FNA Zoning Committee Meeting: 1140 Shackamaxon St.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012 - 7:00pm to 7:30pm

A proposal for a mixed-use: restaurant with eat-in / takeout and 5 residential units.

The meeting will be held at the Fishtown Rec Center, 1202 E. Montgomery Ave. All residents of Fishtown are eligible to vote. Please bring proof of residence or business ownership in the form of a driver's license or a photo ID and a lease, utility bill, or recent piece of mail addressed to your home or business.

Comments

kwhln215's picture

Anything but that ugly lot that has been there for a few years .

Kenzo's picture

kwhln215 wrote:
Anything but that ugly lot that has been there for a few years .

Hear hear. Susky and Girard needs something nice on it to complete the corners.

Matt Benatar's picture

This lot was host to one of my favorite pieces of graffiti ever. It was a shirtless thugs tag. It read "SHIRT IS PAIN."
Honorable mention goes to the side of a house on Mercer st. that read "Winkin' at your mother."
Idiots crack me up.

dan

kwhln215 wrote:
Anything but that ugly lot that has been there for a few years .

whew.
for a minute there I thought I was back on one of the Quizzo threads.

TheTracyL's picture

I'm really excited about this one. I walk past that lot every day and dream about something cool going in there. I'm planning on going to the meeting.

ShackyStreet's picture

I walk by this lot every morning, and it is an eye sore along with the graffiti.
I believe the notice states a "Grocery Store with attached apartments." Unless I read this wrong. But do we really need another grocery store? Penn Treaty Food Market (I know, don't say it) on the same block and a 7-Eleven up a block. A parking lot would have been a better idea, since now there is no parking on this street for the residents who live here, since this block doesn't yet have the permit required for parking.

codergrrl's picture

I thought they did have permit parking there. I must have been mistaken.

lighterthief's picture

much needed infill development that will help Girard along as a strong commercial corridor

perfect place for multi-unit mix use - major corridor, close to transit

bingo's picture

this is right next to the el, trolley, buses. parking should not be the deciding factor here, deal with it. mixed-use is what is needed at this corner. who cares about penn treaty, with superfresh, 7/11 and deal$-- it's already basically dead. rumor has it on other blogs that palm tree is looking to open yet another location here.

fuzzybottoms's picture

bingo wrote:
rumor has it on other blogs that palm tree is looking to open yet another location here.

I believe this is the case (at least from what was presented at the screening meeting for the zoning committee).

codergrrl's picture

Sweet.

ShackyStreet's picture

bingo, on your comment: "parking should not be the deciding factor here, deal with it". Do you even own a car or live on or around this street? Have you even been in this vicinity on a Friday or Saturday night? Go to any of the bars, Murph's Bar, East Girard Gastropub, Johnny Brenda's, or even Frankford Hall? Probably not.
Where are these people from the 5 new residental units going to park? So I'm gonna say, "Parking is a big factor, until this street becomes permit parking." And if Shackamaxon doesn't get permit parking soon, it will only get worse. You probably don't have all those non-permit parkers parking on your block or to even realize what it is like to come home after work to NO parking on your block, which forces you to ride around the block several times just to find a spot. And when you do, you are almost down on Delaware Ave.
True the location is convenient, but there are other locations on Girard Avenue that are just as good.
Here is also a link of what the building might look like: http://www.phillyliving.com/buy/5639800-1140-44-SHACKAMAXON-ST-Philadelphia-PA#

bingo's picture

uhmmmm i live down the street. when i moved to the city, I GOT RID OF MY CAR. best thing i ever did! haven't had a car for nearly 4 years and LOVE still managed to survive.

bingo's picture

"probably not" uh, what do you think, i slog my way up to Crapplebee's for an an'us burger or something? of course i have frequented every place you have listed.

george's picture

I would think it's a near certainty that block of Shackamaxon will have permit parking at some point...at least up to the 1-95 overpass.

As for the Palm Tree rumors, I certainly hope that's true. I've found all of them to be clean, well-managed, and staffed with polite people. They carry a lot of cool, out of the ordinary stuff, too.

TLP's picture

Permit parking doesn't make sense on the 1100 block of Shackamaxon. Nearly half of the properties are empty lots (being developed into houses with rear parking) on the north side and old garage fronts and that construction storage yard on the south side. Permit parking would lock up more spaces than the residents need. This is what happened on the 1000 block, now that the entire stretch under 95 is signed for 2 hour parking.

bingo's picture

...and permit parking will be a breeze, so long as your neighbors aren't committing insurance fraud. if all the jersey plates were gone from my street, there'd be parking all the time.

