Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

transit_snob1906 t1_jeetzpo wrote

Densification is the answer, say it with me Philadelphia, we can have nice things, we deserve nice things.

492

TooManyDraculas t1_jefb07j wrote

And when that densely packed housing is all poorly constructed "luxury" condos, apartments and parking spaces? That'll sit vacant as a tax write off or sell as an investment opportunity?

There's already a bunch of these types of buildings, though not that large obviously, in the area. A ton of the units in them are vacant, they're expensive, the units are small. And the one around the corner from me has a fire about every 20 days.

There's thousands of projects like this around the city. All target at the luxury market. Tens of thousands of units of housing going in over the next five to ten years. Apparently just few hundred to a thousand are meant to be middle income.

Density is good. But it's hard to look forward to something meant to price you out. Maybe it's a good sign that it's a local developer, but I kind of doubt it.

−70

sluman001 t1_jefcs0n wrote

That’s simply not true. Regardless of the price range, more supply reduces overall prices.

80

RustedRelics t1_jegm14b wrote

I don’t think I’ve ever seen rents decrease due to increased housing supply/development — either here or in NYC before moving here. I’m all for more housing in Philly, but it’s not going to bring rents down.

10

xander_man t1_jegmki7 wrote

If building would reduce rent they wouldn't do it. They're doing it because rents are going up anyway.

If they overbuild, they would end up staying the same or going down a little in some markets or segments.

9

RustedRelics t1_jegnm62 wrote

Precisely. And Philly is not one of those markets. (Neither are the other large coastal cities and Chicago)

1

AbsentEmpire t1_jeh2ywq wrote

Philly only has a less than ~5% vacancy rate on apartments. That's so low that the small amount of incoming supply isn't enough to have any meaningful impact on decreasing rates.

The answer to that is that we need to build even more of everything to account for all the demand. The clowns saying we shouldn't build new housing are the same people who bitch about how expensive rent is. They're too dumb to connect the lack for supply with the incoming population, and the subsequent increase in rent.

10

TooManyDraculas t1_jefeyat wrote

Ha.

No.

The current real estate market, especially on rentals, is basically engaged in price fixing. They all use a single algorithm based pricing service. One that's major innovation was discarding the idea of maximizing occupancy in favor of high turn over and continual rent or price increases.

We also have a tax system in the US that gives massive write offs for real estate losses due to vacancy, and allows pass through of those losses to individuals. And breaking them up over multiple years. That's how Trump ended up not paying taxes for a decade.

Then there's the consolidation of housing, particularly single family homes by investment capital and major banks. Which practically speaking means there's always a buyer.

Nationally we've been hearing housing costs would be going down for a variety of reasons since the great recession. They've just continued to sky rocket.

What tends to happen with this model of development. Is it actually reduces supply of middle income housing. As more and more space gets pushed as high priced housing, regardless of demand. Fewer and fewer units are available to most residents, driving up average rents.

The new expensive units, turn and burn, often sitting vacant. Then get flipped to a bank or sold off as investment properties.

Without a crash of some sort or a regulatory step in I don't see that changing any time soon. We've been watching it happen, over and over, in cities around the globe for over a decade now.

−27

In_Search_Of_Gainz t1_jefm2u5 wrote

It’s a block off of Rittenhouse on very desirable real estate, of course units are going to be expensive. There are a lot of reasonably affordable apartments in the city but you can’t really expect them to be located in the highly desirable and expensive neighborhoods. Spoiler alert: they’re not building project homes in Society Hill or Old City either.

I understand the sentiment and agree that folks of average means deserve to afford a place to live but you can’t expect that place to be in a brand new high rise a block off Rittenhouse.

32

NotUnstoned t1_jegcdzq wrote

Thanks for actually being rational and making sense. I see too many arguments made that housing should be affordable when it’s being built in high-demand areas of the city. If these developers were required to rent out units for $500 a month, they would simply not build it.

8

In_Search_Of_Gainz t1_jegdl97 wrote

Thanks, it’s not often I get to be a voice of reason. Wanna picket outside of liberty2 with me about not being able to afford a penthouse?

