I mean I can't speak to their management, I don't even know who that is, but from someone who isn't in the industry, the bartenders make a great drink and are super knowledgeable.

Charlie was a sinner is pretty great as well IMO.

Manayunk rox is a very reasonable commute to bala, I did it for a while, <15-20m from green lane bridge to pretty much anywhere in bala cynwyd. Rox is definitely still doable for <400k, probably some smaller stuff in upper manayunk at that price too. Parking in roxborough is easy compared to most of the rest of the city, you might be able to find something sub 400 with parking in roxborough, that'd be a stretch in manayunk. It's also relatively quiet if that's something you're looking for. Pretty walkable if you're close to either ridge or main street, though no grocery options on main street.

other than those two,

Reasonably good rail access, idk about bus access, I just take the train to center city when I need to, drive for other errands.

> especially comparing traffic because ATL traffic sucks hard but I also know ATL is wayyyyyy more car dependent of a city than Philly is.

Not from atlanta, only driven there a few times, but I can't imagine a place with more unpredictable drivers than philly. We were recently rated as the city with the worst driving experience in the US, and in my experience, that's accurate. Infrastructure isn't pretty, but definitely way more developed than atlanta, we have a functional subway, and as much as we love to shit on SEPTA, having lived a number of places with literally no public transit, it's miles better than other large cities outside the northeast. I lived in DFW for a while, and the DART is a total joke compared to even the least developed parts of SEPTA.

In terms of crime, seems from the stats that violent and property crime is a bit lower in Philly. I've been here since 2015 and the last year or so have for sure been the worst, hopefully, it's a dip rather than a trend. It definitely exists, but if you live in the northwest, or the suburbs around bala, all those area's are relatively low crime for philly.

It's in nearly every contract. The fact that the standard in philly is a 1 year warranty top to bottom is pretty crazy IMO. You shouldn't be building homes if you can only guarantee a foundation and roof for a year, but that's a separate issue altogether.

The problem is that they know enforcing your contract is out of the reach of most people, and that simply managing their books to their advantage means they'll never face any personal repercussions for it even for folks who can afford a lawyer. I was ready to sue my builder, and the reality was that 3 different lawyers all agreed I'd win, and we'd even be able to pierce the corporate veil due to the circumstances of the particular case, and that all said and done it would cost more than the repair would.

Have you been through it? Suing a builder/Developer? Or are you one? I find that people who suggest "just put it in your contract" are generally ignorant to the fact that enforcing a contract costs money, often times a ton of money. Most people aren't exactly flush with spare cash after buying a home.

Yea, exactly? People pay a premium for new construction because they don't want old home problems, the fact that the builder can't be held responsible for selling a broken product is a problem.

If I buy a TV that doesn't work when I get home, I return it to the store. If my new car is missing the power steering, the dealer fixes it.

If my new house has a bad roof, I need 30 grand and a lawyer to get it solved if I manage to sue the builder before he dissolves his LLC.

It's still wild to me that cycling through construction LLC's are even legal. I understand the need for them, but you shouldn't be able to create a new one for every development and claim the old one has no money.

They're building what is the average american families largest asset, and the house is supposed to last decades, but a year after construction is done, the company that built it is 100% absolved of any liability, failings, etc. And even if something goes wrong before the year, they'll just claim it's bankrupt and nothing happens to the owner.

Been through it myself nearby, and it put me off new construction in philly for good.

This whole construction site is totally out of control. Sidewalk is wrecked, they regularly start making tons of noise before 7am, parking in no parking zones all the time. Watched them use both neighbors land to drive all sorts of stuff around the site.

Hope she sues them into bankruptcy.

It's about 45 feet of elevation up the hill, the river would have to swallow the entirety of mainstreet up to the roof line.

I've lived in manayunk for 6 years now, I've always had ample time to move my car before a big storm. sucks if you're out of the country.

If silverwood and leverington are underwater, the rest of the city is 100% fucked lol. That's a water level rise in the schuylkill of like 45ft.

Commute is 100% doable. If you're down to take the train, 45 minutes is a fairly generous radius around Philly.

Housing is in a wierd spot, it's still cheap for a major city, but I think anything new has sort of outpaced itself a bit. If you're not looking to buy new, I still think much of philly is a solid bargain, and there's some interesting architecture as well. Manayunk/Roxborough are still relatively well priced for the combination of safety and things to do.

> Parking is either plentiful but expensive or non-existent. There is no in-between.