FishtownYo's picture

bingo wrote:
uhmmmm i live down the street. when i moved to the city, I GOT RID OF MY CAR. best thing i ever did! haven't had a car for nearly 4 years and LOVE still managed to survive.

I can't stand statements like this and let me guess, you don't watch tv, eat mayo, probably ride a 10 speed and ignore traffic signals.

And the Palm has been rumored for at least 5 years and I'll be amazed if it happens

codergrrl's picture

The parking around there is more a problem due to the fact that everyone parks and hops on the el..so its packed all day, and then there's a brief period of time when the spots open up again, before the bar crowd comes and takes them over again. There is a brief window of opportunity for the people who live there, but yo, I got the same problem on Belgrade street, and no benefit of a reason other than overcrowding.

bingo's picture

yea no, i'm not a crusty hipster. i actually wear a helmet and stop at stop signs, i have no idea what a fixie is or how to ride one, and i yell expletives at idiots who ride their bikes on the sidewalk. mayo is kinda gross, though. i prefer mustard and ketchup. :)

ShackyStreet's picture

Just askin a question. And you answered it. I would love to get rid of my car, but unfortunately where I work, I require a car.
Glad to hear that you are a supporter of our local restaurants and not that CrappleBee's!

lighterthief's picture

parking will be an increasing problem/issue and ultimately permit parking will be more and more common despite it's imperfections. In a case like this I think the benefit of bringing more activity and residents to the corridor and the very close transit access make it a rare case in which the potential burden of extra cars is outweighed. It is equally ludicrous to pretend that nobody should drive and that anyone who lives near transit wont need to own a car as it is to use parking as a reason to stop all development. When off street parking can be included on site without significantly compromising the appropriate use of the site it should be. Unfortunately most of our parcels are too small to accommodate both off street parking and a reasonable level of density.

Kenzo's picture

If you want to see a real neighborhood that has legitimate parking problems, wait til 5:45PM and go start looking for a parking spot in Fairmount.

Don't worry, I'll wait.

bozoloper's picture

Kenzo wrote:
If you want to see a real neighborhood that has legitimate parking problems, wait til 5:45PM and go start looking for a parking spot in Fairmount.

Don't worry, I'll wait.

when i lived off of spring garden and worked in the burbs i used to spend hours trying to find a spot.

bingo's picture

what bothers me is when people hear a proposal like this, then automatically assume that 5 apartments = 10-12 more cars on the street. yes, some people need cars for work or medical reason... but not everyone has 2,3 cars per household, and sometimes not even one.

everybody wants their car, doesn't want to accept the normal burdens of car ownership in the city, but no one wants other people with cars moving in. however, i would like to think given the location/proximity to transit options, that such apartments in question would attract some people who don't need or want a car.

roma258's picture

Not trying to be glib, but do the residents who live near Frankford and Girard have an expectation of easy parking next to their house? I mean, these are the two main commercial avenues of the neighborhood. Assuming things are going well, you're going to have new businesses that will inevitably increase traffic and use street parking. What's the expectation of people who buy houses there?

fuzzybottoms's picture

The other thing that should be taken into account is the size of the lot. Yes, 5 homes are being built on it but the lot can definitely handle building of that size. This is not the same as converting a single-family home into 3 units (for those who are specifically opposed to that).

eileen's picture

Palm is no longer owned by Mr Park, and neither is this parcel. At the original zoning meeting this parcel was to have 2 apartments and a deli/eat in establishment. I, more so than others, would like to eliminate this eyesore. However, 5 apartments??? And a deli??? We have seen the deli across the street (JR???) fail twice and the nice place (can't remember the name) also close. Obviously, the area is not supportive of a deli. So...another business fails and what are we left with? Five apartments with a possible 10 cars. I live in the immediate vacinity and frequently drive around for over 1/2 hour when I come home from work on a Thurs night looking for a parking space. There is a 2 hour limit on Girard Ave that is rarely enforced. So much for parking permits.
Again, I would love to see something done with that lot. The owners need to take responsability for its upkeep, which is nonexistant. But the remedy is not 5 apartments (unless they have off-street parking) and another deli.

Matt Benatar's picture

bozoloper wrote:
Kenzo wrote:
If you want to see a real neighborhood that has legitimate parking problems, wait til 5:45PM and go start looking for a parking spot in Fairmount.

