Toll

[Grad hospital]

Would you feel the same if some developer bought Rittenhouse park, Taney, or Washington Square and roped it of for private use?

There is huge difference between a the Lombard swim club, your back yard or even a private block like the back of the Apostolic church. I would concede that the even the Piazza could have been gated as it was 100% assembled of private land.

Navel Square was 24 archers of government owned land land that was Historic property, not privately held, so your communist rantings are not really relevant.

[Gaillimh]

Naval Sqaure was the property of the US Navy and run as a private hospital. It was never open, public land. Gitmo is currently owned by the US Government, and I wouldn't expect you to think that your next carribean vacation could be a freeby on the eastern shore of Cuba. Just because a building is historic does not mean it is public. Half of Chesnut Hill is historiclly designated, the Union League is historiclly designated, the German Society is historically designated, yet those properties are certainly not open to the public for everyone free and unfettered use. Rittenhouse park is entirely different than Naval Sqaure because it was dedicated as a public park. At no point in Phialdelphia's history could a citizen legally use the front lawn of Naval Square as they wished. My Communist rantings really are relevant, because what Bradley was advocating for was the free and unrestricted public use of private property. That is not the way any of us own our own property, so why should we expect the residents of Naval Square to be different.

[bradley]

Do you also think that you have a right to use the gym or pool in any one of the apartment buildings that ring Rittenhouse Square? Of course not. Do you think living in Philadelphia entitles you to swim at the Lombard Swim Club without being a member? No way! Your 'shared world utopia' sounds more like Lenin's dream for St. Petersburg, than the reality a thriving urban environment. The residents of Naval Square--and the Lombard Swim Club, the Dorchester, etc--add greatly to the diversity of our Urban Environment, and I think a lot of the criticism I read about them is nothing less than class-warfare.

Let me respond to both points you've made. First, I agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with Naval Square. They've chosen to create a nice, urban space. Protecting their landscaping, renovation, and (admittedly cheesy faux-18th-century) brick-facade-building investments is absolutely their right. I even think it's an inherently good thing that people band together to make a nice space. My key problem is the "length scale". I'm only saying that the chosen length scale is small and exclusionary, and gives nothing back to the public spaces that are the result of big-length-scale public engagement. The best, closest examples are Rittenhouse and the Schuylkill Banks. True, Lombard swim club does the same thing. But I can walk past it, and it doesn't extract anything from the community. It provides a service that is also met by public pools (though to a much more limited extent).

Second, if this is class warfare, I'd argue that it's the upper classes who are exploiting common, public goods that the rest of us help generate. I'm just trying to make a very sober, textbook economics argument about a public good. I never said - or implied - "utopia". This is a word that almost never gets uttered by even the most bleeding heart class-warrior liberals, which I suspect exist only in the minds of paranoiacs. Or those trying to knock down a straw man. Comparing this to Leninism is patently absurd. If I'm being a socialist here, they so are all the public-private partnerships responsible for the awesome public spaces in our fair city.

In any case, I agree that Toll should be commended for making a nice space for its residents. The front lawn is particularly nice, from what I can see.

[Grad hospital]

If you going to take government owned land, which is in fact owned by the public, the tax payer, and transfer it to private entity I think it's reasonable to have a higher bar than someone that just goes out and buys privately owned land and develops it as he/she chooses.

The Navel hospital was gone for decades before is was sold off. It was sold for peanuts even by 80's standards.

And the examples you gave like Lombard swim club is equally inconsistent. Lombard swim club offers a commercial service to community no different than a gym or daycare. I would love to have Graduate Hospital Swim club at 2400 South!

[Gladys]

Naval Square reminds me of Stepford. Not sure if that's good or bad but don't drink the water.

I have always thought that if i lived in a suburb i would never live in an apartment or town house, what's the point. But here well this is one of the only places this development makes sense.

I know several people who live there and am over often. From what I can see the majority of people tend to drive to stores and drive back. A few walk but that is rare.

Besides cleaning up a possum farm there is one thing it did give to the community that hasn't been mentioned. It took greys ferry sidewalks away from being a parking lot. Put trees up that are well tended and keeps their side walks outside very clean.

Those are all good things for the community.

It's a false sense of security though. There have been thefts in broad daylight. The lack of security in this gated community is actually appalling. But then i've always wondered at the general lack of security in residents of Philly as opposed to NY. I have broken into friends locks when they were locked out for them. Once even had to break down a door. If I can do it, it's not a good lock, or a good door.

The people don't even socialize with each other outside of saying hello when walking around their lawn.

They pay for the privilege of going to a park without trash, or someone coming up to them begging for money or using it as a public toilet.