7

NotUnstoned t1_jege4yz wrote

Give me a 2BR condo for $200 per month or give me death!

4

In_Search_Of_Gainz t1_jegec11 wrote

Woah woah woah, if you expect me to pay $200 a month it better be 6k sq/ft and have a terrace!

6

NotUnstoned t1_jegeidc wrote

I don’t see a pool or a state of the art fitness center and a private dog park listed. I’m gonna need those added before I sign this lease

4

UndercoverPhilly t1_jegibva wrote

Where are you getting $500 a month from? Nobody who is living in Center City is paying that or expects to pay that.

−1

In_Search_Of_Gainz t1_jegl02e wrote

Pretty obvious they were just throwing out an random absurdly low rent figure to make a point. I guess not too too obvious tho…

12

215illmatic t1_jeg97og wrote

Nobody tell this guy the rental vacancy rate in the city is still ~2.6% even with the insane amount of rental development going on.

“Tons” of vacant units just isn’t the case. Your point about diminishing middle income housing is absolutely true but this is a luxury apartment building essentially in Rittenhouse so not sure what anyone thought would be going there.

13

shibabao t1_jegt4h4 wrote

I’m sure the ghosts who currently occupy these housing units (?) would be very glad that you are voicing for them.

2

meilingr t1_jef2n85 wrote

Preserving the historic facade AND new high rise housing? Finally a new center city project worth being excited about.

353

this_shit t1_jeg9t3c wrote

By all means a great development. Even the RCO (CCRA) is on board:

>The agreement with CCRA included tweaks to the design, planting of mature street trees, and promises of planters around the new CVS entryway.

>CCRA also asked Goodman Properties to attempt to improve traffic flow. Currently, 19th Street is often congested by trucks delivering bulk goods to CVS. The developer has agreed to limit the size of trucks allowed to make deliveries on 19th and to provide a space in the underground parking garage for those deliveries.

It's crazy how all the RCO is asking for is to do things the city government should be doing but won't. Trees? Can't have those, cost too much to maintain and you'd have to lose some parking if you want to fit them into CC... Loading zones? Can't have those, need to preserve the parking...

60

erdtirdmans t1_jegjtc2 wrote

> It's crazy how all the RCO is asking for is to do things the city government should be doing but won't. Trees? Can't have those, cost too much to maintain and you'd have to lose some parking if you want to fit them into CC... Loading zones? Can't have those, need to preserve the parking...

SO MUCH THIS. I'd be down with doing city planning and beautification this way. In fact, it's my preferred method. But I prefer it because it accomplishes wider development goals with the minimal impact on property rights and minimizes costs to the taxpayer... Which obviously isn't the case here since we already have god damn wage taxes, sugar taxes, sales taxes. Like damn you'd hope with all that money coming in you could plant s fucking tree!

I felt very seen in your second paragraph. Jesus Christ this city. Anyway, this building looks dope and I'm excited

22

this_shit t1_jegy50g wrote

The barriers to trees are NOT money. Trees are a question of land use policy: you need permeable, non-compacted surfaces for them to live.

You can either do that by cutting bigger tree pits (which would have to take away road or sidewalk space) or by spending money on more complicated engineering solutions like excavated grow pits, permeable pavement, and/or custom drainage (these things are common in cities like NYC that have their shit together).

I don't expect Philly to start investing in fancy engineered street infrastructure any time soon, BUT it costs ~nothing to turn a parking spot into a tree pit big enough to sustain a big shade tree like an Oak or a London Plane.

11

Capkirk0923 t1_jefd9t4 wrote

Imagine taking an elevator down 47 floors just to find out your insurance isn’t covering your medication.

216

peteypete420 t1_jeg19es wrote

Your gonna need a prior auth for that.

35

Capkirk0923 t1_jeg2d73 wrote

But I have Personal Choice! Do you have any idea how much rent I pay to live on top of this CVS!?

23

peteypete420 t1_jegorrc wrote

Where you also a pharm tech for CVS? I've had very similar responses from people.