Don't worry, I'll wait.

when i lived off of spring garden and worked in the burbs i used to spend hours trying to find a spot.

I live in he immediate vicinity of this project, and before that I've lived at 4th and Catherine, and at 20th and Green. I've always thought local expectations of parking in front of your own home were pretty goofy. The furthest I've ever had to park from my house is two blocks, and that's very exceptional, like if I come home at midnight on a Saturday and JBs has a sold-out show and it's rainy.
Admittedly, the parking has gotten a little tougher. Still, it's no reason to keep a weed and trash filled lot in place. Just enforce the parking. At any moment, there are about 20 illegally parked cars on Girard between Frankford and Richmond Ave. (you know, where the 26th precinct is) and I've never seen anything done about it. Since there are no PPA signs, it's the 26th's responsibility to go down the street from their precinct and feign caring for ten minutes.

jbette01's picture

A little more detail on this project - the building would now include 5 apartments that are around 1200 square feet. As you can imagine, this fits with the character of the neighborhood more than a couple monsters that could potentially remain vacant.

Palm Tree has been looking for a couple years, definitely not 5. They make their money on finished take out (MTO sandwiches) and specialty goods (vegan, high end). This is not going after take Penn Treaty's market share, but it will challenge them to improve. Keep in mind Trax's business has to go somewhere. I am actually more concerned about the impact on Fran's (Primo) than PTM.

Part of living in a changing, developing neighborhood means parking will become more difficult. As commercial corridors fill, there is really no way to avoid this entirely. I know that makes some people upset, but what you lose in parking you may get in property value, convenience of goods, safety and community investment.

Kenzo's picture

jbette01 wrote:
Part of living in a changing, developing neighborhood means parking will become more difficult. As commercial corridors fill, there is really no way to avoid this entirely. I know that makes some people upset, but what you lose in parking you may get in property value, convenience of goods, safety and community investment.

Them's fighting words.

I actually sat in a Point Breeze zoning meeting full of mad people who were defending drug corners, vacant dirt lots with cars up on blocks, shells and commercial cooridors of shuttered storefronts and Chinese take-outs that look like check cashing stores on the inside with two sets of metal caging sandwhiched between 1" thick bulletproof Lexan where you have to scream into a hole to place your order.

jbette01's picture

Kenzo wrote:
jbette01 wrote:
Part of living in a changing, developing neighborhood means parking will become more difficult. As commercial corridors fill, there is really no way to avoid this entirely. I know that makes some people upset, but what you lose in parking you may get in property value, convenience of goods, safety and community investment.

Them's fighting words.

Trust me, I know. And yes, I get that it is easy for me to say because it doesnt affect me everyday. Its difficult, the intangible benefits are just that - very difficult to quantify and even hard to remember when your walk to your car is now 2 blocks instead of 20 feet.

I should say I am not for or against this project on the outset, I genuinely try my best to go into the meetings without a bias so I can make the best decision for the neighborhood.

Kenzo's picture

This is my default answer to what I hear most often in zoning meetings and ZBA hearings: the argument that everyone's taxes will go up.

BEFORE the City planned to do the full value assessments, nobody who had original condition property ever saw their taxes zoom skyward to match the property next door with the granite countertops and the european design toilets. Especially if the square footage of the new property is way higher than the complainant's property. It just, never, ever happened.

City Council has always been nervous about demographic change of any kind: race, age, or income. That destabilizes their voting base. This just happened a few months ago when Frank Rizzo Jr. lost his job on City Council because he never bothered to pander to the new demographic relocating to the Lower Northeast--they saw no reason to vote for him and his voter base of elderly folks is dying off or moving out.

But now that the City is doing FVA -- guess what? All of our taxes are going up. For some of us, way the hell up. And that's because the City is trying to fix assessments that have been broken for a very long time. On blocks of identical houses that have hundreds and some have thousands of dollars of difference in taxes you're going to have some unhappy campers. So you added a side yard and a roofdeck to your house 9 years ago--do you expect to pay the same dollar amount as the original next door to you, forever? You're dreaming. The little man with the clipboard is coming.

I mean I guess you could take a wrecking ball to your house before the guy with the clipboard gets here---or for practical purposes: if you had plans to renovate, to put that work off until after "Passover".

Look at other neighborhoods in Philadelphia where the property taxes cost the fraction of the annual cost of satellite TV: they're crapholes where you'd probably have to sleep in your bathtub at night to avoid a stay bullet coming through your house. You pay a premium to avoid living in a neighborhood like that.

