Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

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.

86

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.

74

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?

27

DonQOnIce t1_j9gj36a wrote

The “How to Park Your Dragon” live-action remake is gonna be amazing.

21

phillyFart t1_j9gtkht wrote

The septa line runs under that parking lot which impacts the ability to develop it significantly

19

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

52

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.

33

sylvatron t1_j9hcjp1 wrote

How is a short term rental different than a long stay hotel? Are we just reinventing the Homewood Suites?

20

kilometr t1_j9hus44 wrote

I think it may have to do with zoning restrictions/getting the neighborhood to accept the project

3

MRichards18 t1_j9gr6ij wrote

I’m sure these apartments will absolutely be affordable and the landlords will absolutely take care of their residents…lol

17

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.

9

espressocycle t1_j9i4m15 wrote

They might actually do more for lowering prices by giving people more flexibility which means greater negotiating power.

4

noIDKcpr t1_j9hn2h3 wrote

Kind of wished it was something else.

3

73Wolfie t1_j9h1h30 wrote

sounds lovely compared to a monster stadium....

1

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

−2

zachmichel t1_j9mbgrh wrote

Not sure why your being downvoted

2

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.

2

blandstick t1_ja7crhs wrote

There’s a big difference between apartments and a stadium

2

Jlaybythebay t1_j9gjt7f wrote

Where is the uproar?!? Isn’t this going to displace Chinatown.

−16

Vague_Disclosure t1_j9g4wfj wrote

Philly urbanists in shambles

−25

hdhcnsnd t1_j9gd9gq wrote

Short term rentals aren’t ideal but i can’t think of anything much worse than a surface lot.

40

DeltaNerd t1_j9g8adw wrote

I'm not understanding the sarcasm here

37

Vague_Disclosure t1_j9g9ewi wrote

developing a parking lot = Good

Short term rentals = Bad

Really not that deep

−23

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.

45

Vague_Disclosure t1_j9gbx1b wrote

Short term rentals in any form take away from permanent housing

−32

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.

29

LFKhael t1_j9gfa3p wrote

It's a hotel less than a block from the convention center.

uRbAnIsTs iN sHaMbLeS

16

justanawkwardguy t1_j9gkeoy wrote

Ah yes, all of the "permanent housing" that that parking lot was providing, right?

12

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

6

SupaflyIRL t1_j9gk3dz wrote

You’re doing a realllllly bad job looking like the reasonable one here.

5

orion3311 t1_j9g463o wrote

Because theres plenty of parking in chinatown!

−42

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

−65

mexheavymetal t1_j9gdu2l wrote

Shittiest take. The city needs better public transit and biking infrastructure and LESS infrastructure to support cars.

56

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.

−28

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.

23

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...

−18

ColdJay64 OP t1_j9go5m0 wrote

Aren't walking, biking, and taking transit all safer than driving though?

16

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.

15

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?

−5

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.

11

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.

17

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.

−7

justanawkwardguy t1_j9gl388 wrote

How do you make things safer when you refuse to fund them until they're safer?

11

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?

8

ActionJawnson t1_j9gj1ul wrote

Again. Never said anything about building more parking. I just wanna keep what we have...

−2

Forkiks t1_j9i80s9 wrote

Don’t mind them..many agree with you that losing parking isn’t so great.

−4

DonQOnIce t1_j9ggiqf wrote

What will incentivize anyone to make public transit and biking infrastructure better if parking is convenient and cheap?

6

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.

−3

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.

1

hdhcnsnd t1_j9gdn0p wrote

“We need to continue to subsidize car use for non-residents at the expense of residents”

37

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

11

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...

−1

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.

3

ActionJawnson t1_j9hgkw5 wrote

The current amount of parking seems fine right now, no need for more...

0

AbsentEmpire t1_j9hnod8 wrote

Parking should reflect actual value of the service and space, it should not be free or subsidized by zoning ordnance.

2