Savings the Neighborhoods
Welcome to MURL and the first summer session. This is my
first post on our ‘buildingblocks’ blog in some time. Take
a look at this piece that I found on the Philly.com Web
site. The authors talk about the fate of the neighborhoods,
and offer up three areas that the city should focus on.
Read it over. What do you think? Do you agree? Are the neighbrohoods beyond 'repair'?
I know it is a toally different subject, but what's your take on the new wired initiative in Philadelphia? Is it a case of the have and have nots, or a chance to equalize things?
Professor TP
The fate of our neighborhoods
By BEVERLY COLEMAN & ALAN MALLACH
PHILADELPHIA HAS become two different cities.
One for the poor.
One for the prosperous.
While some neighborhoods are thriving, others are seeing
increasing real-estate speculation and absentee ownership.
Our middle class is shrinking.
Philadelphia may be turning into an anomaly, a city with
increasingly expensive housing and a tremendous number of
poor people. Despite real-estate prices that skyrocketed in
the last five years, residents are showing little growth in
jobs and income.
The future is uncertain. Will property values continue to
rise over the next few years, or tail off? What will follow
Mayor Street's Neighborhood Transformation Initiative now
that the money is nearly all spent?
How will casinos affect the city? What will the next mayor's
policies look like? Will the improvements of recent years be
a flash in the pan, or put the city on a path to genuine
social and economic health?
What we do know is that rising housing prices don't
guarantee healthy neighborhoods. If Philadelphia is going to
be a healthy city, it has to make sure that the higher
prices reflect real, sustainable improvement in our
neighborhoods, and that lower-income families benefit from
neighborhood change rather than being priced out of their
homes. The city's biggest challenge is to sustain growth
while improving the quality of life not only for the
affluent, but for all its people.
If it is to rise to this challenge, the city has to focus on
three critical areas over the coming years:
* Create an efficient, predictable, transparent process to
foster redevelopment and revitalization.
* Focus on rebuilding neighborhoods, not just adding housing
units.
* Make sure that the city's residents benefit from change.
Philadelphia needs a predictable, efficient development
review process, user-friendly for everyone from the family
rehabbing a house in Kensington to a developer building 500
condos on the waterfront. We need new, modern, user-friendly
zoning, land-use and building codes.
Incentives must be used strategically - such resources are
too scarce to be wasted. Young families should get them to
fix up abandoned houses and live in them, not be discouraged
by complex regulations and red tape.
And Philadelphia should use housing as a tool to rebuild its
neighborhoods, not add more housing as an end in itself.
Housing development should not take place in isolation, but
has to be targeted to the strengths and weaknesses of each
neighborhood.
By its location and design, every investment in new housing
should add value and enhance the physical quality of its
neighborhood. To enhance the quality of urban life, all new
developments should be linked to transit, open space, school
construction and commercial activity.
Philadelphia's redevelopment has to offer people of all
ages, races and incomes ample housing and a decent quality
of life.
We need to do more to hold onto upwardly-mobile families by
providing them with housing choices, safe neighborhoods and
good schools, while ensuring that lower-income residents
have sound, affordable roofs over their heads.
Land-banking, inclusionary zoning and other strategies
should be used to preserve and create more affordable
housing, building permanent housing stock for the many
families who can't afford what the private market offers.
Over the last few years, via efforts ranging from the
Neighborhood Transformation Initiative to the work of the
city's dynamic community-development corporations,
Philadelphia has demonstrated the ability to confront its
problems and move forward.
But the progress has presented the city with a new series of
challenges: how to build on success to produce sustained
growth, create healthy, economically integrated
neighborhoods, and ensure that all residents benefit from
revitalization.
We're confident that Philadelphia's government, development
agencies, educational institutions and businesses will rise
to the occasion. *
Beverly Coleman is executive director of NeighborhoodsNow.
Alan Mallach is resource director of the National Housing
Institute and author of "Building a Better Philadelphia."
posted by Professor TP @ 8:47 PM
17 comments
17 Comments:
To enhance the quality of urban life, all new developments should be linked to transit, open space, school construction and commercial activity.