I can understand the appeal, and do enjoy that aspect when I visit. But overall, I don't any more of that development good for the city really in the long run. I hope there aren't any more communities popping up. Otherwise we would all simply be living a city that isn't a city anymore, its suburbia.

I wonder what it will look like in 20 years, it has the potential to look like any other of the projects if not very well maintained. Already some amenities, like their own vans to center city etc have been stopped because the majority of the residents own cars. However their bike racks are all full during the day. Not sure what that means but i find it interesting.

[Dolemite]

The people don't even socialize with each other outside of saying hello when walking around their lawn.

Generalize much? One person I know that lives there sold her house in the neighborhood and moved there permanently because she had so much fun socializing with all her neighbors when she rented a place there. I have neighbors that never say hi to me. The reality is that the people that live in Naval Square aren't any different than the people that live all over the city.

[Gaillimh]

. Comparing this to Leninism is patently absurd. If I'm being a socialist here, they so are all the public-private partnerships responsible for the awesome public spaces in our fair city.

In any case, I agree that Toll should be commended for making a nice space for its residents. The front lawn is particularly nice, from what I can see.

Naval Square is NOT a public-private partnership. I go back to my argument that nobody in this neighborhood should expect to have the right to use someone's front lawn as they wish. The lawn in front of Biddle Hall is the front lawn of the 400+ units owners in Naval Square and not some private-public partnership.

[londoner]

I guess I wasn't clear about this. I mean that they contribute nothing to the livability of the community. Other than some nice facade and decent landscaping, they provide the community with zilch. When I say "livability" I'm referring to precisely the city-life amenities they describe in their advertisements.

For the record, tax dollars aren't "nothing" - they pay for the essential services that the Naval Square-dwellers use. If you want to quibble, I mean that they contribute "nothing" to the public goods which they then advertise, in one case, on a large printed brick wall at the triangle on Greys Ferry and Bainbridge.

I'm confused, what are you saying you or your house contribute to the "public goods" which Naval Square residents don't?

[bradley]

My Communist rantings really are relevant, because what Bradley was advocating for was the free and unrestricted public use of private property. That is not the way any of us own our own property, so why should we expect the residents of Naval Square to be different.

I was pretty clearly not advocating the "free and unrestricted public use of private property." My point was simply that Naval Square is all take and no give. It would have been trivial to provide a small amount of public space, especially given that they already hire security guards. My goal was not to have a debate about what should have been done, but just to point out that these developments are on the tail end of the distribution of different types of housing development. Naval Square is suburban, cloistered, and fails to benefit the average Philadelphian beyond the extra tax base and bolstered demand for local business. Even the most "selfish" rowhome-owner contributes to walkable space.

Naval Square, is therefore, a poor template for development in the city. If it were standard (this may be happening, slowly, given how it dominates condo sales), then we wouldn't have the public spaces we currently enjoy. No need to make more straw men. I know the history of Naval Square; I'm trying to make a broader point about the intangibles that make Philly a nice place to live. I have no desire to force Toll to dedicate more space. I'd rather just have a conversation about walkability as a public good.

[bradley]

I'm confused, what are you saying you or your house contribute to the "public goods" which Naval Square residents don't?

In a way, yes. You can walk past my house. I tolerate noise from a local restaurant. I'm not saying that I should be commended, just that the walkable-rowhome community model has made Philadelphia a great city while the cloistered housing development one does not provide anything useful. It would be a very poor model for future development. I'm not saying that the proletariat should rise up and reclaim nice lawns. Hardly.

For a good example, look across the river to Penn Park. You can walk through it. You can walk through Penn or Drexel, despite the fact that it's relatively homogeneous. Since both universities own many uninterrupted blocks in West Philly, they could easily fence it off. You can't wander into a chemistry lab, but you can't argue that Penn doesn't contribute something. [For the record, I'm sure many will point out that Penn gets tax breaks from the city, but this is neither here nor there, since the hospital is an enormous economic engine in its own right.]

You can be for Naval Square and still agree with me that it's a poor model for pleasant urban development. You might even agree that if the whole city were made of copies of Naval Square, it would have no reason to exist; why would anyone tolerate Naval Square density without any urban amenities to speak of?

[Gladys]

Generalize much? One person I know that lives there sold her house in the neighborhood and moved there permanently because she had so much fun socializing with all her neighbors when she rented a place there. I have neighbors that never say hi to me. The reality is that the people that live in Naval Square aren't any different than the people that live all over the city.

Ok my observations are that the people I know do not socialize much within, which isn't a bad thing. and you are right, just like people anywhere else.

What I have observed is that it's like a bedroom community. you drive out, go where you need to, and drive back into your garage and close the door behind you. Not needing to walk around the neighborhood.

