Toll

[Mustard]

Insightful article written about Navel Square / 2400 South.\

Inquirer Calls Toll Brothers ‘Hip’ And Other Mistruths This Morning | Hidden City Philadelphia

The Inquirer piece is so out of touch and full of fluff it's bizarre.

[bradley]

This is a nice article. Plus, the comments section provides an interesting perspective on the problem of Toll taking a toll on the unique urban character of some Philadelphia neighborhoods. I particularly like the term "development blight" (possibly) coined by a commenter.

The way I see it, the problem is two-fold. On the one hand, you have developers like Toll who are meeting a need to provide suburban-like housing for people who want to live in the city without any of the basic hassles. Because participating in an urban community is not mandatory, it's easy for these big developers to provide these amenities. Since we can't force people to make public spaces, share their spaces, or design walkable communities, the neighborhood can be consumed by little, secluded bubbles. That Toll has the capital to do this means they get enormous economies of scale when building these units. Optimizing their bottom line leaves us with big, homogeneous developments. [As an aside: someone on these boards recently commented that Philly has Manhattan construction costs and Baltimore rents, which explains why we have so much ugly new-construction homes. It's easiest to cut costs on design and aesthetics.]

Projects like Naval Square are a threat to the character of the community because they extract value from the city [proximity to cultural amenities, easy commutes to jobs in Center City, etc] while contributing precisely nothing. Residents of Naval Square can enjoy Center City and Grad Hospital, but outsiders can't walk through their 20-acre park.

The second part of the problem lies outside Naval Square's walls. Many neighborhoods are dominated by NIMBYs or anti-gentrifiers who seek to ensure that their property grows in value. If one buys a chunk of land in the middle of a growing city, over time they will be better served by all the benefits of the city. The anti-gentrifiers effectively want to profit from the infrastructure - literal or cultural - of a growing city, without having to pay for it in the form of noisy neighbors or general crowding. If we have a free market in housing, gentrification should be an inherently good thing. Revitalized cities are worth more than blighted ones, and when people are willing to pay more for a particular area, it means that our infrastructure investments are benefiting more people. Paying a higher price for a better urban "product" means the market is working for us. The downside to gentrification is that it may displace thriving communities. While this is definitely a bad thing, it would be far worse to cater to the NIMBYs who simply want to benefit from living in a dense city without paying the "market" price for it. Displaced communities are a problem of inequality, jobs, and the overal economy - not solely a problem of urban planning. You can argue that the free market isn't fair, but you have to admit that it is highly effective at giving people what they want, whether it's a private suburb or a bustling city.

My point is that we can't force a city to have a certain character. We can't stop the NIMBYs or Naval Square-dwellers from extracting value without "paying" for it unless we have a way for government to recognize and protect the urban character as a public good. Of course, this is tricky.

[Burholme06]

while contributing precisely nothing. Residents of Naval Square can enjoy Center City and Grad Hospital, but outsiders can't walk through their 20-acre park.

I never thought about it in that sense but I thin you make a great point here.

[John Goodman]

Can people please stop crying about naval square?

It wasn't open to the public before... So what if it isn't now?

If we keep a couple hundred families that otherwise would be in Lower Merion by having this gate community then great

I don't see how it's hurting anyone

[John Goodman]

They contribute nothing?

I guess tax $$$ from wealthy residents is nothing

Get over yourselves

[Dolemite]

They contribute nothing?

I guess tax $$$ from wealthy residents is nothing

Get over yourselves

Seriously, where's Zur when you need him.

[boognish]

My wife works with a doctor and a specialist who happen to live one below the other. They now hate each other thanks to noise issues.

Made me chuckle.

Will the new Toll buildings be gated?

[bradley]

They contribute nothing?

I guess tax $$$ from wealthy residents is nothing

Get over yourselves

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.