I agree with that statement. I think that just throwing more houses or more expensive houses into a neighborhood doesn't really solve any problems if the people in the neighborhoods can't afford them. Plus, the city is overcrowded with buildings. Open space would make the city nice to look at, offer a nice place for people to meet and hang out and do activities, and it would increase property values.
As for the Wireless Philadelphia project, I think that is a good idea. Laptop computers are cheap now. Most come with a wireless Internet card now from what I understand. So that would certainly give a lot more people the chance to get online and get the access to information and job postings, etc. that they weren't able to get before.
Adjustment to the zoning codes in Philadelphia have been key positions for both Mike Nutter and Al Taubenberger, the candidates for mayor. Each have stated that they believe simplification with the process will encourage better growth, that the entire code needs to be readjusted, and that the appeals process should be quickened. Whether either would actually do that if elected, I have no idea. But good growth has been, and I presume will continue to be, an issue for both candidates, which I think bodes well for the city.
Philadelphia needs more open space. Sure, the city has many parks, but so many of them are so poorly maintained. The only reason Rittenhouse is so nice is Rittenhouse Friends. Other neighborhoods can't afford to keep their parks so nice.
Parks are places for kids to go, and adults. They keep people from hanging out on street corners so much. And they give room for fun, relaxation, and socializing. In addition, these parks give refuge to people who don't want to be stuck in the very small row homes that cover Philadelphia.
This space is imperative to maintaining sanity in Philadelphia. They are the only yards most people have.
I commend the fact that Coleman and Mallach recognized that there is a deep divide between the "haves" and "have-nots," in the face of improvements, rather than just looking at rising property values and other notifiers alone.
It's undeniable that growth can only be measured by the quality of life of everyone, not just those downtown.
That's exactly what I don't find gripping about this piece - it's all too generic. Many of these affect all towns in the world and they are just making broad claims and easy characterizations.
In my opinion, a huge issue is not overcrowding, but the opposite- vacancy. So much white flight and urban exodus has left the cityscape barren. What needs to be done is create jobs and reasons for people to move here and more importantly stay. I'm optimistic about what Nutter will do though.
As far as the wireless initiative, (if it ever gets rolling) this will improve the quality of life for many, but won't be a cure-all for the city's problems, just allow people to connect further.
*CodyGlenn
I definitely agree that something needs to be done with the zoning and rediculous prices of low quality houses.
I live in North Philadelphia by Temple. It's true that we are in a way pushing these residents out of their homes. Landlords are charging higher prices because they know the students, or their parents, will pay them, but the low income families around me can't afford those prices so they are forced to move to an even more dangerous neighborhood.
I don't know that this is a problem with an easy answer. I also believe that if some of these ideas are put into use, it will still take years to fix the damage that Philadelphia has already created for itself
"Young families should get them to fix up abandoned houses and live in them, not be discouraged
by complex regulations and red tape."
This simple phrase says it all in my opinion. In many of the neighborhoods in Philadelphia, it is impossible to walk two blocks without noticing abandoned homes or abandoned properties. Yet, when a family is bold enough to take on the challenge of renovating the property at their own pace, there are "complex regulations" which prevent them from doing so. Philadelphia needs all the help it can get on revitalization from anyone and everyone. If someone wants to buy abandoned properties, let them! Giving them a hard time about a property which looks like junk does not benefit the city and it certainly doesn't make Philadelphia one of the most touristic cities of the nation.
Philadelphia has gone from having the fifth largest population in the country to the sixth. A big reason for the drop is due to the high number of middle class families moving from the city into the suburbs. Many who have left the city state that the property taxes in Philadelphia are too high and that they have better chances of getting thier children into a good school that doesn't cost as much as a private school in the city. The only way to make things better rests on the shoulders of the law makers and the tax payers, which is to get more jobs in the city (the casino is a good start) and investing much more money and effort into the education system.
