Implications of the New Philadelphia Zoning Code

[MarketStEl]

kidphilly threw this out as an offhand remark over on the "Market East Transformation" discussion on the Center City board, but I think he's right - this is a good idea, and why let Philadelphia Planeto have all the fun?

There are some very significant changes in the new city zoning code, which goes into effect today, that could radically alter the face of many city neighborhoods, remove some headaches for builders and developers, and make community association zoning committee meetings less interesting until someone proposes a large-scale development like the Piazza at Schmidt's.

You can read several interesting and witty posts on some of the changes in the zoning code at the City Planning Commission's blog, linked above. The blog I run has also done a series on the new code, most of it focusing on its residential end, as is our wont:

Improvements in the Philadelphia zoning code, I: Permissiveness
Improvements in the Philadelphia zoning code, II: Zoning districts
Improvements in the Philadelphia zoning code, III: Community input
Improvements in the Philadelphia zoning code, IV: Rule changes
Improvements in the Philadelphia zoning code, V: Parking requirements
Improvements in the Philadelphia zoning code, VI: Three more feet
Improvements in the Philadelphia zoning code, VII: Civic design review

There's much more that has yet to be touched on in either place. What do you think of the new code? Is it really an improvement, as both the Commission and I have argued? Do you think it will succeed at bringing about the transformations it seeks? Would you like to have seen something else in its place? Do you have concerns? I know you're all far from shy about voicing your opinions. Fire away.

[kidphilly]

Thanks for the thread, let the professional handle it as opposed to my run on banter.

It seems there are some real benefits (structure height, parking etc.) that will have some tangible future benefits.

I am curious on the Civic design review- sounds as though more info on that aspect today. Hope to see some good dialouge here...

[Naveen]

Thanks Sandy. Very informative and easy to digest.

One thing regarding parking: I hadn't realized that even single townhouse developers were required to provide a parking space in the old code. That seems onerous at best. This explains all the garage doors in G-Ho, which really hurts the walking experience on those streets.

But then, a follow-up question: Are the garages solely a result of the code, or is there actually a strong demand for them as well?

[kidphilly]

Thanks Sandy. Very informative and easy to digest.

One thing regarding parking: I hadn't realized that even single townhouse developers were required to provide a parking space in the old code. That seems onerous at best. This explains all the garage doors in G-Ho, which really hurts the walking experience on those streets.

But then, a follow-up question: Are the garages solely a result of the code, or is there actually a strong demand for them as well?

well now demand and market conditions can better drive the style

[raider.adam]

well now demand and market conditions can better drive the style

I don't think market demand should dictate individual garages for rowhomes. The problem is the curb cuts take away from public parking.

[kidphilly]

I propose a themed PS Happy Hour to celebrate and discuss BDSM (of that took place in QV) ok so then Zoning Code changes

Today’s the day: The dawn of a new zoning era | Philadelphia Real Estate Blog

[kidphilly]

I don't think market demand should dictate individual garages for rowhomes. The problem is the curb cuts take away from public parking.

dont disagree on the curb cuts but again this provides more flexibility. Demand will dictate some of this, many people like a garage. There are many buyers that kind of like the suburban townhouse inside and garage and city outside

[John Goodman]

I don't think market demand should dictate individual garages for rowhomes. The problem is the curb cuts take away from public parking.

I agree that a garage should not be allowed when taking away public parking. Though on streets with no street parking I say go for it.

[OffenseTaken]

dont disagree on the curb cuts but again this provides more flexibility. Demand will dictate some of this, many people like a garage. There are many buyers that kind of like the suburban townhouse inside and garage and city outside

Many people like swimming pools in their front garden, and pet tigers too, but some things shouldn't be subject to "market demand." With every curb cut, the neighborhood bears too much cost for the benefit of the developer.

[kidphilly]

Many people like swimming pools in their front garden, and pet tigers too, but some things shouldn't be subject to "market demand." With every curb cut, the neighborhood bears too much cost for the benefit of the developer.

not sure what to say other than lobby against curb cuts, in theory say a twin row with side by side garages may have no less loss (maybe even a gain). Infill and increaed population though assuming some car per cap makes street parking less available regardless. The height adjustments could be a benefit, if say 4 units have three garage spots with one garage

This actually may allow for new stock so to speak and greater utility, they could be stacked or configured differently than rowhomes. Just a thought. Personally I prefer no garage or an alleyway one but yes the market will decide

[John Goodman]

Many people like swimming pools in their front garden, and pet tigers too, but some things shouldn't be subject to "market demand." With every curb cut, the neighborhood bears too much cost for the benefit of the developer.

What if it doesn't take away street parking? Still too much cost to the neighborhood? How?

[OffenseTaken]

There's much more that has yet to be touched on in either place. What do you think of the new code? Is it really an improvement, as both the Commission and I have argued? Do you think it will succeed at bringing about the transformations it seeks? Would you like to have seen something else in its place? Do you have concerns? I know you're all far from shy about voicing your opinions. Fire away.

The old code seems to have been written for a small town inhabited by grouchy old people. Good riddance, and bad luck to whoever came up with it.

The change in parking requirements presents maybe the most noticeable difference in the neighborhoods where most of us live. There's perhaps a far more momentous change in a huge swath of Center City, where the maximum floor-to-area ratio has been boosted to 16.* Big hulking skyscrapers can now be built by right; no more public meetings where all the octogenarians from the Kennedy House show up and pitch a fit about sunlight. Not until you're in the 40-50 storey range, at least.

It's all still baby-step improvements. The "super CMX-5" zone narrows to within a block of Market between Suburban Station and the Schuylkill, and it only runs as far east as 7th Street (probably in deference to the National Park Service, which wants tourists to forget that they're in a huge, modern city while visiting their stupid cheesy park). Also, New York just raised the ratio to 30 in the neighborhood around Grand Central, which allows construction that will dwarf the Chrysler Building in a few years. But it's an improvement nonetheless.


*I haven't yet found the relevant passage in Sandy's articles, but I'll link it when I do.

What if it doesn't take away street parking? Still too much cost to the neighborhood? How?

It makes the sidewalk almost useless for walking on. Also, garages remove a human presence from the street. Every block in my neighborhood that's been taken over by garages is like a back alley, even in the middle of the day.

[OffenseTaken]

...