[Dolemite]

Insightful article written about Navel Square / 2400 South.\

Inquirer Calls Toll Brothers ‘Hip’ And Other Mistruths This Morning | Hidden City Philadelphia

The Inquirer piece is so out of touch and full of fluff it's bizarre.

I know Toll Bros are a PITA regarding retail but the zoning laws are still the biggest problem. It makes it not worth the money, time and hassle to try anything useful with the power that NIMBYs have in this city.

[bradley]

Can people please stop crying about naval square?

If we keep a couple hundred families that otherwise would be in Lower Merion by having this gate community then great

I don't see how it's hurting anyone

I agree with your point about Lower Merion. But even though they don't hurt anyone, they are using a public good that they don't contribute to. I wasn't crying about this, just illustrating it. Personally, I'd vote for more walkable communities, because I think they are more sustainable. If we all lived in gated communities, the length scale of our urban spheres would be only as big as the longest road in Naval Square, and this would be less than optimal. That's neither here nor there, though. I'm just saying that Naval Square runs a huge cultural-community deficit, is all.

[Dolemite]

I mean that they contribute nothing to the livability of the community.

Just curious, how do you contribute to the livability of the community?

[Burholme06]

As someone pointed out, the Naval Square property was inaccessible before so it’s no impact to the public but I think Bradley’s greater point rings true.

If all the lovely side streets in Center City – Delancey, Cypress, Panama, Waverly, Rodman, Naudain, etc. were gated and made private, it would have the same impact to the community as Naval Square. The residents would enjoy their street and then escape and enjoy the public realm but the public couldn't drive, walk, or simply partake in their splendor outside of looking through a fence. Since they are open now, they contribute to the livability of the community and the quaintness that really helps make Philadelphia the unique place that it is.

[Dolemite]

As someone pointed out, the Naval Square property was inaccessible before so it’s no impact to the public but I think Bradley’s greater point rings true.

If all the lovely side streets in Center City – Delancey, Cypress, Panama, Waverly, Rodman, Naudain, etc. were gated and made private, it would have the same impact to the community as Naval Square. The residents would enjoy their street and then escape and enjoy the public realm but the public couldn't drive, walk, or simply partake in their splendor outside of looking through a fence. Since they are open now, they contribute to the livability of the community and the quaintness that really helps make Philadelphia the unique place that it is.

hey you forgot St Albans you know in case you need to pick up a rock, or Point Breeze Ave if you need to be mugged, etc.

[Burholme06]

hey you forgot St Albans you know in case you need to pick up a rock, or Point Breeze Ave if you need to be mugged, etc.

I'm too busy hanging at douche bars in Center City to go that far south which is why I didn't include them.

[Dolemite]

I'm too busy hanging at douche bars in Center City to go that far south which is why I didn't include them.

I'm glad you have plenty of douche bars to choose from. I mean if we let a bunch of architects and urban planners decide what kind of bar is best for us instead of letting us choose what kind of bars we'd rather go to there might not be any douche bars to...oh wait architects and urban planners are deciding what kind of bars can be built so I guess there will be plenty of douche bars to choose from.

[bradley]

If all the lovely side streets in Center City – Delancey, Cypress, Panama, Waverly, Rodman, Naudain, etc. were gated and made private, it would have the same impact to the community as Naval Square. The residents would enjoy their street and then escape and enjoy the public realm but the public couldn't drive, walk, or simply partake in their splendor outside of looking through a fence. Since they are open now, they contribute to the livability of the community and the quaintness that really helps make Philadelphia the unique place that it is.

Well put. I think it's pretty hard to quantify these things, but this is the crucial distinction between cities and suburbs. Cities are walkable. Contributing to the urban landscape can be as simple as owning a decent home on a block that's nice to walk down. Not to harp on Toll too much, but you can't even say that much about Naval Square, since we can't walk across it. I think there is a lot of appeal in think of things individually, i.e. "it's their right to build a fence" or "Toll builds what the market wants" or "I must protect my property from a noisy restaurant". I just think a lot of arguments ignore the fact that living in Philadelphia provides a lot of benefits that you can't price properly. That's what's so tricky about a public good - like walkability, parking, access to transportation infrastructure, nice parks, etc. It's very easy to exploit. Perhaps this is why the zoning codes should become much more flexible.