Why do you think the suburbs have super-high property taxes? People think they're safer and have better schools so they bid more for the houses out there, so they pay out the wazoo in taxes to live out there. Look at New Jersey... most of us if we moved to Pennsauken with the same priced house we have here in Philly, the extra property tax we would pay would far outstrip what most of us pay in City Wage Tax.

Kenzo's picture

The follow up response I've heard when I've said this at meetings is "why is the City trying to price us out?"

The answer: Philadelphia is broke. The City's pension plan is now down to 40% funding on its obligations and it has some massive bond payments coming due around 2015 and beyond. If the City raises the Wage Tax to the Rizzo high of nearly 5%, you will see a mass exodus like the 1970s of working class people AND a lot of the professionals jumping across the city line, which will rapidly bankrupt the city.

If Philadelphia allowed the City Pension Plan to default, shut the plan and convert the assets into a 401(k) plan--then none of our taxes would go up. But since 90% of all City workers live in the City, does anybody honestly believe that District 33/AFSCME or the voting base would be OK with the City dissolving the pension plan? Of course not. It would be more chaotic and people would be upset than Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ, combined.

Think: riots in Center City.

This rock-and-a-hard place dilemma has made it politically possible for the City to fix the BRT. No politician when you were a kid would mess with the BRT or how it operated because that was the 3rd rail of Philadelphia politics; messing with property assessments that dramatically impact seniors more than anyone else. But unless you want to see the City Pension Plan go into default and the Feds and Harrisburg aren't going to bail the city out, then the City has to look at the broken property tax system.

On top of that, Philadelphia has the cheapest property taxes in the region. In most metropolitain areas in the US, the core City usually has higher property taxes than its suburbs. But in Philadelphia it's the extreme opposite. The 45+ years of corruption in the BRT, jacked assessments and favoritism has to be erased in order to fix the system so it becomes a stable revenue source for the City and the SDP.

The SDP relies heavily on your property taxes to back up the state and federal funding it gets. Property tax revenue has dropped dramatically because of foreclosures and the recession. But there has been development going on in Philadelphia this whole time and the City has not captured much of that revenue and it has to do that to maintain basic services.

And finally, our property taxes compared to the suburbs are still going to be cheaper than the suburbs after this is all over. It's just not going to be a 75% discount over New Jersey like it's been, historically.

Kenzo's picture

jbette01 wrote:

Trust me, I know. And yes, I get that it is easy for me to say because it doesnt affect me everyday. Its difficult, the intangible benefits are just that - very difficult to quantify and even hard to remember when your walk to your car is now 2 blocks instead of 20 feet.

I should say I am not for or against this project on the outset, I genuinely try my best to go into the meetings without a bias so I can make the best decision for the neighborhood.

I know people will get upset over this suggestion, but there is ample room to install a parking garage around the Front/Girard intersection.

Preferably: A Front Street SEPTA garage, intended for commuters of course but in reality it will be bar parking for the establishments on Girard and Frankford Ave.

SEPTA should own/run the garage like it owns the gigantic one at Bridge & Pratt and charge $90 monthlies. That would take off the pressure of street parking plus it would give less excuses for people to pavement park.

Otherwise, expect to see property owners installing bollards everywhere as storefronts fill up and vacant lots fill in.

sdm's picture

Kenzo wrote:
jbette01 wrote:

Trust me, I know. And yes, I get that it is easy for me to say because it doesnt affect me everyday. Its difficult, the intangible benefits are just that - very difficult to quantify and even hard to remember when your walk to your car is now 2 blocks instead of 20 feet.

I should say I am not for or against this project on the outset, I genuinely try my best to go into the meetings without a bias so I can make the best decision for the neighborhood.

I know people will get upset over this suggestion, but there is ample room to install a parking garage around the Front/Girard intersection.

Preferably: A Front Street SEPTA garage, intended for commuters of course but in reality it will be bar parking for the establishments on Girard and Frankford Ave.

SEPTA should own/run the garage like it owns the gigantic one at Bridge & Pratt and charge $90 monthlies. That would take off the pressure of street parking plus it would give less excuses for people to pavement park.

Otherwise, expect to see property owners installing bollards everywhere as storefronts fill up and vacant lots fill in.

Capital idea.

Kenzo's picture

Better still: SEPTA could cut a deal to allow valet parking in its own garage for a fee and make a profit off it. To keep the parking garage from being too high, they could dig a hole 2 or 3 stories deep and reserve 2 floors for valet and monthlies and leave the above-grade floors for self parkers. 500 spaces would go a long, long way and it would be years before there would be need for a second garage.

