You could easily miss this note from "Heard in the Hall" in the Inquirer this morning, but it looks like Councilwoman Tasco is doing right by the long term interests of the city. More big box development near Roosevelt Boulevard is tempting, but we won't really be happy with it. I hope she can make something a little more in the vein of Northern Liberties happen up there.
It's going on 22 years since Logan Triangle was declared a federal disaster area. This year, Councilwoman Marian Tasco was hoping to find a proposal that could integrate some housing with retail and commercial uses and possibly a community center. Instead, the two proposals that came back, one from Tower Investments and one from the Goldenberg Group, had the look and feel of a suburban, big-box shopping center, said Tasco's chief legislative aide, Derek Green.
Two community meetings were held in the last several months, and Tasco has asked the Planning Commission and the Redevelopment Authority to ask for another set of proposals.
While we can all see the need for the grid to make it out to the waterfront, don't forget that this is a big, big city and humane development can easily be undermined elsewhere. There's already too much suburban'ish junk in North and Northeast Philadelphia. Let's back up Tasco as she tries to stem the tide.
Logan Triangle
I saw that note about the Logan Triangle and was delighted by Councilwoman Tasco's reply. It seems that some of our leaders may actually be figuring out that it makes sense to support good urban planning.
I'd far rather see a small or even no development effort at Logan Triangle that a massive misguided plan that would occupy the land and prevent something more productive from being there in the long run. I park would be much better than a big box retailer.
--Mike
Weeds in the Sidewalk
The RFP Encouraged Big Box Retail
I just read the RFP for the Logan Triangle available at http://www.phila.gov/rfp/pdfs/Logan_RFP_April_2007.pdf, and as an urban planner I can state that the RFP clearly encouraged box retail. The RFP states in part "Respondents should submit proposals for redeveloping the site as a mixed-use site with predominantly commercial and retail uses." The RFP also summarizes findings of a well attended community meeting, noting that the residents wanted "major name stores, including supermarket, department store, and sit-down restaurant." A community and recreation center, senior housing, health clinic, and day care center were also mentioned as being wanted by the neighbors. There is other use information in the RFP, nearly all of which encouraged a large shopping center, with perhaps some secondary institutional uses. With the exception of senior housing, housing was barely mentioned, if it was mentioned at all, in the RFP.
I was not involved in any way in this project, and there is a very slight chance that the developers may have been given additional information by the RDA or Planning Commission about trying to build a more new urbanist or town center development, however, those concepts are never addressed in the RFP. My point is not to state that one of the proposals should have been accepted, rather that the RFP should have addressed design issues (which it did not) and should have better addressed site planning issues (which it did only in a very broad manner), and finally should have stated (using examples) if it wanted a town center design. The RFP appears to have had nominal if any input from the Planning Commission at least in regards to planning and design matters. A key issue is that the RFP appeared to not address many key issues and was focused on a project type that there was not a clear consensus for or strong political backing for. Hopefully planning will be more at the front of the Nutter administration and time and energy on large redevelopment projects can be done in a way that is well thought out and leads to a better process for the community and developers.
Great follow-up
Thanks for posting this! It's very illuminating!
---
The Russellian Incorporated Innovations Corporation
Lefty Homilies
Logan RFP - Case study on Development v. Planning
Brady, thanks for your post on this topic. In response to elp's earlier comment, the RFP did not lend itself to a more main street, urban center design. This is why the Councilwoman pulled the RFP and specifically requested the Planning Commission to draft design language for the RFP.
Although the Planning Commission, along with other City and City-related agencies were involved in the drafting of the RFP, OHCD and RDA were clearly driving the project. On various occasions, we invited the Planning Commission to meetings only to find out that they were never notified by other City agencies. Even though they offered input, it always seemed like they were the unwanted guests at the party. Unfortunately, this trend of devaluing the Planning Commission started during the Rendell Administration and has continued with Street. It appears that development trumps design.
However and from the Councilwoman's perspective, this development should be a true destination location for the community. With the adjacent Roosevelt Blvd./Expressway and Broad Street nearby, this community really deserves a great development project. Accordingly, we want to make sure that we do all that we can to do it right. Finally and to quote one of the Councilwoman's favorite sayings, "we should not move in haste and repent in leisure."
P.S. On another note, it's taken us forever to even get to this point. I could write a treatise on how this project has been stalled and delayed by various City interests.
Perhaps not a treatise
But maybe a post? It would be interesting.