Shouldn't be shocking, the city zoning code has parking minimums.

What's shocking is they're not being required to build more spaces.

Sounds like the city should take them to sheriff sale for unpaid taxes.

Sounds like any other fundamentalist cult like evangelicalism, the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.

Apps like City Mapper or Transit really are your friend here for navigating SEPTA.

More housing and groceries are a good thing. It's a shame though that this doesn't have more units in it considering it's right on the BSL and the Girard Ave commercial corridor.

Not a fan of it.

I believe that's the plan. The city wants to get rid of the curb side pick up spots because they're not very safe and fuck up street traffic.

Now this was all prepandemic so not sure what's happening now, but at one point that was the plan.

There were plans to integrate intercity bus services into 30th Station turning it into a massive transit hub.

I was born in Philly, have lived here longer than you've likely been alive, and bought my house over a decade ago. But thanks for clarifying that you're some suburban transplant with a chip on the shoulder over not being able to make it in the city, doesn't know shit about Point Breeze, and wants to return to days of redlining.

We could fit the entire population of Earth into Texas and everyone would have 1000sqft of space. Philadelphia used to have over 2 million people living in it, and using less total land area than the current 1.6 million occupies.

We are nowhere near running out of land space in this city, try again.

>displaced; displacing; displaces

>transitive verb >1a: to remove from the usual or proper place >specifically : to expel or force to flee from home or homeland

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/displace

>that found that demographic change in gentrifying neighborhoods was a result of typical levels of population churn in lower-income neighborhood

No one is being expelled, or otherwise forced to flee a neighborhood because higher income people moved in, they are being excluded from continuing to move in due to lack of affordable options caused by exclusionary zoning policy.

Again there is a big difference in the implications between being displaced and being excluded. You should demand a refund from your school.

Preach!

If duplexes, triplexes, and 5 over 1s, were allowed by default in the zoning code there would be no affordability problem anywhere in the city.

>That reinforces previous research, also released by the Philadelphia Federal Reserve, that found that demographic change in gentrifying neighborhoods was a result of typical levels of population churn in lower-income neighborhood

>“That’s a reason we think you shouldn’t just design policy to protect people who are already there. If you are in a world where people just move a lot, and this change is happening through replacement effects, maybe you should make sure people can afford to move there in the future.”

They're not being displaced if the the change reflects normal population churn, they being excluded by lack of affordable options due to zone restrictions, there is a big fucking difference in the implication.

That zoning causes gentrification, whats yours?

They evidently didn't teach you to read since the rest of the paper shows your point is overblown, and the real issue is housing availability.

>Their research finds that gentrification had no discernible effect on income, employment or commuting distance for lower-income original residents, both those who were displaced and those who remained. That finding undermines the most boosterish case for gentrification, while also showing that it doesn’t massively undercut the material quality of life for poorer residents.

>The paper shows that much of the neighborhood demographic change was generated by newer, better-educated residents moving in rather than lower-income residents being forced out. That reinforces previous research, also released by the Philadelphia Federal Reserve, that found that demographic change in gentrifying neighborhoods was a result of typical levels of population churn in lower-income neighborhoods

> “That’s a reason we think you shouldn’t just design policy to protect people who are already there. If you are in a world where people just move a lot, and this change is happening through replacement effects, maybe you should make sure people can afford to move there in the future.”

>In addition, the researchers found, many low-income “original residents” remained in the neighborhood and benefited from the changing characteristics of the community. Perhaps obviously, low-income homeowners experience significant increases in their home values, while Reed and Brummet found that children from low-income households were more likely to go to college if they lived in gentrifying neighborhoods.

>Their research finds that gentrification had no discernible effect on income, employment or commuting distance for lower-income original residents, both those who were displaced and those who remained. That finding undermines the most boosterish case for gentrification, while also showing that it doesn’t massively undercut the material quality of life for poorer residents.

Way to ignore the rest of the article bud, which disproves your notions.

>The paper shows that much of the neighborhood demographic change was generated by newer, better-educated residents moving in rather than lower-income residents being forced out. That reinforces previous research, also released by the Philadelphia Federal Reserve, that found that demographic change in gentrifying neighborhoods was a result of typical levels of population churn in lower-income neighborhood

And the first part of the paragraph you quoted. Which further undermines your position.

>I literally took a class on it.

Oh well I guess that disproves the Federal Reserves multiple studies on it.

What fucking evidence, you've shown none other than your poorly conceived notion of gentrification, which you're really just using as a substitute for change is bad.

You're over here acting like this is fucking San Francisco, when the evidence shows what you claim literally isn't happening.

https://whyy.org/articles/philly-federal-reserve-study-challenges-conventional-wisdom-on-gentrification/

The Lenape?

They left for very different reasons than the bullshit you're trying to imply.

But seriously you're right, there is not one single person living in Fishtown today who was there 20 years ago, not a single person. They all had thier houses seized from them and didn't sell them for record amounts of money and moved somewhere they'd rather be.

You certainly don't.

Just keep ignoring that Philly property taxes are way lower than they should be and weighted to the value of the structure not the land.

Keeping the place deprived of amenities isn't keeping property values down either, because at its core Point Breeze is a transit accessible neighborhood to Center City, and Philly overall has a housing shortage in in demand locations, hense what's driving Point Breeze.

Do you realize that gentrification is only possible with exclusionary zoning?

Oh fucking please, who do think are the people selling thier house for record amounts of money? No one is being forced out of Point Breeze, but do go on about how black people shouldn't be allowed to profit off their land because racial mixing is bad.

Also tell me you don't live in Point Breeze without saying it. The neighborhood is overwhelmingly single family housing, not condos, there are in fact very few condos available in Point Breeze, and 99% of construction has been empty lot infill with single family housing, structurally unstable house replacement, and existing homes getting full renovations. Fuck out of here with this bullshit.

You're right it's far better that we concentrate non white people into poor neighborhoods with dilapidated housing, and by law block any investment into them.

That's worked out so well in the past.