Submitted by RoverTheMonster t3_zuvw1s in philadelphia
ikover15 t1_j1m86o5 wrote
Shitty lending environment is gonna do this to some projects
outerspace29 t1_j1mq5ym wrote
This really sucks, and exactly what this city doesn't need. I'd read elsewhere that low interest rates and young millennials entering adulthood were the driving force behind urban revitalization. The rates are higher, and many millennials have now entered the "have kids and move to the suburbs" phase of their lives, so there's a fear that the widespread urban blight of past decades could return and development/gentrification will slow significantly. I really really hope this isn't the case because Philadelphia would not weather that storm.
thefrozendivide t1_j1qbsr7 wrote
While the have kids move to the burbs part is true (and the smart move unless you've got private school money) , there are still plenty of us without kids waiting on the sidelines for sellers to get their heads out of their asses with jokingly sky-high, overinflated asking prices. It's absurd, and sad really, touring some of these places where people have done zero work to a house they bought in 2018 and are asking 70-100% (or more!) than their purchase price.
outerspace29 t1_j1qqyvn wrote
Not sure about your situation, but when I was searching, a big part of sellers' ability to command those prices was due to how much of the city people consider a "no-go" zone. Having vast swaths of North Philly immediately out of the running for people looking to buy a house just creates more competition in the "nice" neighborhoods.
ColdJay64 t1_j1qz1qu wrote
Interesting attempt at trying to twist high demand into still saying something negative about Philly, but that’s really not at all how real estate works. A city having less good areas relative to bad ones doesn’t make the good ones more expensive as a result, it brings the prices of a whole city down. If Philly had more good areas, the “nice” ones would just be even more expensive.
In reality, the nice areas are just expensive because Philly offers a lot that people find desirable.
outerspace29 t1_j1s7a0k wrote
Yawn. This taking offense over any criticism of the city is a tired gimmick. It's also, frankly, a disgusting position to push so relentlessly; the people hardest hit by crime here tend to be low income people of color. Or is that okay with you, and not worth talking about, because it's "targeted" and oh look a new retail store opened in center city.
ColdJay64 t1_j1sapx4 wrote
Sorry if I came in too hot. But - don’t refer to a large swath of the city as a “No-go zone” and then try to demonize my saying that the city can be a good place to live. You’re reaching. If your criticism was valid, I wouldn’t have responded - but it didn’t even make sense. Philly’s issues are the reason it remains relatively affordable for its size, but they definitely don’t drive UP the prices.
outerspace29 t1_j1sdsgw wrote
Yeah you probably would have responded either way because you seem to seek out any and every criticism of Philadelphia on this sub to rail against, all while lobbying to censor crime posts because I guess public safety can't possibly be a concern to anyone (see my previous post about targets of crime, which you conveniently ignored).
I guess it's a coincidence that you push a narrative so hard on here while you're trying to rent out property you own in Center City lmao.
No arguing with a propagandist so I'm done here.
ColdJay64 t1_j1siyrk wrote
I share nothing but truth, while conveniently this conversation is taking place in response to a falsity you stated. If there’s any “propaganda” I’ve shared, please let me know.
And yes, when I found a house I liked in another part of Philly I rented out my condo… is something wrong with that? You think that dictates what I post?
Lastly, I’ve said we should implement the Chicago sub’s rules on crime content, and maintain that position.
Have a nice evening!
Skylineviewz t1_j1oipw0 wrote
Does gen z like cities? I try my best to avoid them so I’m not sure.
I’m kidding before anybody gets offended, question still stands though.
GroundbreakingArt248 t1_j1n1jmo wrote
Are you really complaining, on Christmas, that gentrification is going to slow down? Wtf is wrong with you
outerspace29 t1_j1n7j4b wrote
I just knew some reactionary stupidity like this would be incoming. We need to encourage more investment in every part of the city, and that means more construction projects, more people moving in, and more new businesses opening. New housing also means more supply and lower rents.
Or does it fill you with holiday cheer to drive around and see crumbling buildings, vacant husks of homes, and general poverty all over the place?
GroundbreakingArt248 t1_j1n7vy5 wrote
None of the new construction is going to result in lower rents and if you really believe that I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you. You probably think that privatizing utilities leads to lower rates for customers.
outerspace29 t1_j1nb98n wrote
It's been argued over and cited to death on this sub that increasing supply frees up existing housing stock and lowers rents, but you do you.
You have no actual counterargument so you have to make up a position I never took (on utilities of all things).
Please tell us how we can address disinvestment in neighborhoods. Or does your performative online outrage stop short of actual ideas for resolving issues?
GroundbreakingArt248 t1_j1np5zv wrote
The collective wisdom of this sub sets a pretty low standard.
If your argument were true we’d be seeing a decrease in rental costs as more units become available but the exact opposite has been happening. You might be able to make the argument that the new units are helping slow the pace of rent increases but that’s an entirely different animal.
Here in the 3rd District our councilwoman has introduced zoning bills that require all projects in a very large area that are over a certain size to include a percentage of affordable housing onsite. Philadelphia has the largest poverty rate of any large us city. When you building new top of the market housing and transplants move in all it does is incentivize the destruction of old housing stock to build more top of the market housing. Poor people are being pushed further and further away from the urban core and some cases out of the city. What we’re severely lacking is the construction of new housing for the poor and lower middle class.
Badkevin t1_j1p2i8o wrote
Incorrect, increase supply can decrease or slow the drastic increase in prices, not just apartments but nearly everything without inelastic demand.
ThaddyG t1_j1q83dr wrote
Inclusionary Zoning is the type of policy you're talking about in parts of the 3rd (and 7th) districts and it's been around in those parts of Philly a few years now. Last year they voted to amend the law and it went into effect this past summer, basically turning what was an optional program that developers wanting to build in the IZ zones (parts of the districts, not the whole district) could just pay into the Housing Trust to avoid. IZ is definitely well-intentioned when it's implemented but may not necessarily help all that much, according to what I've read about it. I did a policy memo project for a class at Temple on the IZ law here in Philly, I've read a few articles about the effects of IZ on affordable housing creation in other cities and the general consensus is that it doesn't usually result in the creation of more affordable units unless the conditions are just right for the developers.
https://better-cities.org/community-growth-housing/inclusionary-zoning-hurts-more-than-helps/
https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2022/02/09/in_philly_theres_no_such_thing_as_free_affordable_housing_815843.html
[deleted] t1_j1ucnoo wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments