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.
I suspect it is easing what would otherwise be greater upward pressure on house prices and (especially) rents in outlying neighborhoods like mine.
I should, however, note that I don't oppose gentrification here. I call myself a "two cheers for gentrification" guy, and the reasons why may well be specific to Philadelphia:
First, Philadelphia has a long history of high homeownership among not only the well-off but also its working and (proportionally speaking) even lower classes, made possible by the trinities of the 19th century and the modest "workingman's" rowhouses of the early 20th century. (I have on the wall of my apartment a lithograph from 1908, produced to mark the 225th anniversary of Philadelphia's founding (which actually took place the year before), which purports to show "The Philadelphia of To-Day" (it actually doesn't; it includes the Ben Franklin Parkway, construction of which did not begin until 1913) with the legend "America's largest Home City with more Home Owners than any other city in the world." The majority of housing units in this city are owned rather than rented even now, though only barely so; I think that Boston, New York and Washington are all majority-renter now. (It's only a matter of time before Philadelphia joins them, however, what with all the new apartment construction going on.) Civic leaders here saw widespread homeownership as a means of promoting social harmony and stability, and it worked pretty well. (The city built a model workingman's rowhouse for the 1893 Chicago World's Fair that was a hit with fairgoers.)
Second, those high rates of homeownership encompassed Black as well as white Philadelphians. Sure, most lower-income Black Philadelphians rent, but somewhere between 25 and 30 percent of them do not. I think this percentage is higher than in our peer cities. And the houses these Black Philadelphians own are for the most part in neighborhoods that have suffered from years of disinvestment, often starting with the blockbusting that led to white flight in the 1960s. Gentrification gives these homeowners an asset that has finally gotten to the point where they can actually cash in on their investment if they so chose. Stopping the cycle of redevelopment cuts this opportunity off as well.
Now, here's the raspberry: The renters really do get screwed. At least adding significantly to the rental housing stock may keep rents in redeveloping neighborhoods from rising higher than they otherwise would. So might all the 3-over-1 and four-story purely residential buildings rising here in Germantown.
I think an important distinction needs to be made between gentrification and displacement. Even though gentrification can lead to displacement, it doesn't have to. DC has been doing so many things to slow the displacement that took place between 2000-2010. Policy can stop displacement. While DC does benefit from having a major river separating the bulk of the Black community from the urban core of DC which has been booming for decades at this point, the city still has been taking precautions through legislation to protect Black residents from those pressures.
Philadelphia has so many available homes that displacement in the outer neighborhoods probably won't ever be an issue in our lifetime. Investment can still happen in those neighborhoods. This will always be a capacity issue. We have to build enough housing for rent and ownership that people don't have to buy homes at lower price points. Housing filtration can only happen when you have enough housing. For renters, the more housing that delivers annually, the slower rent growth will be. Rent is rising in cities because housing is not being built fast enough, it's really that simple.
Many people that live in DC proper complain about DC always seeming like a construction zone, but without that construction, DC rental prices would have rose with NYC, Boston, San Fran, and LA prices over the last decade. In 2010, DC rents were pretty close to those cities. Now, DC rents are closer to rents in the urban core of cities like Atlanta, Chicago, and Dallas. I remember DC rents averaging between $2,100-$2,300 back in 2012. They are still there now in 2022 because housing construction has outpaced demand. All cities need to build that way to keep rents down.
Many people that live in DC proper complain about DC always seeming like a construction zone, but without that construction, DC rental prices would have rose with NYC, Boston, San Fran, and LA prices over the last decade. In 2010, DC rents were pretty close to those cities. Now, DC rents are closer to rents in the urban core of cities like Atlanta, Chicago, and Dallas. I remember DC rents averaging between $2,100-$2,300 back in 2012. They are still there now in 2022 because housing construction has outpaced demand. All cities need to build that way to keep rents down.
Amen, brother.
Right now, however, according to an article I read, demand for rental housing is outstripping supply in Philadelphia. They can't build those 3-over-1s and convert/restore old buildings fast enough.
Right now, however, according to an article I read, demand for rental housing is outstripping supply in Philadelphia. They can't build those 3-over-1s and convert/restore old buildings fast enough.