The garage would also be a defense against allowing any more surface lots in the neighborhood.

Southbounddown's picture

Kenzo wrote:

On top of that, Philadelphia has the cheapest property taxes in the region. In most metropolitain areas in the US, the core City usually has higher property taxes than its suburbs. But in Philadelphia it's the extreme opposite.

Not true. Most American cities, especially older northeast cities, have lower property taxes than their surrounding burbs.

cjphilly's picture

I have to disagree here. The last thing SEPTA needs to be doing is subsidizing a solution for localized parking problems. That money would be better spent improving the existing system in an attempt to reduce the need for so many cars in the first place.

Lauraska's picture

The parking argument is old...and selfish. This is a city. You don't own the spot in front of your house, or any spot on your block for that matter. Trust me, it's not fun to pull up to my house with a car full of groceries and my kid in the back and see that the spot in front of my house is full. AND I've engaged in spot-saving during heavy snows. The difference is that I'm not about to a) slash anyone's tires if they move my spot-savers and take the spot or b) oppose the growth and development of my community because I'm simply too lazy to walk down the street to my car. It is possible to double park for a minute to unload groceries or handicapped people. It's not convenient, but not everything in life is always convenient.

Sorry to get all "Lovey" about this, but I'm constantly amazed when I hear people bellyache about an abandoned lot being turned into something productive because it means they might not be able to park right next to their front door. You'd rather have an empty lot filled with needles? Or a shell house that is constantly full of squatters? Any positive change is going to bring more people, which means more cars. But the idea that people would prefer to keep the dumpiness is mind-boggling.

PS Not all "delis" are the same. And the vast majority of them are not the Penn Treaty Market. So making comparisons between what might go in there and a dump like PTM is a little dramatic.

codergrrl's picture

My neighbor, actually has cones he puts out when he's expecting company. Its hysterical.
We pull right in an move them. If it makes him feel better, I'll go sit in his house for awhile!
(He says he doesn't care if the people on the street park there, he's saving spots for all of us...its his mission.)

lighterthief's picture

I'v thought about striping my block and assigning spaces, mainly because my neighbors don't have good parking space conservation skills and leave 1/2 spots all over the place. Someday I may have to take down my big old tree and pave the side-yard so I can park 3-4 cars in tandem. Kidding, but it has crossed my mind

per Laura's statement above, I partially agree, and as stated in this case the benefit of development seems to outweigh any parking issue. Lack of parking can become a real quality of life issue though. My old neighborhood I often had to circle for 45 min to park if I got home from work after 7 (parking did not open up til the bars closed at 4 - scary thought) just to have to park on a dark scary access road 8 blocks from my apt and have to move the car by 8am the next day. This really sucked (the other stratgy generally used for more patient people was to idle on the block you wanted to park on until a spot opened).
If new development can help mitigate parking issues by containing cars on site without compromising the streetscape I think it is good. Overly dense development without parking will ultimately cause problems.

Having some sort of parking reservoir for excess cars is not a bad thing, i can imagine a day when alot of people leave their cars under 95. this would not be bad necessarily.

codergrrl's picture

lighterthief wrote:
Having some sort of parking reservoir for excess cars is not a bad thing, i can imagine a day when alot of people leave their cars under 95. this would not be bad necessarily.

We do that anytime they're expecting alot of snow.

Kenzo's picture

cjphilly wrote:
I have to disagree here. The last thing SEPTA needs to be doing is subsidizing a solution for localized parking problems. That money would be better spent improving the existing system in an attempt to reduce the need for so many cars in the first place.

Show me a European capital that isn't congested with cars.

You can't get rid of them. If they cost $285,000 USD; sure Philly would be Ho Chi Minh City where everyone is on a Vespa and diagonally parked so there's 6 spots per house.

There is no reason to keep trash-strewn lots because of a fear of parking. Neither should we embrase suburban-style New Jersey development with border shrubbery and microscopic asphalt lots surrounding a building, catching plastic bags in the breeze.

And there's not enough people with spare time on their hands to maintain a ton of scattered lots with raised planters growing tomatos, either.

We're designed to be a dense neighborhood and it should remain dense. I'm just sayin' that we could do with a commuter garage at the Girard Station to take the pressure off of street parking, with some good signage on Frankford Ave and on Girard directing visitors to the garage, and a program set up to use the garage for valet for business.