I also feel that the city should address these problems along with the crime rate before they try this wireless Philadelphia project.
I agree with what Cody said- the article is far too generic.
It sounds to me like a politician's rant- vague, agreeable notions that anybody would get behind.
Comments stating that "We must rebuild neighborhoods" and touting the need to "Create an efficient, predictable, transparent process to foster redevelopment and revitalization" are obvious and general.
If these journalists hope to really make a difference or present something truly dynamic they should find a few specific problems- say the "red tape" issue with rebuilding homes - and expound on the specific policies that need to be fixed.
Everybody knows the problems in Philadelphia- and I highly doubt that anybody disagrees with notions like "(lets) make sure that the city's residents benefit from change." I think more specificity is needed to turn people on to an article than what was offered in this piece.
As far as the potential for a wireless city, I'm for it. I think the more technological development, the better. When a technological development is made, it's expensive for a while, but then as it becomes more commonplace, it becomes affordable for the masses. This has been true of computers, game systems, I-pods, you name it. Originally, wireless will only affect the have's, but as the technology ages the have-not's will reap its benefits too.
I have to agree that Philadelphia's property values are going up without any significant reason to. The neighborhoods that were once considered areas unattractive to live are now being sought after because they are becoming more and more popular. But while these areas are becoming revitalized and more expensive, and attracting wealthier people, they are changing some neighborhoods that don’t need to be changed. There are homes that now cost close to half of a million dollars in parts of North Philadelphia. Some of those houses are built in areas that did not need to be changed. They were small and quiet neighborhoods already. But there are areas on the east side of Broad Street, between Girard and Callowhill that are just vacant lots or abandoned buildings that have just been there for years. There is no plan for them anywhere in the near future. They would be perfect areas to build 500 condos or revitalize the neighborhoods. Why must revitalization always take place in low income communities, and then force the long time residents out? There should be more efforts to get those residents involved in making their communities look better. Philadelphia is large and still has plenty of unused area to build on. I think that some of these abandoned areas should be revitalized first, because they’re what make the city look bad. Revitalization in abandoned areas, combined with community involvement, would be better for the city and all of its residents, lower or upper class.
As a caveat, I have never lived in the city, so I can't pretend that I can relate to the problems that revitalization causes to new and established residents. But, having driven down Girard Ave to get to school almost every day for the past two years, I have seen what seems to be tremendous change during that time.
Could all of the change in Fishtown and Northern Liberties all be a facade? Sure it could. However, I do feel that sometimes people want the best of both worlds, which I think is almost impossible and quite unfortunate.
If people want their neighborhoods free of crime, drugs, prostitution, etc., then how can they not expect that once the area is improved, that property values, and conversely property taxes will increase as well?
And once property values are increased, then that is up to those people to cash in on that. I understand that people have roots in the areas they live in, but if they now have the means that they might not have had five, ten, twenty years ago, it's up to them to do what they feel is right to do.
Don't forget, we do live in a capitalist society. So is it unfortunate that people are moving into neighborhoods, purchasing houses for $100,000, putting minimal work in, and reselling the house for triple the price? Absolutely. In my mind, that completely ruins the natural cyclical real estate cycle. But people are free to do what they please with their money.
Lastly, I'm obviously all for the wireless initiative. I think it would give the city a nice appeal that could possibly bring in new residents, but will also allow current residents to have means of communication that they may have never had before. With that said, I think the money could be allotted in more proper ways. One way they could start: target some type of solution to decrease the ever growing homeless problem in the city. I mean, we all walk past up to 10 homeless people just to get to class every day. I know there is no simple solution, but simply, it's a shame.
This comment has been removed by the author.
n my opinion, to say that Philly has become two different cities, a prosperous one and a poor one, oversimplifies the city and the issues that the article discusses. I understand that the urban middle class is shrinking, but I believe that to say that it has disappeared to the point of leaving only the poor and prosperous is wrong. The middle class still exists in Philadelphia and to act like it doesn't, as this article suggests, is a disservice to trying to understand the city's economic, real estate and technology markets. I think that Philadelphia ha more of a middle class than many other cities.