Don't get me wrong, ima be professional and do my job even if you act like a dick, but what a way to try to garner sympathy from someone at work. "bUT Ma moNiEs!"

6

Capkirk0923 t1_jegq583 wrote

No, I just find the idea of being entitled because you live on a CVS to be funny. But yeah I can imagine that job is brutal.

7

this_shit t1_jeg9ks6 wrote

& it's not even in stock.

10

erdtirdmans t1_jegkm85 wrote

"We can order it, but the delivery guy hates coming here because we buried the loading dock at a terrible angle in the parking garage so sometimes our shit just doesn't get here"

10

popfilms t1_jegsx4s wrote

I'm on hold with CVS right now don't do me like this

10

alohabruh732 t1_jeewewq wrote

Waiting for the people that will comment about how bad it is to build new housing.

149

amor_fatty t1_jeey32z wrote

WHERE WILL ALL THOSE PEOPLE PARK?!? TRAFFIC IS GOIBG TO BE SO MUCH WORSE! THEY ARE RUINING OUR CULTURE!!!

Did I miss anything?

156

squirrel_eatin_pizza t1_jeez455 wrote

when they built the new building on Broad and Washington, people were complaining that the old small town charm of south philly was disappearing. I'm like really? You live in the second largest city on the east coast. If you dont like urbanization then move to the burbs. Broad and Washington is practically center city.

78

Added_cynodont t1_jef2idh wrote

>old small town charm of south philly was disappearing

Are you gonna question the small town credentials of a neighborhood with 3x the population density of Los Angeles?

27

theonetruefishboy t1_jef23mz wrote

There's no small town charm in the burbs. But there can be in the city if you have good pedestrian infrastructure and local commerce.

25

pianoprofiteer t1_jef4fv6 wrote

Collingswood, Haddon Township, Haddonfield, New Hope, Media, Ardmore all have smalltown charm.

29

theonetruefishboy t1_jef6poy wrote

I'll admit my statement is generalized for brevity but my underlying point is that most suburban towns lack the pedestrian infrastructure and local commerce that makes smalltown charm possible in some Philly Neighborhoods and in the towns you mentioned.

16

erdtirdmans t1_jegkuf7 wrote

The culture one is a legit complaint, but I'm okay with giving up Center City to the New Yorkers

−2

Baron_Von_D t1_jeewypl wrote

Ugh, it's totally going to fail because every is leaving the city
/s

29

mb2231 t1_jefxfpg wrote

Lmao, just talk to someone from Roxborough about new housing and within 5 minutes you'll want to launch yourself off the Ben Franklin.

7

inthegarden5 t1_jegh4l6 wrote

Don't know why you're getting down voted. You're telling the truth. They complain about every change. I'll admit some of the stuff on Ridge is boring at best but still.

2

porkchameleon t1_jeezjx3 wrote

I'll bite: are there any immediate and long term implications for the immediate area, since it looks like we are getting a lot of construction in just a few blocks of the Rittenhouse? I hear nothing in terms of cons from people who welcome this; I couldn't care less personally, but I haven't heard anything more level headed between NIMBY and "MaKe It TaLlEr!!1"

−5

ColdJay64 OP t1_jefgrll wrote

CVS will close during construction, that's the worst thing I can think of.

10

porkchameleon t1_jefkijb wrote

Oh shit, that's right: no more major pharmacies in the immediate area (Rite Aid on 23rd has shut done some time ago, the only one that I can think of is around 17th and Chestnut).

4

ColdJay64 OP t1_jeflnoe wrote

There’s still a CVS at 20th and Market!

4

porkchameleon t1_jefyk7h wrote

It's across Market, though, never on my radar (forgot even it was there, thank you for the reminder!)

1

ColdJay64 OP t1_jefzrfz wrote

No problem. I happened to go there with a friend during the water hysteria this past weekend.

3

lateavatar t1_jeex5db wrote

Coincidentally, there are about 47 homeless people on Chestnut. This building should be used to fund some SRO space in the city.