I agree totally agree cities need to built more housing. I'm probably the biggest YIMBY there is. But, it also helps that DC's wealthy tend to want to live west of Rock Creek park in mansions, not right in the urban core. There isn't really the ultra lux condo/apartment central city market that you see in SF/BOS/NYC with $20million condos. Plus, DC is a government town. It doesn't have nearly the same degree of private sector tech/finance/VC jobs that NYC, SF, Boston have. The city didn't really benefit from the private sector tech/start up boom like the others did.
Mean weekly wages, Q1 2022
New York, NY $4,064 up 64.9% from 10 years ago
San Francisco, CA $3,393 up 89.4%
Suffolk, MA $2,753 up 61.2%
Washington, DC $2,221 up 38.6% https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cewqtr.t01.htm
I agree totally agree cities need to built more housing. I'm probably the biggest YIMBY there is. But, it also helps that DC's wealthy tend to want to live west of Rock Creek park in mansions, not right in the urban core. There isn't really the ultra lux condo/apartment central city market that you see in SF/BOS/NYC with $20million condos. Plus, DC is a government town. It doesn't have nearly the same degree of private sector tech/finance/VC jobs that NYC, SF, Boston have. The city didn't really benefit from the private sector tech/start up boom like the others did.
Mean weekly wages, Q1 2022
New York, NY $4,064 up 64.9% from 10 years ago
San Francisco, CA $3,393 up 89.4%
Suffolk, MA $2,753 up 61.2%
Washington, DC $2,221 up 38.6% https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cewqtr.t01.htm
The biggest difference in rent for DC is the amount of new units produced in DC compared to San Fran, Boston, and NYC. The city punches way above its weight in new construction. To keep rents low moving forward, cities need to build even more housing than they did from 2010-2020 over the next decade.
For DC fortunately, I think many of those units will be built in downtown DC creating a mixed-use downtown replacing the office ghetto that existed up until now:
"The District has more than 300 Class-B and Class-C office buildings totaling more than 35M SF, according to CBRE."
"The optimistic scenario for the D.C. office market, which some panelists did share, is that many of the city's older office buildings will be converted to residential. That strategy has become increasingly prevalent, with several conversion projects moving forward in the last two years."
“What you’re seeing is a lot of older urban core product that could become multifamily, so it could be a silver lining," said Katie Yanushonis, a senior vice president at developer TMG, formerly The Meridian Group. "At the end of the day, I think it’s a positive thing that some are being taken out of production and being put to a higher and better use that will help the fabric of city.â€
Last edited by MDAllstar; 10-03-2022 at 10:33 PM..
Right now, however, according to an article I read, demand for rental housing is outstripping supply in Philadelphia. They can't build those 3-over-1s and convert/restore old buildings fast enough.
Not in most outlying neighborhood commercial zones.
The most common commercial mixed-use zoning districts in the outlying neighborhoods are CMX-2 and CMX-2.5, the latter a new district created with the 2012 zoning code revision specifically to promote denser mixed-use development along neighborhood commercial thoroughfares.
CMX-2 has a 38-foot height limit, CMX-2.5 a 55-foot one.
A 4-story building is as high as you can build in a CMX-2 district. You could get a fifth story on one in a CMX-2.5 district.
It would be possible in the neighborhood where I live, probably because prior to the rise of the enclosed suburban malls, its main shopping street was the second-busiest retail district in the city after Center City itself. Its zoning, however, is inconsistent: one side of one block along it is zoned CMX-2.5, the other CMX-3 (height governed by FAR, which is 500 in the case of this district). An existing eight-story building located where this street crosses Germantown Avenue, which got a 1950 makeover that turned it into Germantown's fanciest department store, is going to be converted to apartments on its upper floors. A one-story building in a the CMX-2.5 district on the opposite side of the street two blocks away just got demolished and is being replaced by apartments over retail; I haven't seen renderings of it but assume it will be a 4-over-1.
Not in most outlying neighborhood commercial zones.
The most common commercial mixed-use zoning districts in the outlying neighborhoods are CMX-2 and CMX-2.5, the latter a new district created with the 2012 zoning code revision specifically to promote denser mixed-use development along neighborhood commercial thoroughfares.
CMX-2 has a 38-foot height limit, CMX-2.5 a 55-foot one.
A 4-story building is as high as you can build in a CMX-2 district. You could get a fifth story on one in a CMX-2.5 district.