The article says that Philadelphia is becoming an anomaly because it is a city with increasingly expensive housing and tremendous numbers of poor people. I would also disagree with this statement and suggest that in many other cities across the country one would find similar trends. In New York City, the poor are being pushed from areas like Harlem and in Los Angeles the poor are being pushed from areas like Echo Park as those neighborhoods gentrify. If Philadelphia is actually an anomaly, as the article suggests, I believe that it's not for the reasons that the authors suggest, but because it has retained middle class more than those other cities.
I think the article would be more effective if the authors described the current development review process and the current zoning, land-use and building codes and showed why they are outdated and what about them needs to be changed. The way they have written the piece just seems preachy. They aren't offering any concrete solutions or doing any real reporting, just broad generalizations. What they are saying sounds nice, but its hard to know if it would really work or if there is a need for these changes without knowing the current systems and practices that are in place.
I am under the impression, perhaps incorrectly, that there are already programs for young families to buy dilapidated homes and fix them up and live in them. Again, I think this is an opportunity for the author to point out specefic problems in the "regulations and red tape" rather than broadly say there are too many.
To answer your questions specifically, I agree with what the authors are saying but I don't know if I should. I need more information than they have provided. I don't think that the neighborhoods are beyond repair because I believe that the city is important to the entire region. As long as the city remains a cultural , tourism and hospitality capitol of the region, it will be able to repair itself which in turn will repair individual neighborhoods.
The wireless initiative of Philadelphia is a good thing. While some might argue that everyone can't afford a computer and it is a case of the haves and have-nots, a counter point could be made that the price and availability of technology is always improving in favor of the middle and lower classes. To provide Internet access to the entire city will only increase people's knowledge and awareness of the issues that the article discusses. Perhaps someone living in a dilapidated neighborhood will log on to the phila.gov website, find and buy an abandoned house, fix it up and begin the repairation of their neighborhood.
I only see one problem with what the article says and that is initiative of the people to get better lives. The city may offer so much to the people but it seems like they only want to take advantage of the programs that are easy to become part of. I used to work in Kensington and through my experience there I've seen that most people don't care that they live the way they do. They value material items like cars and clothes or nights at the bar. The worst part of this is that the problem seems to be growing. I think that the more the city offers to poor people the lazier they become. I'm not saying everyone but that has just been my general observation. Maybe if the city could find a way to make people work a little harder for these handout benefits, the city might improve itself just because of the people's initiative.
When walking around with friends (old and new) in South Philly, we were discussing how most neighborhoods are similar in the fact that they all have boarded-up buildings. One girl discribed this Philly problem by calling the city "patchy". What a clever way to look at it.
I am aware that redevelopment is as complex an issue as crime. There are several underlying factors that affect and relate to Philly's growth. These include, but are not limited to: tourism, cleanliness, job opportunities, proper housing, good schooling, proper funding from both the state and federal govts. and a safe environment. In my eyes there is no simple 3 step solution. Rather the answer will take time, money and a willingness to work together between the government and all members of the community (those active and not so active).
On the contrary though, this article does make many valid points. One, building and zoning codes are a big problem. There needs to be a more effective and realistic consistancym, in addition to a policy that welcomes inside (local landlords) and outside development. Second, some lower-income families are being priced out of their homes. Working mothers and senior citizens (those being most affected) deserve to keep family household traditions alive and communities intact. Remember they are often the foundation of the community and its third place.
In regards to the Wireless Philadelphia initiative, I think ideally those supporting it believe it will equalize opportunity and eduacation (through the Internet) for all income levels. I want to believe this also. But realistically, throughout the nation the devide between those that have money and assets and those that do not, grows bigger every year. Sadly, I think this will continue. And people that are minorities (because institutionalized racism still exists) or in a state of poverty so deep that they depend on handouts and/or food stamps will continue doing that. It is easy to speak of change but it is hard to impliment it. I have hope, but I don't know if those that talk of change are determined and honest enough to deliver it.
