It's Our City is a project that uses TV, Radio and Web
to promote civic engagement in the Philadelphia region.The Philadelphia Rowhome - dealbreaker for suburban dwellers?
Monday, January 12th, 2009 at 6:24 pm - by Dan Pohlig. Filed under: Uncategorized.
In my reading for the day, I happened upon two items that, in a way, are related to each other but were not written as responses to each other and most likely without either writer having any idea of what the other had written.
In this corner, blog heavyweight Atrios, big fan of city living and everything that comes with it, writes about his recent observation of new housing developments in the suburbs:
Along the train route the other day, I saw a few examples of what I consider to be the truly weirdest form of contemporary residential development, the “townhome” development on a giant plot of land. That is, sets of attached homes with ample parking and even more ample but mostly pointless green space. I assume this is mostly driven by zoning laws, with developers getting in just as much density as they are allowed to, but it really is the worst of all worlds development. It’s got features of density that people don’t like (attached homes), but no retail or real walkability that a genuinely dense neighborhood would allow.
I can almost hear the contempt with which he wrote the word “Townhomes” which he used as his title.
In what I can only describe as a happy coincidence, I read through the comments to our Assess The New Day, New Way post (keep those comments coming!) and found this from user Peg Quann:
1. The design of most old Philly rowhomes is obsolete. Most prospering families today want two-and-a-half baths, a large kitchen and a family room. These are reasons why so many people moved to suburban homes. It’s not just urban flight, it’s the type of housing the suburbs offer.
2. Better housing will attract and help the city keep young, educated, employed homeowners. This in turn will lead to more retail businesses, manufacturers and other employers choosing to locate in the city - where the infrastructure they need already exists.
3. As part of the neighborhood initiative, the city should tear down abandoned buildings and create land banks to entice builders, with extra incentives for hiring and training city youth in need of jobs.
It’s not too much of a stretch to see how those writers, working completely independently of each other and in no way responding to each other, nevertheless perfectly lay out the sides of an important debate in Philadelphia. On the one hand, folks may wish for all of the amenities that come with city living and therefore be willing to give up the yards, lawns, driveways and garages that make those amenities impossible in the suburbs. On the other hand, no one would ever choose to give up two and a half baths, a family room and a large kitchen, despite the need for a car, the energy costs and the labor (or expense) that goes into maintaining a half-acre suburban property.
Not making any particular point here other than people would probably choose to give up a lot in terms of home size and yard space if other important things, like schools, public safety and transit were better in the city.
January 12th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Which Philadelphia rowhouse? The Victorian in West Philly? The airlight in the Northeast? Perhaps a mansion in Rittenhouse or a Federal in Queen Village? There are plenty of large rowhomes in Philadelphia to suit any family’s needs. Out housing stock is fine, no need to tear down historic neighborhoods in the name of urban renewal, it wasn’t a good idea in the 1960s and it’s not a good idea now.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:04 am
I’ve had the same thought as the second article for a long time. From my train rides through North and West Philly, I see block upon block of crumbling, abandoned rowhomes. I don’t know what style they are (chances are if they’re style actually has a name then they are worth saving). The one’s I’m thinking of are in the “Hostile”… style.
The city should take back blocks at a time and sell for redevelopment, adding more parks and amenities. They should also try to reuse as much of the materials from the old homes as they can; for instance, using the bricks from the walls as new sidewalks. Just an idea.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:39 am
@Octo: When I was a policy writer on the Katz campaign in 2003 (there’s my full disclosure again), I had one person suggest to me the idea of “urban homesteading.” Essentially you bypass the sheriff sale process altogether and just forget about trying to get the backed taxes and utilities for a given abandoned property. Instead, you just put them all out there and transfer the title to people for free as long as the person receiving the title can show proof that they will have the resources and plans to renovate and rebuild according to existing safety codes. (It also probably helps to require that they live in the house for at least a couple years to provide the stability of owner occupied housing.)
As part of the program the city would help out with security and street scape improvements so that the homesteaders wouldn’t have to worry about having their tools and supplies stolen over night.
It’s definitely a pie-in-the-sky idea that most likely has hundreds of practical reasons why it couldn’t work, but at least it’s something that would be far cheaper for the city than wholesale acquisition and demolition AND preserves many more structures than otherwise.
January 13th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
I’m no expert by any means. I can see the problems with the city taking on something like I suggested, but I also see the great example that’s been made by the townhome style public housing built over the last decade.
I just think it would be easier and more cost effective in many cases for (somebody) to build a new large project than retrofit on a site by site basis.
There are definitely plenty of blocks that have character and unique aspects that give the city charm. But there are a lot that take they same things away. We should try to preserve the best of the past while upgrading the worst.