Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

GroundbreakingArt248 t1_j1n1jmo wrote

Reply to comment by outerspace29 in Game Off? Construction Halts at Durst's 300 N. Columbus Blvd. by RoverTheMonster

Are you really complaining, on Christmas, that gentrification is going to slow down? Wtf is wrong with you

−44

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?

23

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.

−19

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?

20

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.

−11

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.

14

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

4