[the mule]

I think the buildings at Naval Square are ugly schlock and wouldn't ever consider living there, but I don't think it really detracts from the urban landscape. It's been largely a net positive, adding value to the surrounding area and making Schuylkill Ave. look a little less desolate even if it is behind a big masonry wall.

The gated community isn't for your typical urbanite, it's meant to appeal to suburbanites who want to live closer to the city but wouldn't even consider a G-Ho townhouse. They get to live in their little gated compound safe and sound from the city streets, but they can venture out on a whim and experience the urban amenities more easily than if they lived in the suburbs. It has brought people with a good deal of disposable income into the neighborhood who wouldn't live there otherwise, and they can help sustain local businesses and their tax dollars can go toward city services.

I don't see how someone living in a gated community contributes any less than a person with a nice townhouse and private garden who never invites you in. They owe you nothing. On the other hand the Piazza made its courtyard open to the public and all people (myself included) can talk about is how underutilized and poorly executed it is.

[bradley]

I don't see how someone living in a gated community contributes any less than a person with a nice townhouse and private garden who never invites you in. They owe you nothing. On the other hand the Piazza made its courtyard open to the public and all people (myself included) can talk about is how underutilized and poorly executed it is.

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.

As for the argument that they spend money, that's true, too. But they always get what they paid for (otherwise, why spend?). I'm not talking about an economic transaction, I'm talking about a public good. Even the person with a private townhouse contributes to the streetscape.

[Grad hospital]

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.

As for the argument that they spend money, that's true, too. But they always get what they paid for (otherwise, why spend?). I'm not talking about an economic transaction, I'm talking about a public good. Even the person with a private townhouse contributes to the streetscape.

Great points. It would score it a somewhere between "missed opportunity" and relative failure. I'm trying to think of something that could plausibly contribute less to community and aside from what it was ,vacant, nothing comes to mind.

One of commentators pointed out that virtually anything within reason would sell at that location which is a brilliant counter to the "well it sells" argument which dilutes most of the builders in the neighborhood to think they have a decent product. I would argue that Navel Square has actually depressed housing values by flooding the market with cheaply built product. Their product sells for 250 to 325 a SF which for a condo on 24 acres of beautiful historic land, a 5 minute walk to Rittenhouse is laughable. The fact you have foreclosures and shorts sales fairly regularly before the project is even completed should be a major red flag for any perspective buyers.

[Gaillimh]

I like the thought exercise, but I think you are way off. First, urban life, like suburban life, does and should contain lots of boundaries. It is ridiculous to imply that someone who lives in an ideal urban environment would have to keep their outdoor/common space open to the public. Naval Square is "planned community" where the common space is 'owned' by the unit owners, in a manner very similar to the way that my backyard is 'owned' by me. The residents pay a lot of money to keep Biddle Hall and the lawns the way there are. Kudos to them for taking such pride in their own property, because our neighborhood is much nicer and aesthetically pleasing for their efforts and investment. Its not like Naval Square closed off a public space when they planned the development; they chose to all shared the costs and responsibilities have having a common yard. Good for them. I don't allow the 100+ strangers who walk past my backyard to allow their dogs to relieve themselves there; why should anyone expect that the residents of Naval Square should allow their neighbors to use their back/front yard. If you like the well-manicured lawn, you should buy a house there and pay the huge fees necessary to keep it that way. Naval Square is by no means unique in how they use their private property within the urban environment. All apartment buildings have common space that is not 'open' to the public. Many parks have posted hours of operation. 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. Please let me know where you live so I and bring my dog over to use your lawn tonight and we can regale ourselves in the splendors of the shared urban environment........