It would be possible in the neighborhood where I live, probably because prior to the rise of the enclosed suburban malls, its main shopping street was the second-busiest retail district in the city after Center City itself. Its zoning, however, is inconsistent: one side of one block along it is zoned CMX-2.5, the other CMX-3 (height governed by FAR, which is 500 in the case of this district). An existing eight-story building located where this street crosses Germantown Avenue, which got a 1950 makeover that turned it into Germantown's fanciest department store, is going to be converted to apartments on its upper floors. A one-story building in a the CMX-2.5 district on the opposite side of the street two blocks away just got demolished and is being replaced by apartments over retail; I haven't seen renderings of it but assume it will be a 4-over-1.
Is Philly seeing any large scale clearing of vacant and blighted rowhouses? I know in Baltimore, that has been happening, however, they're being replaced by new modern rowhouses instead of up-zoning those parcels and building high density multi-family.
In DC, there aren't any areas with vacant and blighted rowhouses where clearing can take place anymore. There are areas of obsolete office buildings that will not be converted to residential so they will be razed for new development. The FBI headquarters is a great example of that.
In an interview recently, the city talked about their vision for a reimagined site where the FBI once stood that would allow flow through the huge super block. They referenced "The Stacks" currently under construction in SW DC in Buzzard Point. The interior streets create a dense block that would be suitable for the FBI superblock:
Is Philly seeing any large scale clearing of vacant and blighted rowhouses? I know in Baltimore, that has been happening, however, they're being replaced by new modern rowhouses instead of up-zoning those parcels and building high density multi-family.
In DC, there aren't any areas with vacant and blighted rowhouses where clearing can take place anymore. There are areas of obsolete office buildings that will not be converted to residential so they will be razed for new development. The FBI headquarters is a great example of that.
In an interview recently, the city talked about their vision for a reimagined site where the FBI once stood that would allow flow through the huge super block. They referenced "The Stacks" currently under construction in SW DC in Buzzard Point. The interior streets create a dense block that would be suitable for the FBI superblock:
Most of the blighted row homes in Baltimore aren't really the most interesting places from a construction stand point. Whether or not this will help Baltimore in the long run is hard to say.
Most of the blighted row homes in Baltimore aren't really the most interesting places from a construction stand point. Whether or not this will help Baltimore in the long run is hard to say.
But that will change if those neighborhoods experience investment, right? Many areas that are booming now were once desolate wastelands. Look at U Street, 14th Street, Navy Yard, NOMA, and Union Market in DC for an example of places that were once open-air drug markets with blight and needles everywhere that have turned into brand new booming neighborhoods. We have to have vision for the future.
Is Philly seeing any large scale clearing of vacant and blighted rowhouses? I know in Baltimore, that has been happening, however, they're being replaced by new modern rowhouses instead of up-zoning those parcels and building high density multi-family.
That happened around 1990, under a program launched by Mayor John Street called the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative.
It was large-scale, but it didn't involve razing entire blocks. Rather, it tore down seriously deteriorated vacant structures in spots throughout the city and cleared the streets of abandoned cars. A split-rail fence in front of a plot of grass was a signature of NTI's having cleared a lot.
The program got a good bit of criticism for its cost and for no direct redevelopment having resulted from it. I maintain that it actually achieved its goal by improving the optics of many city neighborhoods to the point where private investors and builders could see themselves building things on some of those lots. The number of lots in play grew as the development spread, helped along by a 10-year property tax abatement on new construction (it had originally applied only to renovations).
TBH, those high-rises at The Stacks look to me like they may be a little too tall for the narrow lane they line. I can't imagine that street not being in shadow most of the day. Still, a net improvement.
BTW, I took this photo yesterday on West Chelten Avenue right where it crosses over the SEPTA Regional Rail line at Chelten Avenue station. You should be able to see the 4-over-1 in the foreground and a 3-over-1 in the background. (The latter is going up on the site of a Chinese/Japanese restaurant whose owner had wanted to get out of the business for some time; it's never been proven, but some around here suspect that the fire that destroyed it six years ago was an act of desperation on his part.) The funny thing is, both could be bigger, for the lot containing the 3-over-1 is zoned CMX-2.5 and the lots around the train station on both sides of the street are zoned CMX-3.
Just past the bridge on the side of the street I'm standing on is a strip mall that replaced an aging supermarket. Both of these were and are way less development than the zoning allows.
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.
