Submitted by ColdJay64 t3_118bi24 in philadelphia
Comments
Vague_Disclosure t1_j9g4wfj wrote
Philly urbanists in shambles
DeltaNerd t1_j9g8adw wrote
I'm not understanding the sarcasm here
ActionJawnson t1_j9g9d9k wrote
I hate how this article is written. Center City needs more parking to keep the existing lots all reasonably priced. It may be near public transportation and easily walkable, but there are many employees of area businesses that need affordable parking close by that, for whatever reason, don't use public transportation.
Holy shit people, I just want to keep the lots we have. Stop reading into my lost as I want to build more parking lots. Yall need a hobby or something
Edited to include last paragraph
Vague_Disclosure t1_j9g9ewi wrote
developing a parking lot = Good
Short term rentals = Bad
Really not that deep
LFKhael t1_j9g9y9n wrote
> 225-239 North 13th Street. The project will include 1,748 square feet of commercial space and a gym on the ground floor. There will be a loading dock located on Summer Street.
Not the parking lot with the two dragon statues on 9th and Cherry, just FYI.
Dryheavemorning t1_j9gazcs wrote
This is one way to announce you don't understand the basics of housing policy. Short term rentals can be bad when they replace permanent housing, not a parking lot. If anything this saves long term housing from conversion to short term so any good urbanist should be happy.
Vague_Disclosure t1_j9gbx1b wrote
Short term rentals in any form take away from permanent housing
[deleted] t1_j9gc9qn wrote
DonQOnIce t1_j9gciay wrote
I think it’s “permanent housing best but short term rentals better than a parking lot.”
I mean, that’s how I feel. What I prefer isn’t always what I get but this is an improvement.
DonQOnIce t1_j9gckya wrote
Love those dragons. If anyone ever develops that parking lot, they should be required to keep the dragons front and center.
hdhcnsnd t1_j9gczrp wrote
Idk if this is sarcasm, but like 1/3 of Chinatown is parking
hdhcnsnd t1_j9gd9gq wrote
Short term rentals aren’t ideal but i can’t think of anything much worse than a surface lot.
hdhcnsnd t1_j9gdn0p wrote
“We need to continue to subsidize car use for non-residents at the expense of residents”
davius_the_ent t1_j9gdt4s wrote
are we counting 676 😂
mexheavymetal t1_j9gdu2l wrote
Shittiest take. The city needs better public transit and biking infrastructure and LESS infrastructure to support cars.
LFKhael t1_j9gfa3p wrote
It's a hotel less than a block from the convention center.
uRbAnIsTs iN sHaMbLeS
ActionJawnson t1_j9gfu6m wrote
Until all that is actually safe for people, I would rather see parking for everyone. I know why I'm getting downvoted and I really don't care. As someone that does actually walk home from the convention center late at night amd has almost been assaulted ( I carry tools and defended myself immediately) , I realize some people feel safer driving. Better public transit and safe bike lanes sound great, but I don't see it ever happening.
DonQOnIce t1_j9ggiqf wrote
What will incentivize anyone to make public transit and biking infrastructure better if parking is convenient and cheap?
mexheavymetal t1_j9ggq24 wrote
So your solution to SEPTA having security issues is to pave more of the city? My brother in Christ, that’s not how solutions work.
ActionJawnson t1_j9ggvj5 wrote
Where did I say that? I never said anything about creating more parking. I just want to keep what there is.
hdhcnsnd t1_j9gh8bn wrote
Parking for everyone means the city becomes a parking lot, which means we don’t have a city at all.
Less parking disincentivizes driving and gets people walking, biking and on public transportation. More people using those different modes creates a “critical mass”, which improves safety on virtue of volume alone.
Less parking is more room for businesses and housing, all of which provide more tax revenue for the city (which can be used to fund public safety!), and adds actual value to the community.
I get what you’re saying about safety, but your proposed solution of “parking for everyone” really just accelerates the problem you’re talking about.
ActionJawnson t1_j9ghtwj wrote
When I say parking for everyone, what I mean is everyone that doesn't feel safe walking, riding a bike or taking public transportation. Obviously, the city cannot support parking for each person...
DonQOnIce t1_j9gimhq wrote
So, like, how is this determined? Is it a secret poll? Is there “fear for safety” parking permits? I don’t know how you’d come up with these numbers or avoid having people who “fear for their safety” who just prefer to drive.
porkchameleon t1_j9gis3f wrote
> they should be required to keep the dragons front and center.
Where/how else are you supposed to park your dragon?
215illmatic t1_j9gissl wrote
So we just temporarily build huge parking infrastructure until public transportation is “safe” and then we bulldoze that new parking infrastructure to build housing?
ActionJawnson t1_j9gj1ul wrote
Again. Never said anything about building more parking. I just wanna keep what we have...
DonQOnIce t1_j9gj36a wrote
The “How to Park Your Dragon” live-action remake is gonna be amazing.
ActionJawnson t1_j9gj7ox wrote
The mental gymnastics you must be going through thinking of a reply to me. Holy shit, I just want to keep the parking we already have. Wtf are you on about?
DonQOnIce t1_j9gjr87 wrote
I’m trying to understand your logic in how we’re going to keep parking for the people concerned for safety but not have it overwhelmed with people who just don’t want to travel any other way.
I also think it’s odd when people on the pro-parking side are defensive if surface lots. All of us should hate how space wasteful and ugly surface lots are at least.
