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.
- Street sweeping should be one of our bedrock municipal services, and Philadelphia did provide this service at one point, but as Ryan Briggs reported last year, the program was canceled in response to political pressure from residents who didn't want to move their cars.
- Restoring the service has a political problem, not a money problem: it would cost only $18 million to buy the sweepers and just $3 million in annual salaries to clean the city every other week.
- Jim Kenney pledged during the 2015 campaign to bring the service back, but after he was elected, he suggested there could be an opt-out provision for areas with strong opposition to alternate-side parking.
Another problem Philadelphia has is its attachment to cars and parking. I gave up my car upon my move to NYC and do not miss it at all.
Another problem Philadelphia has is its attachment to cars and parking. I gave up my car upon my move to NYC and do not miss it at all.
This is the type of attitude that holds Philly back. It's mainly the lifers who want to keep things status quo and are set in their ways regarding parking and their surroundings.
There really isn't a need for a car in NYC because the subway can take you pretty much anywhere. There are so many lines and options to get from point A to point B. SEPTA's lack of coverage in the Philly region (which necessitates the need for a car) and reverse commuting are main contributors to why people have cars imo.
My bowling league is in south Philly and we have had discussions about parking. The one lady on my team has 3 kids, and they all have cars (for a total of 4 cars in her household). I ask her why they all need cars, and she said they need them to get to work (IN Philly!) and to school and to run errands (groceries, after-school stuff, etc). I said, why can't they take the bus or Septa? She just shook her head and said no, they would just rather drive. The aversion to public transit and the attachment to cars seems to be passed down from generation to generation (at least from the Philly lifer to their kids) and the aversion to cars and optimism for public transit seems to come from the non-Philly natives.
This is the type of attitude that holds Philly back. It's mainly the lifers who want to keep things status quo and are set in their ways regarding parking and their surroundings.
There really isn't a need for a car in NYC because the subway can take you pretty much anywhere. There are so many lines and options to get from point A to point B. SEPTA's lack of coverage in the Philly region (which necessitates the need for a car) and reverse commuting are main contributors to why people have cars imo.
My bowling league is in south Philly and we have had discussions about parking. The one lady on my team has 3 kids, and they all have cars (for a total of 4 cars in her household). I ask her why they all need cars, and she said they need them to get to work (IN Philly!) and to school and to run errands (groceries, after-school stuff, etc). I said, why can't they take the bus or Septa? She just shook her head and said no, they would just rather drive. The aversion to public transit and the attachment to cars seems to be passed down from generation to generation (at least from the Philly lifer to their kids) and the aversion to cars and optimism for public transit seems to come from the non-Philly natives.
That's a subset of native Philadelphians you are talking about. It's not everyone. Well, I'm sure you know that.
This is always brought in. Not just a Philly issue as if why discus it or strive for something better that other city's had success with too? Generally NYC example references for Philly are acceptable. Other cities No. Giving comeback of basically - we are Philly, we are unique and we have our own ideas for Philly and moving forward we are doing ON OUR OWN.
I still feel cleaner streets that street-sweeping services can go far in. Improve the IMAGE of the city for locals and to visitors. The blight not removed over past decades is only going to take gentrification into areas with blight.
Cities that did take a proactive direct approach to blight removal in past decades. Look better today, though probably did little to decrease poverty and crime for the neighborhoods residents. But still was WORTH the cost and result as the city did not look nearly as bad to visitors. That plays a roll in a city's image and if it is seen as SECOND RATE. Outsiders references to Philly (in PA) was a long standing name hated of "filthadelphia" then self-negative Philadelphians have other locals label them "negadelphians".
If they note streets are seen as dirtier in neighborhoods outside of CC and find out there is NO STREET-SWEEPING city services for 10+ years. VIOLA a reason clearly seen even if people are to blame.
Sure the city and most cities are FINANCIALLY STRAPPED.
But somehow DEFENDING NO street-sweeping?? it's a copout. The Mayor says so. LOL
- Restoring the service has a political problem, not a money problem:
- Jim Kenney pledged during the 2015 campaign to bring the service back, but after he was elected, he suggested there could be an opt-out provision for areas with strong opposition to alternate-side parking.
- Sure it's true, sweepers need to be bought and maintained. But funding for much is available.
Philly's Solution to most blight - was basically wait for Gentrification and the process over years. Basically, the years it should have - proactively remove blight are not gonna happen now.
Some could say it bodes well for Philly to have NOT Leveling too much like some cities did. Yes in part. But overall - still the city could have did better at not letting windowless structures stand in blighted condition for years.
Some see Philly maintaining its tight street-grid of rows for blocks - is its Urban Design and CITY'S CHARACTER and should build ---> tight infill that CONTINUES IT. but I say not always. But then I'M A OUTSIDER. But I did have Rows as standard in my hometown and region I live. With the built of old-stock housing as rows/duplexes common through PA.
But I prefer this new infill ( AREADY BUILT IN PHILLY) of setbacks. With added openness, setbacks and green-space. It also absorbs some of the suns heat and adds to a more pleasant walkability along with trees (I know the city does promote tree planting already).
This nearby shows a blighted windowless building. Unsafe to kids in the area too and homeless getting in. This as INFILL BEGINS in 2009. 2007 shows it windowless too.
Today, the infill ended up looking like it was built in 1910 and got built to match the corner. Yet the corner building is STILL in a Neglected state @&#%$% IN 2016....
I'd rather the corner building GONE then that state yet. Something more like this in the block. This is a nearby example below. This block is lucky. Has WIDE sidewalks to begin with and LOOK AT THE DIIFFERENCE TAKING SOME SIDEWALK FOR GREEN-SPACE.
