonal street or on the grid, a wide avenue or a narrower street, etc. However, there are some areas where you have just a random store or a doctor's office in an otherwise completely residential block. I have no idea how that is zoned.
I'm guessing the zoning is less strict for doctor and dentist offices since I see those on residential blocks a lot more often.
Most US cities didn't adopt zoning ordinances until the early decades of the 20th century, by which time large swaths of all the large cities of the Northeast had already been built out.
Some of the earliest sought to impose racial segregation; those were ruled unconstitutional in 1917 when the Supreme Court tossed out a racial zoning ordinance in Louisville, Ky., in Buchanan v. Warley.
The most common type of zoning in the US is called "Euclidean" not because of anything having to do with geometry but because of the 1923 Supreme Court decision that okayed it, Village of Euclid [Ohio] v. Amber Realty Co. That case allowed zoning that sought to segregate land uses.
But because many cities were then zoning already-developed districts, what happened in many places was not that the activity followed the zoning but that the zoning followed the activity. In effect, existing uses and districts were "grandfathered in" while unbuilt areas could be more uniformly zoned.
I'd like to suggest that much of Brooklyn is zoned to legalize what was already there. Ditto much of Philadelphia, the Northeast being the biggest exception.
I'm guessing the zoning is less strict for doctor and dentist offices since I see those on residential blocks a lot more often.
Many city zoning ordinances have lists of "nonconforming" uses that are nonetheless allowed in residential districts. Professional offices are among the most common.
For anyone who might be interested in going into the woods of zoning codes, here's a "quick" reference guide to Philadelphia's. I put "quick" in quotes because it's 43 pages long and full of tables and charts that show what each zoning district allows and forbids. But it's not difficult to understand, it simplifies the legalese of the actual code itself, and it does introduce you to the vagaries and intricacies of zoning, including how zoning ordinances allow for mixes of uses common in most older cities. It also has photos illustrating just what a typical building in each zoning district looks like.
Seriously?
Oh, please.
lolololololololololol
NYC doesn't influence anyone who's in their right mind. It's one of the least "American" cities in the country.
Fordham Road has the highest pedestrian counts in the city outside of Manhattan. It is lined with "low end" stores and restaurants you probably wouldn't want to visit but it has a far more bustle than anywhere in Philly.
I've seen you quote this before (I know these aren't your words) but I think it's a misleading quote. You pay Philadelphia prices for the Philadelphia experience, which is very different from the New York experience. New York could be overpriced and perhaps overrated, but anyone thinking they are going to get the same experience living in Philly as they would living in NY is going to be disappointed. Philly is a completely different town with its own vibe and that's the expectation people need to have before moving there.
Nah. If the OP had excluded Center City (2.5 sq. mi.), it would make for an interesting discussion. The Bronx has a lot of cultural gems and great neighborhoods.
Yeah it's funny because yeah if you removed City Center from Philly then everything changes. In the 70's to the 90's crime was higher in The Bronx. But since the late 90's it's not even close - Philly is way more crime ridden. It also has many more rundown areas in the 2000's. The Bronx "city center" is Manhattan though... But it seems that was removed from the parameters of the debate. Philly is cool - but like you said outside of City Center it has a lot of problems glossed over by the Philly boosters on the thread. I see it became a "hipster haven" debate rather than a totality of factors like the debate was supposed to be.
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.