−29

ColdJay64 OP t1_jeey6v8 wrote

That’s what the roundhouse building should be used for, don’t Police HQs have locker rooms with showers already? They do on TV at least lol.

13

lateavatar t1_jeez2j1 wrote

That’s a relatively large building. LA tried to concentrate all of their support for homeless in one area and it seems to have had a negative effect by concentrating that neighborhood. — I think a more distributed plan, with each neighborhood building 20 units might be better.

0

ColdJay64 OP t1_jef515e wrote

I agree with the distributed approach when it comes to providing long-term public housing. Short-term shelter/housing for the homeless is another story, a centralized location equipped with facilities to take care of them may be necessary. Plus, the roundhouse building isn't in a residential area - my main concern would be Franklin Square park. Perhaps the surrounding parking lot could be converted to a common area.

3

ColdJay64 OP t1_jeez1s4 wrote

“The project is just one of what CCRA estimates is 1,000 units proposed for the Rittenhouse area in the coming years, including Pearl Properties’ slender 183-unit tower proposed next door at 1822-24 Chestnut.

“These guys are putting a lot of money into the expectation that there will be a robust apartment market in Center City West in two or three years,” Gross said. “Having a robust market means there’s more young people around the neighborhood. More restaurants, more culture. It’s a vote of confidence in the future.””

86

karenmcgrane t1_jegbrxo wrote

Center City West needs more transit. MFL should stop at 19th or 22nd. I hope the Septa bus planning takes into account an influx of new residents to the area.

29

AngryUncleTony t1_jegdxnd wrote

I used to work at 21st and Market and it really is a sort of deadzone. There's the trolly station there but it's faster just to walk to city hall or 30th street

25

tjw105 t1_jefhjac wrote

Nice now they can put the cvs registers at the top so that the receipts have sufficient room to be printed.

68

Scumandvillany t1_jeeyjth wrote

Looks amazing, can't wait for the tower cranes to go up.

45

mundotaku t1_jef0wd6 wrote

😘 another building to add to my skyline view. Keep them coming!

38

Slobotic t1_jef8lsk wrote

Wow, it's even a cool looking building.

It's not going to be affordable housing, but it's still good. Give wealthier people more places to live in CC West and they'll be in less of a rush to gentrify neighborhoods that are currently affordable. That doesn't mean I wouldn't be happy with an affordable housing allotment in new developments like New Jersey has (and sometimes enforces), but this is still good news.

36

jmajek t1_jeghy1r wrote

>Give wealthier people more places to live in CC West and they'll be in less of a rush to gentrify neighborhoods that are currently affordable.

Excited for the building but is this really true? I'm seeing $3-7k for luxury 2 bedroom rentals in the area. https://www.apartments.com/rittenhouse-square-philadelphia-pa/2-bedrooms/luxury/

I would def choose to buy then pay that price. Also, if someone has that kind of budget I doubt they are looking in Grays Ferry, Cobbs Creek and etc

11

UndercoverPhilly t1_jeglb0h wrote

When that Atlantic Building first renovated and opened a few years ago their 1 bedrooms were $1999. So they are now at $2795 for a 1 bedroom, just to show how they keep increasing. I'm not saying that anything in there should be under $2000, just that they will keep raising rent to keep up with new buildings starting at $2500.

People who lived in that 1500 Locust building were paying $1800 a year ago for a 1 bedroom and now they start at $2450. I've heard of people who had to move out of there and find somewhere cheaper.

9

OnionLegend t1_jegl7q7 wrote

What do you like about the design? I think it’s kinda boring.

1

sexi_squidward t1_jef8zks wrote

I'd be happy if the apartments were affordable but we all know each one bedroom apartment is going to go for like $2000.

15

_Celine_Dijon t1_jefgdqu wrote

Try $2800

22

sexi_squidward t1_jefiycu wrote

Even better :/

The rent, where I live, went up almost $800. $1265 to $2010.

7

RoughRhinos t1_jeg4p92 wrote

Wow that's a big jump. What neighborhood? I know DC put in laws that the rent could only go up like 6% a year.

