You must log in or register to comment.

cfh294 t1_jbvmy6a wrote

This block of Sansom is one of my favorite blocks in the city


pseudohipster98 t1_jbvsbd3 wrote

Long In The Tooth is my fav record store and makes this block alone, and that's before you add in all the other fun local shops


DELAPERA t1_jbxdlvy wrote

It’s the best block hands down! No other block comes even close IMHO. Shake Shack and Village Whiskey for burgers, two of the best italian restaurants in the city, an OG comic shop, the music shop, Helium Comedy, The Adrienne with the two improv theaters in it along the yoga and meditation place, one of the best sushi in the city, the best hole-in-the-wall and family run Indian restaurant, a nice Spanish guitar luthier, and some other nice businesses…


porkchameleon t1_jbybfb1 wrote

> the best sushi in the city



phlwhyamihere t1_jc93kjz wrote

No shot you’re calling Vic the best sushi in the city…


porkchameleon t1_jcaczeb wrote

It’s around the corner from me, and I’ve been a regular since day two in 2007 when they opened, so it’s a no-brainer.

I also get stuff off the menu, but that’s our little secret 🤫🤐


MonsterNog t1_jbvlvxc wrote

“Look at them down there, they look just like ants”.
“They ARE ants”


conorb619 t1_jbvs8ej wrote

IIRC the top two floor penthouse was going for like $26 Mil? Ridiculous


lateavatar t1_jbx5shs wrote

The taxes on properties like that are good for Philadelphia instead of being located just outside the city.


i_use_this_for_work t1_jbzt7j9 wrote

With a 10 year property tax abatement, not really.


lateavatar t1_jbzw2j6 wrote

There’s a transfer tax on the transaction that would almost a million dollar for the penthouse.


skeeterdc t1_jc1ic0s wrote

Are you saying that this development is bad for the city?


i_use_this_for_work t1_jc260vg wrote

I’m saying that the taxes on this property are nonexistent for the next 10 years. So OCs statement about the taxes being good is not terribly accurate.


skeeterdc t1_jc28d2m wrote

Land taxes are not abated for the property, it’s the taxes that are suppose to be paid on the property that are abated for 10 years. Philly taxes the land and the property separately and the tax abatement only impacts the taxes property owners pay for the taxes on the property.


lordredsnake t1_jbw4nwj wrote

For the premier residential tower in the city, it's pretty bland. Crazy to think that the neighbors hired their own architect to influence the design to look like this.


espressocycle t1_jbxmnvt wrote

I think anytime you get committees involved you're going to end up with blandness. Better to bore everyone than anger anyone.


armhad t1_jbwb579 wrote

Waiting for Equinox to come to this building


TheFAPnetwork t1_jbwor7j wrote

Or off suburban station building as you're coming around the corner of city hall from east Market Street and heading west on jfk Blvd


proximity_account t1_jbxqmou wrote

One tower to rule them all and in the darkness bind them


PatAss98 t1_jbwo60s wrote

It's better that the wealthy yuppies congregate in high rises there than buying even more rowhomes in the surrounding areas of north and west Philly and price out even more people than they're already doing


alohabruh732 t1_jbx2sy6 wrote

We need more housing

builds more housing

Yeah, take that yuppies

Why are you this way?


Atlasatlastatleast t1_jbz10qg wrote

This feels a bit disingenuous, I believe you both see where the other is coming from.

Every new building is luxury apartments. Everyone can’t be luxury! Across the street from my gfs they’ve finished knocking down all the rowhomes, and they’re building a luxury condo building. Objectively more units, but likely above the price point of the tenants of the previous rowhome considering a unit the adjacent condo in the same area was about double the cost of one of the townhomes. More housing, but frequently pricing out previous residents. Feelings on both ends


kilometr t1_jc022d8 wrote

New housing is generally luxury cause it’s expensive to build. A developer isn’t going to go through all the leg work of getting a building approved and designed and then during construction go for a lower end project.

When we build new housing the supply goes up lowering demand for other existing housing, making other units more affordable. Over time new housing becomes more affordable as the new amenities show age.

One of the big problems with the housing crisis is citizens don’t understand this and will oppose new housing cause it’s luxury. Meanwhile nothing gets built cause building affordable housing isn’t profitable, like in San Francisco. It’s annoying that we see what happens when we fight new housing. We get a California style housing crises. But still people here seem to want that to happen in Philly and oppose new housing.


Atlasatlastatleast t1_jc03ykg wrote

I understand how supply and demand works to that extent. I’m not even making a full argument against the tower in the post specially, I was relaying a common grievance. I do believe still though, every new build single family home isn’t a luxury house. There are tons of new builds at varying price points. It is possible to build —and they should be subsidized even — accommodations that are more affordable. So my comment, and I assume the one I was sort of defending, shouldn’t be taken as a shunning of new housing. Just the way that it’s being done, and who it is affecting.

Now I’m a little rusty here, but I believe that the reason that Philadelphia has the housing that it does, was that during the Industrial Revolution factories and other industry in the area needed workers, and they needed their workers to be able to make it to work without too much burden. Along came rowhouses, which were made to be more dense, though rather quickly built, accommodations for the working class family. There has been a shift in the nature of our work, but the existence of the new blue collar and the increase in price point of accommodations in a non-linear fashion, means that the actual blue collar (or more frequently I suppose ) non-professional employed people have a much harder time than they did previously.

Let me know if I’m off base on any of this.


kilometr t1_jc6pihh wrote

Well 100 years ago there was much less public involvement in construction. If you wanted to build a residential building you could if you owned the land. The neighbors couldn’t stop you because they didn’t like your project. Nowadays, with planning commissions and zoning laws there are a lot more obstacles in the way for creating new housing. Not saying getting rid of these public regulations is a good idea, but just pointing it out.

Also, construction was much cheaper back in the day. People could live in smaller spaces with more residents. Now, the avg square footage per resident is much higher. People expect more space. A house that used the fit a family is now deemed “too small for more than 2 people”. Residential units could also be built more cheaply then as construction standards were not as high and they didn’t need as many features/amenities as they do now (multiple bathrooms, more electrical outlets, etc.) And without OSHA and modern pay requirements labor was nowhere near as expensive as it is today.

But leaving these modern requirements in housing aside, we can still provide enough housing for everyone if we get held back by restricting new development.