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It's just the way of the world. In my neighborhood, the prices of real estate has sky-rocketed. A row house in this area used to be priced at 40-50 thousand dollars. Currently, our house is worth $170,000. Now, while that does benefit my mother and people who already own a home, it makes it hard for families and younger people to meet the costs of living alone.
The problem, I feel, with the rising cost of real estate is the same problem the author of this article had. The rising cost is not a reflection of a new and improved quality of neighborhood. The price of our home has shot through the roof, but two blocks away is a bad neighborhood. Dilapadated houses and constant drug deals plague our little neighborhood, and there is no money being spent to clean it. It's sad, really.
A neighborhood is about unity and a sense of togetherness. Philadelphia neighborhoods are divided with the haves vs. the have-nots. This lack of community has created a visible divide with an increase in the poor, and a rising real-estate price with new condominiums, which creates a lifestyle that caters to the rich. There is a definite sense of individualism which produces an attitude of looking at people that are different then oneself as “other.” The amount of poor people in Philadelphia’s center city, which is a area of high real-estate, become invisible to the busy pedestrians who are immune to the growing divide. The middle class is shrinking due to the city’s attempt to revamp Philadelphia as a luxurious and booming city; however, there are other alternatives to build neighborhoods without pushing out lower-income households. A true communal system gives support; it uplifts and provides a purpose to fighting other neighborhood issues, but in the end, who would fight for a community’s history, esthetics and value if it is divided?
There is definite strength in numbers that is why I agree that the city must improve the quality of life for all people; however, the article does not address many solutions, it focuses too much on the problems. It references the importance of zoning, land-use etc. but not when, where and/or how these incentives should take effect in the Philadelphia neighborhoods. Open space is important, but do we get rid of parking lots which some say are important due to the decrease in parking spaces or do we knock down the boarded homes, which some say younger families may want to restore. These decisions are ones that the community must come together and discuss. This brings us to the wireless incentive, which will improve the quality of life by creating a connection that is needed in a technically advanced world. The lack of access to technology has created a gap allowing those with such advancement to continue to foster. To ensure that everyone benefits from change everyone must be able to communicate effectively and efficiently.
Philadelphia communities are ignored and sugarcoated with political agendas and fast solutions. However, the new housing units in the descending neighborhoods only paint over the problems instead of really going in and fixing what is right before them. In my small community along the Jersey shore older homes are bought for less and then rebuilt, increasing the value of the home to $500,000 and beyond. This adds to the sense of community because the older homes had a history versus the new development communities. Younger families and home owners could decide to rebuild and sometimes this may lead to a wise investment within a few years this also brings the new residents and older residents together.
Although there is more work to be done beyond a new family’s real-estate decision, one thing is for sure, “the future is uncertain.” In order to break the historical continuum of classism one must look at the history of debt, poor education, loans, credit etc. Meanwhile, others may respond by blaming the poor for such fate, and the unkempt communities, while dismissing the structural/cultural impact of race and class on the current status of educational quality. Philadelphia school systems coincide with their community and the inequality emerges with a bourgeoisie approach of assessing whom receives what in education and in over-all lifestyle. In the end, Philadelphia needs to take the focus off of the center of the city i.e. tourist bureau and take an acute look the north and west regions. The city needs to establish affordable communities, quality government housing and community needed businesses such grocery stores that will add to the quality of life for local residents.
I think Philadelphia is on its way to become a better city in all aspects, but also has a long way to go. Building more housing isn't really helping. We have WAY too many abandon houses in our city that should either be torn down or fixed up before we build new houses.
Everyday the cost of living increases in our country, which is very unfortunate, especially for those who are poor. We need to figure out a way to unite our city and country, for that matter, as one. Of course I know that is easier said than done, I just can't stand seeing people out on the streets with no place to call "home."
Post a Comment
<< Home