5

sexi_squidward t1_jegg2sk wrote

Mantua - it's not a bad neighborhood but it's definitely not a $2000 neighborhood.

8

ColdJay64 OP t1_jefqnom wrote

It's a brand new high-rise in Rittenhouse Square. Why would the apartments be below $2000? There are endless apartments far cheaper than that in the neighborhood and all over the city. The absolute nicest housing in the third most populated downtown in the country just isn't going to be super cheap - and there's no reason it should be.

18

hguess_printing t1_jefz4rx wrote

It was noted in another comment that it would bring young people to the area to eat and shop, and I chuckled bc I don’t know 1000 “young” people that could afford a 2k rental right now, especially alone. It feels a little tone deaf to everybody who are struggling to find rentals they can afford

21

NotUnstoned t1_jegd9gn wrote

Do you know 1000 young people, period? I know plenty of couples and a few individuals (all mid 20s- early 30s) who could afford that rent.

The people that can afford it will, and they will leave the lower priced options available for others who can’t.

−3

sexi_squidward t1_jefseyf wrote

Because there's a difference between cheap vs affordable housing. Every new complex, regardless of location, is branded as luxury housing.

10

DeltaNerd t1_jefx1h9 wrote

We need more apartments in the poor neighborhoods like Broad and Erie, or Erie and Torresdale. Those would be below $2000.

3

NotUnstoned t1_jegdgzr wrote

The city needs to give developers an incentive to build there. Nobody is going to spend millions on a development that won’t turn a profit for the next 30 years.

10

youtellmedothings t1_jef2tgg wrote

Love this building! It has such an interesting history. Raymond Pace Alexander, the first black Wharton graduate, carried out high profile civil rights litigation against the Aldine Theater shortly after getting his law degree from Harvard. He later had his law offices built across the street from the theater (the Alexander Building, which now houses Target).

10

nderhjs t1_jefpufz wrote

Honestly the thought of just running downstairs to get my RX is a dream

8

DeltaNerd t1_jefwusp wrote

I hope cvs at 11st and Market is next. Actually destroy that whole block and rebuild it

8

NonIdentifiableUser t1_jegspod wrote

> The developer has agreed to limit the size of trucks allowed to make deliveries on 19th and to provide a space in the underground parking garage for those deliveries.

One of the things people in opposition to road diets often cite is “what about the delivery trucks?!” This part of the article is a good reminder that not everything has to be delivered via 18 wheeler (I mean it’s literally impossible in many older European cities), and, in fact, the city and other areas would be better off if we didn’t have giant trucks traversing our streets.

8

trophy_74 t1_jeh591r wrote

Center city is rapidly growing but north, west, and some parts of south Philly are shrinking. we need to build more but we shouldn’t forget transit and infrastructure to neglected areas.

7

ajl009 t1_jeg8s28 wrote

I make 100,000/year and feel like im being priced out. I wish I could afford to buy in the city

6

kevlarbaboon t1_jegoyfd wrote

I don't see how that's possible? Plenty of houses in South Philly that would fit your range I'd assume but hey, everyone has different standards

9

sagittariisXII t1_jeezh4t wrote

Hopefully the units are affordable!

2

ColdJay64 OP t1_jeezovq wrote

In a new high-rise in one of the most desirable/expensive parts of the city? Why would they be?

63

UndercoverPhilly t1_jeg1s8x wrote

Because before the pandemic there were more affordable (I don't mean "projects" or low income) options in the area, apartments from $1000-1500. These have all but disappeared because rent increases have accelerated exponentially even in "old" buildings.

12

NotUnstoned t1_jegdvih wrote

The price of everything has gone up since the pandemic. Not just housing. My last 4 rentals in the last 6 years were all within the range you specify, including the house I currently live in. If you don’t expect a new construction with a ton of amenities, you can find it.

2

UndercoverPhilly t1_jegga90 wrote

I guess it's just gentrification... what can you do but move?