Jlaybythebay t1_j9gjt7f wrote
Where is the uproar?!? Isn’t this going to displace Chinatown.
SupaflyIRL t1_j9gk3dz wrote
You’re doing a realllllly bad job looking like the reasonable one here.
justanawkwardguy t1_j9gkeoy wrote
Ah yes, all of the "permanent housing" that that parking lot was providing, right?
justanawkwardguy t1_j9gl388 wrote
How do you make things safer when you refuse to fund them until they're safer?
ColdJay64 OP t1_j9go5m0 wrote
Aren't walking, biking, and taking transit all safer than driving though?
RoverTheMonster t1_j9goky7 wrote
Wow I bet the people occupying these short term rentals will be so excited to walk to Sixers games
EDIT: Wait, how has no one commented on the fact that it’s being named “The Jaan at Center City”? Is this supposed to be some stylized version of “jawn”? If so, that’s some John Morgan level bullshit
Edison_Ruggles t1_j9gom2m wrote
Great! It's a rather crappy block so might as well use it for airbnb peeps. Major improvement over the current situation.
MRichards18 t1_j9gr6ij wrote
I’m sure these apartments will absolutely be affordable and the landlords will absolutely take care of their residents…lol
Manowaffle t1_j9gr778 wrote
Love to see it.
phillyFart t1_j9gtkht wrote
The septa line runs under that parking lot which impacts the ability to develop it significantly
An_emperor_penguin t1_j9gw4e6 wrote
look at the area man, there's still like 10 parking lots right around this building, this isn't taking housing away from anyone
An_emperor_penguin t1_j9gwvw0 wrote
> Holy shit people, I just want to keep the lots we have. Stop reading into my lost as I want to build more parking lots.
If you want "parking for everyone" like you said we would need to replace all of center city with a parking lot, not sure you've thought through how big cars are.
Also not the cities job to give handouts to drivers that don't want to pay for their cars
[deleted] t1_j9gy87s wrote
[removed]
73Wolfie t1_j9h1h30 wrote
sounds lovely compared to a monster stadium....
youtellmedothings t1_j9h2a2l wrote
I'm guessing Jaan a reference to this word in Hindi and Urdu: https://www.rekhta.org/urdudictionary/?keyword=jaan. At least, I hope.
It's also a common way to romanize the word for plate in Thai... but that seems less likely.
RoverTheMonster t1_j9h3kds wrote
Ah that makes more sense. Ty
[deleted] t1_j9h3tq8 wrote
[removed]
kypins t1_j9h4pck wrote
So a hotel. Got it 😂
ActionJawnson t1_j9h4v3w wrote
I explained the parking for everyone comment in another reply. Everyone as in everyone that doesn't feel safe taking public transportation, riding a bike or walking...
[deleted] t1_j9h7q44 wrote
[removed]
sylvatron t1_j9hcjp1 wrote
How is a short term rental different than a long stay hotel? Are we just reinventing the Homewood Suites?
An_emperor_penguin t1_j9hgddf wrote
There's not a difference because anyone can just say they don't feel safe, so you either don't have "enough" parking or you start building more lots and garages.
ActionJawnson t1_j9hgkw5 wrote
The current amount of parking seems fine right now, no need for more...
0xdeadbeef6 t1_j9hiljr wrote
It'd be nice if they were like, long term rentals or something. Short term rentals don't do shit for lowering housing market prices.
noIDKcpr t1_j9hn2h3 wrote
Kind of wished it was something else.
AbsentEmpire t1_j9hnod8 wrote
Parking should reflect actual value of the service and space, it should not be free or subsidized by zoning ordnance.
AbsentEmpire t1_j9hns96 wrote
Yes, dramatically so.
AbsentEmpire t1_j9ho746 wrote
But this will destroy Chinatown!
As we all know Chinatown must remain mostly parking lots with ever more teardowns and never see any development in or near it.
/s
kilometr t1_j9hus44 wrote
I think it may have to do with zoning restrictions/getting the neighborhood to accept the project
OnionLegend t1_j9i21q7 wrote
Shhhhh, short term rental units. Say it with me now.
[deleted] t1_j9i3el8 wrote
[removed]
espressocycle t1_j9i4m15 wrote
They might actually do more for lowering prices by giving people more flexibility which means greater negotiating power.
William_d7 t1_j9i5f9l wrote
What will incentivize a person, their spouse, two kids, and their A-Ma to bike or take public transit to Chinatown to have lunch and then bring home groceries? Nothing.
That’s the clientele Chinatown is losing to places with better parking situations and when business owners say as much, their concerns are disbelieved or shrugged off.
Forkiks t1_j9i80s9 wrote
Don’t mind them..many agree with you that losing parking isn’t so great.
DonQOnIce t1_j9jfoda wrote
I think they’re fine for now since Chinatown still has tons of parking.
But I think they should also consider how cheap parking in lots, especially surface lots, is a waste of valuable space and runs up local rents and the cost of doing business in general, since space is a finite resource.
[deleted] t1_j9joz3n wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9jyvgq wrote
[removed]
zachmichel t1_j9mbgrh wrote
Not sure why your being downvoted
AbsentEmpire t1_j9mf440 wrote
It's the anti stadium people being forced to acknowledge, at the very least to themselves, that thier opposition is as dumb as my statement makes it out to be.
blandstick t1_ja7anqy wrote
Flophouse
blandstick t1_ja7crhs wrote
There’s a big difference between apartments and a stadium
orion3311 t1_j9g463o wrote
Because theres plenty of parking in chinatown!