Glad your friend had a good experience.

I like naval square for many reasons. but dislike it for many, many others.

[londoner]

You can be for Naval Square and still agree with me that it's a poor model for pleasant urban development. You might even agree that if the whole city were made of copies of Naval Square, it would have no reason to exist; why would anyone tolerate Naval Square density without any urban amenities to speak of?

Sure, but this type of development is so rare that we can count it on two fingers: this and Waterfront Square. 1.6 million people, and maybe a few thousand live in a gated community. This isn't a widespread problem that's growing out of control here. As brought up before, Naval Square is a very unique property with a lot of history and has always been gated to outsiders--so what's the problem? When it was developed, our neighborhood lost a massive blighted property and gained hundreds of tax-paying residents and increased property values.

You're right though, they don't provide as much as many of our finest neighborhood residents. They do NOT provide litter, weeded lots, noise, or (presumably) crime. This as an old pointless topic.

P.S. if you want to see Naval Square folks in action supporting our community--grab a beer at Resurrection Ale House.

[bradley]

Sure, but this type of development is so rare that we can count it on two fingers: this and Waterfront Square. 1.6 million people, and maybe a few thousand live in a gated community. This isn't a widespread problem that's growing out of control here. As brought up before, Naval Square is a very unique property with a lot of history and has always been gated to outsiders--so what's the problem? When it was developed, our neighborhood lost a massive blighted property and gained hundreds of tax-paying residents and increased property values.

You're right though, they don't provide as much as many of our finest neighborhood residents. They do NOT provide litter, weeded lots, noise, or (presumably) crime. This as an old pointless topic.

P.S. if you want to see Naval Square folks in action supporting our community--grab a beer at Resurrection Ale House.

I think we are generally in agreement. I'll admit Naval is a drop in the bucket. My theory is that developments like Naval and 2400 South always lag healthy redevelopment, because they seduce the last likely prospects to finally move to a revitalized neighborhood. [Or, at least, they'll never be the leading factor, for all the reasons I've given in this thread.] But I think your point about taxes is misleading, since the Toll website claims they get the 10-year abatement. Like any other homeowner, this means the city is effectively subsidizing them for a short time. Property values didn't rise solely because of Toll. They rose because of Penn, CHOP, and the early wave of gentrifiers a decade ago. In any case, I concur with your point. This isn't a huge problem, especially not compared to many others. I think it's just a neat cultural artifact, and a good chance to re-evaluate what we value about G-Ho.

As much as I enjoy Resurrection, I hardly think buying a beer at a nice pub counts as contributing to the community (but if it does, I deserve some kind of trophy). It benefits the business, and the beer-drinker, and possibly also the community of people who might have to settle for sports bars without the sufficient demand for good beer and food. I'd rate 10 beers at Resurrection on par with a nice windowbox.

The Finnegan's Wake controversies put this in perspective. Better Resurrection/Grace/Ultimo/Sidecar than that whole mess.

[the mule]

True, they don't anything to me, personally. But as a thought experiment, imagine if the whole city were made up of gated communities. In that case, nobody would share anything except with their immediate neighbors. The "length scale" on which we share things would be small. This would mean that we wouldn't have magnificent public spaces like Rittenhouse or the Schuylkill Banks. This is a pretty bleak vision, and even though the example is contrived, I think it illustrates my point that Naval Square are moochers-lite. In practical terms, I think it's a net good because it brings suburbanites into the city. It just seems like a cheap win, that's all.

Why would I imagine the whole city as being made up of gated communities? It's not, nor will it ever be. What if there were porn shops on every corner? Why ask ridiculous questions like this? This isn't a slippery slope argument; the existence of Naval Square isn't going to start the city on an inexorable path toward exclusively gated community development.

[palvar]

I'll admit Naval is a drop in the bucket.

Then what are you arguing about?

[bradley]

Why would I imagine the whole city as being made up of gated communities? It's not, nor will it ever be. What if there were porn shops on every corner? Why ask ridiculous questions like this? This isn't a slippery slope argument; the existence of Naval Square isn't going to start the city on an inexorable path toward exclusively gated community development.

This is just a simple metric for determining whether something is better or worse than the desired average. I'm not trying to say that Naval Square is inherently bad. I'm just saying it's "below average" in terms of its contribution to the cityscape. If you took a track team, selected only the slowest members, and put them on a new team, then of course it would lose the track meet. That's all I'm saying. If Naval Square became the norm, Philadelphia would be a poor city. Hence, Naval Square is a poor addition to the city (by the very terms it describes in its advertisements). This is not to say that Naval Square is bad. Every group of tall people has a shortest member. This is just a thought experiment for determining the "price" of Naval Square (how valuable it is). Nothing more.