1

NotUnstoned t1_jeggzgj wrote

Has gentrification caused the price of groceries and all other products to go up as well? Housing has been hit much harder, but It’s just inflation.

3

UndercoverPhilly t1_jeghrzc wrote

Please. If you are going to argue that there is no gentrification in Philadelphia, then let's just stop here. It's not just inflation when it comes to real estate. I've been here since 2006 and it doesn't even look like the same city--that's a good thing but on the other hand one can't claim all that was inflation.

5

erdtirdmans t1_jeglrdi wrote

People love saying "gentrification" like it's the boogeyman and leaving it at that 😪

Gentrify me, baby. I want that sweet sweet tax base and demand for more density and development so we can someday get back to having public transit where people aren't raped and sitting next to crackheads

0

UndercoverPhilly t1_jegm1gw wrote

The people who are going to pay $3000 a month to live in these apartments, or those buying one for 3 million plus on the square aren't ever going to take the MFL. If they don't have their own car, they will uber if they have to go somewhere they can't walk to. The city couldn't care less what those that have to take the MFL have to contend with otherwise it wouldn't be like that now. They pocket our tax money so it's just going to be more that doesn't go into city improvements and expenses.

7

erdtirdmans t1_jegmggm wrote

It's almost like i mentioned a tax base and you just went with whatever you decided you read

2

UndercoverPhilly t1_jegn4pe wrote

No, I've lived here for 15 years and the city government is corrupt. Everyone knows this. If it weren't then yes, increasing what the city collects would help. But the money won't go where it should to help.

5

erdtirdmans t1_jego17x wrote

Aight that's fair enough but then we're just black pilled with no way to pull out of the tailspin without somehow divesting from municipal government, which almost never happens. I still have hope that if we get people into the city that care about government working and demand something from it, we can turn it around

5

Gorge_Clooney t1_jef084n wrote

They will most certainly be expensive… but hopefully this means that other older apartment buildings will lower their prices

27

wubbalubbazubzub t1_jef0u5v wrote

Don't worry, the older apartment buildings will continue to raise rent!

36

Gorge_Clooney t1_jef3n4a wrote

Yeah, probably. New buildings though will hopefully mitigate the rate of increase though

18

februaryanna t1_jefbac7 wrote

Real talk. I live in East Kensington, where there are apartment buildings going up on every block. My rent has not been raised on me. Now that there are so many empty units, some rents are actually going down. I’m renting my next place for $200 less than the current tenants are paying.

18

Aveman1 t1_jefdad7 wrote

New development off of the York dauphin stop is seriously going to lower rents in traditional two bedroom row homes. So many are hitting the market at once they just can't compete.

6

februaryanna t1_jefe5n9 wrote

Yeah, I’m not sure if this is the only neighborhood where rents going down has become the new norm, but it is a good case study for why more housing inventory is good for everyone even if the new housing itself isn’t extremely affordable.

8

trick_825 t1_jefewat wrote

I'm in the burbs right now, and am looking at moving back to the city. There are still tons of apartments and townhomes for under 600 a room if you can stand roommates. They aren't gonna be in Rittenhouse square, but they aren't too far out either.

My gf lives in an older building 2 blocks from Rittenhouse, and her rent increased by about 1.5% this year. Philadelphia is still very affordable if you don't insist on new construction.

6

markskull t1_jef7tsv wrote

HAHAHA HAHAHA HAHAHA HAHAHA HAHAHA!!!!

Oh man! Woo!

No.

5

RunnyBabbit23 t1_jegyktm wrote

I’m glad they’re building, but I’m really over these ugly buildings that have a bunch of different materials for no reason. Also there’s not nearly enough parking spaces for these new apartment buildings. People who can afford $3k/month for a 1 bedroom apartment are probably going to have/want a car, too.

Same for the building going up behind the firehouse on 21st street. I’m all for ditching surface lots, but they really need to start better accounting for parking needs/wants. I’d love for there to be less cars in the city, but that’s not happening any time soon.

−1

Riftus t1_jegwju1 wrote

This is good if the housing will be affordable and not just luxury condos for out of city DINKs

−3