Realizing one side is new infill. The area has gentrified the street does appear cleaner. But aspects of blight still left to show So in REVITLIZATION you need
- cleaned streets preferred street-sweeping
- city proactive in getting blight removed as fast as possible
- push for green-space other then merely Trees city does push already
- set-backs added for green to infill preferred in new infill and restoring old stock rows.
- adding green-space to wider sidewalks that have enough room.
It CREATES A EFFECT THAT ADDS GRANDUER AND ELEGANCE but removes no density.
Cities that had set-backs standard. They stood the test of time better. Especially if the trees are huge today for a canopy and landscaped. AWESOME
These are fully classy-style infill I've seen elsewhere that would work in NIMBY neighborhoods liking the classic look maintained.
This gentrifying block. New gray infill contemporary. Not a really classic look? They planted some small trees at least. On right are old-stock of rows. But the - sidewalks are WIDE enough to have added some green-space. But totally new infill, could have been set-back a few feet too for more.
Another problem Philadelphia has is its attachment to cars and parking. I gave up my car upon my move to NYC and do not miss it at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BK_PHL_DEL
This is the type of attitude that holds Philly back. It's mainly the lifers who want to keep things status quo and are set in their ways regarding parking and their surroundings.
There really isn't a need for a car in NYC because the subway can take you pretty much anywhere. There are so many lines and options to get from point A to point B. SEPTA's lack of coverage in the Philly region (which necessitates the need for a car) and reverse commuting are main contributors to why people have cars imo.
My bowling league is in south Philly and we have had discussions about parking. The one lady on my team has 3 kids, and they all have cars (for a total of 4 cars in her household). I ask her why they all need cars, and she said they need them to get to work (IN Philly!) and to school and to run errands (groceries, after-school stuff, etc). I said, why can't they take the bus or Septa? She just shook her head and said no, they would just rather drive. The aversion to public transit and the attachment to cars seems to be passed down from generation to generation (at least from the Philly lifer to their kids) and the aversion to cars and optimism for public transit seems to come from the non-Philly natives.
I like taking public transit to/from work and while in the Greater Center City subway/trolley footprint, but I enjoy having a car for after work and on the weekends. FWIW, I'd have zero problem moving my vehicle for street cleaning.
Of course, things are much different in the wild, wonderful Northwest, where parking is usually free and plentiful. If my wife and I lived in Center City, we'd probably be a one car household instead of two.
Spoiler alert: the gmaps link is to Tulip St in Fishtown. Fishtown DEFINITELY needs a LOT more trees. There are so many blocks with barren sidewalks. Wish I could just get a jackhammer, drill out some sidewalk, and plant some trees. Avocado trees or fig trees, can you imagine!
Spoiler alert: the gmaps link is to Tulip St in Fishtown. Fishtown DEFINITELY needs a LOT more trees. There are so many blocks with barren sidewalks. Wish I could just get a jackhammer, drill out some sidewalk, and plant some trees. Avocado trees or fig trees, can you imagine!
If you gentrify a row-home, gut it. Pit $100,000 + into it? You surely can beautify the front other then just sandblasting the brick.
I clearly showed a block that did. Philly still has this notion that we can plant trees sure. But infill to the sidewalk to match what was/is there is sufficient? Well new infill CAN CHOOSE to be set-back a few feet.
The results prove the benefits. Even William Penn could approve as a restoring his "Greene Countrie Towne".
Left side built 2006. Homes come to the ORIGINAL SIDEWALK. But ADDED GREEN-FRONTAGE. Sidewalk was wide enough as opposite side of street shows.
If MORE of Philly added that? Its Second-rate opinions might decrease a tad? It adds Vibrancy and lessens a Concrete-Jungle effect.
New infill with narrow sidewalks to meet can chose to set-back the row of new homes. This is the next block. THIS nearly identical infill to above block ----> Set-back the New Infill and this is the effect.
Two potential development opportunities that will probably end up as more rowhomes.
^^^ When I saw this posted this long parking garage in Rittenhouse to be REVITLALIZED. I say do a set-back of New Infill it they choose to demolished the garage like something ABOVE streetview.
Or would just to the curb something like THESE 2 be better?
If someone thinks Philly shouldn't add more green and modest set-backs? They can say so. I think it ADDS to Revitalization as Gentrification spreads with more Class.
Davelah, apologies if I glossed over any part of your post where you addressed this, but short of tearing down, starting over, and getting a variance--not to mention, permission to tear up a bunch of city sidewalk--how does one go about creating setbacks within preexisting rowhomes?
You remark that setbacks add vibracy, but that's an odd and innacurate word choice. Whether or not you think it's pretty, a tiny sliver of green at the front of a home doesn't make a neighborhood more or less lively or bustling. As far as my subjective opinions go, I think the 16th and Brandywine setbacks stick out like sore thumbs. The ones on 16th and Green are better, but even those don't jive with the neighborhood fabric. Simply put, I don't think they really belong in hyper-urban neighborhoods. You have your subjective opinion, and that's mine.
Now, I think that setbacks and rowhomes can get along swimmingly in further-lying residential areas. These areas can still be dense. In my corner of wild, wonderful Northwest Philadelphia, where the population density nears 12,000 people per square mile, the rowhomes do have setbacks of varying degrees. However, rowhomes are on such tiny lots as is, and I'd rather have a private green space in back that I can enjoy than a pretty one in front that may look good to passersby but serves no practical purpose.
Here's a stretch of rowhomes not far from my own. I happen to think these setbacks are pretty and fit in with the rest of the neighborhood. The only problem is that because of these setbacks, there's no private green space whatsoever. My wife and I were actually thinking about buying a home like that, but the "concrete jungle" (to use one of your terms) in back was a dealbreaker.
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.