Pretty neighborhood dependant here, I've been street parking in Manayunk for 3 years now, and I've never had to walk more than 2 blocks. South Philly would be a different story. If you need to drive yourself around a lot for work, I wouldn't recommend south philly, more CC neighborhoods like rittenhouse, grad hospital, etc. are a bit better, but you could still realistically end up with a 5-6 block walk if you get home late.

If you want to live in the burbs and can swing it, Wynnewood, Bryn mawr have a pretty lively "mainstreet" feel around lancaster (the road, not the city) and have a good mix of restaurants, bars, shopping, etc. No high rises or anything, but there are apartments and condos are reasonable pricing. The area around Villanova is also fairly lively. All those area's are extremely safe and traffic is honestly moderate.

I haven't spent a significant amount of time in every suburb, but I spend a fair amount of time in the mainline neighborhoods close to the city, they definitely have some areas with a mainstreet feel, I'd personally feel pretty safe biking around them as well, you can accomplish nearly all your errands within biking distance in those areas. Traffic is nowhere near as bad as DC, even on 76. Winter is probably pretty comparable tbh.

> I'm worried about the level of crime. My work can involve going to people's homes and businesses, not always in the best neighborhoods.

That's a somewhat legitimate concern.

For anyone that's actually worried about this, the tool library of philadelphia will rent you a pruning saw for like, 7$ or something.

100%. I'm not knocking the parks dept, the horticultural society, etc. They do a fantastic job with what I'm assuming is not a huge budget.

They're not mutually exclusive. There are already enough dwellings for everyone who lives here, we can renovate, hell we can knock down the old ones and build on the lots again. We wouldn't be having this conversation if there literally weren't houses for people. We're still 400,000 people below the peak occupancy of the city. It's not a demand for houses that's the problem here.

The footprint of the houses that are built on this lot is already established, the tree didn't have to go at all, it was a convenience matter. Tree's that are not blocking development are cut down all the time, and that's what the post is about.

In the houses? What are you missing here?

There was already a house on the lot, they knocked that one down and built 5 more on the lot. Then cut down the tree.

This happens all the time.

The tree that prompted my post was a red oak at least 45 feet tall, and I would estimate 2' - 2.5' in diameter. I've seen plenty of large pine and oak come down in the manayunk, roxborough and east falls areas in the last year that were not blocking construction at all.

No?

It's not fine if they remove trees, they should leave every tree they possibly can.

Low effort nonsense comment?

> You named two potential reasons right there. There's also the root system impacting potential utility lines and foundation, insurance, etc.

Too bad? Don't buy an 800k new construction if 25$ a month of extra homeowners insurance is a problem.

> There's also the root system impacting potential utility lines and foundation, insurance, etc

And yet it's been fine for at least 70+ years.

That bill is a great step.

> Personally I think the whole premise is dumb as regulations against building in dense urban environments encourage greenfield development in exurban areas that require the clearing of forests

I'm not saying 0 trees should be taken down for construction under any circumstances, I'm saying that the city should heavily disincentivize removing trees that are not prohibiting the construction of anything. Taking down a tree because people buying expensive homes don't want to deal with maintenance is a garbage reason.

> not to mention that auto-oriented development patterns objectively worse for the environment

Without getting into the fact that there's absolutely enough housing, and we don't really need to build more, tearing down urban trees to prevent maintenance concerns is far from what's driving deforestation. Tearing down tree's to build more housing is also not the primary driver of deforestation, agriculture is.

> Your objections seem to be around the fact that you like big trees in your neighborhood - fair, but that's just as selfish of a reason as the developer taking the tree down to make construction easier.

That's pretty reductive. I specifically pointed out that it's better to leave them for several reasons, heat, drainage, the aesthetics, etc. If you want to reduce that to "you like them" then sure, I like tree's in the same way that I like eating and breathing.

Funny, or maybe we could all just give a shit about the city we live in.

I do own a property, it had no trees on it before I bought it, they'll be putting a street tree in front of it in two weeks.

Can't think of a worse take. The house they knocked over to build on the lot that held the one I saw come down today was built in the fifties. This tree was taller than my 4 story home, the tree was 100% there before that house was, and would probably have been there when these become dated and get bulldozed in another 80 years.

Neighborhoods with fewer trees are uglier, hotter, have worse drainage problems in the soil, etc. etc.

The tree was on the edge of the lot, totally healthy. There was 0 reason to tear it down other than having to potentially do maintenance in the future, and a developer not wanting to have to deal with a large tree on shared HOA property.

It was almost certainly a heritage tree, but everyone knows the city doesn't give a shit about that.

Have watched a number of 3-4 story tall trees come down in manayunk and roxborough as new homes get built up.

One less than a block away today.

Definitely using the term loosely.