There's plenty of ugly crap next to the EL that is ripe to be demolished and replaced with a non-descript parking garage that most no-one will even notice if it's located west of Front Street. If you put in monthlies you'll probably also get some residents putting their cars off the street because they would gladly pay for the extra security and less hassle with neighbors fighting over spots or jumping the pavement.

If you visit Bridge & Pratt you'll also realize a lot of car-dependent Northeast residents park there daily to commute to Center City. I'm not saying we should put in a mega-garage like the one up there, probably one that has half its floors buried underground in a hole so that way it doesn't tower over Fishtown.

Besides, putting in a garage will only INCREASE the traffic on the EL. It would also probably contribute to some extra free spaces in Center City if the price was set right--people would cut short their driving and park there vs. paying to park downtown.

austen's picture

Given how Front St looks south of Girard, and how many folks drive and park there to take the El (and I am one of them), I think that a few low-rise parking garages are an EXCELLENT idea. Have monthly spaces, valet spaces, and then the rest open up.

If even half of the things that are proposed for Frankford succeed in development, the cars will have to go somewhere.

codergrrl's picture

Especially in that mishegoss of desolation under there by TipTop.

Jordan's picture

We need an internet gambling cafe.

fuzzybottoms's picture

Just a (friendly) reminder that this meeting is tonight.

stbenjamin's picture

Kenzo wrote:
cjphilly wrote:
I have to disagree here. The last thing SEPTA needs to be doing is subsidizing a solution for localized parking problems. That money would be better spent improving the existing system in an attempt to reduce the need for so many cars in the first place.

Show me a European capital that isn't congested with cars.

You can't get rid of them. If they cost $285,000 USD; sure Philly would be Ho Chi Minh City where everyone is on a Vespa and diagonally parked so there's 6 spots per house.

There is no reason to keep trash-strewn lots because of a fear of parking. Neither should we embrase suburban-style New Jersey development with border shrubbery and microscopic asphalt lots surrounding a building, catching plastic bags in the breeze.

And there's not enough people with spare time on their hands to maintain a ton of scattered lots with raised planters growing tomatos, either.

We're designed to be a dense neighborhood and it should remain dense. I'm just sayin' that we could do with a commuter garage at the Girard Station to take the pressure off of street parking, with some good signage on Frankford Ave and on Girard directing visitors to the garage, and a program set up to use the garage for valet for business.

There's plenty of ugly crap next to the EL that is ripe to be demolished and replaced with a non-descript parking garage that most no-one will even notice if it's located west of Front Street. If you put in monthlies you'll probably also get some residents putting their cars off the street because they would gladly pay for the extra security and less hassle with neighbors fighting over spots or jumping the pavement.

If you visit Bridge & Pratt you'll also realize a lot of car-dependent Northeast residents park there daily to commute to Center City. I'm not saying we should put in a mega-garage like the one up there, probably one that has half its floors buried underground in a hole so that way it doesn't tower over Fishtown.

Besides, putting in a garage will only INCREASE the traffic on the EL. It would also probably contribute to some extra free spaces in Center City if the price was set right--people would cut short their driving and park there vs. paying to park downtown.

I always thought an office building on one of the big lots south of Girard and east of Front, with a garage on floors 2-4 so no one was staring at the El or 95, would be a good use of the land. That is if enough tenants could be found.

TLP's picture

I'm torn over the idea for commuter/long-term parking garages along Front to serve the el. It's as good a place as any for them, but I'd hate to see Girard turned into even more of an extended highway off-ramp. Do we want to encourage people even more to use the Girard exit as an escape to avoid paying for parking in CC?

stbenjamin's picture

TLP wrote:
I'm torn over the idea for commuter/long-term parking garages along Front to serve the el. It's as good a place as any for them, but I'd hate to see Girard turned into even more of an extended highway off-ramp. Do we want to encourage people even more to use the Girard exit as an escape to avoid paying for parking in CC?

Good point, some parking would be good (for people in PR or Kensington who live too far to walk to the El), but too much would be a detriment to the community.

fnazoning's picture

The neighbors voted to support this project 31-5. The vote for those within 500 feet was 14-5 in support and the vote for those outside that area was 17-0.

Iceman's picture

So what's actually going to be there? Palm and apartments? The first listing said restaurant, so I wasn't sure if Palm constitutes a restaurant?

fuzzybottoms's picture

It will be Palm + 5 condos/apartments.

stbenjamin's picture

I would love for Palm to get a deli/take-out beer license, though I doubt that is likely.

TheTracyL's picture

Regarding parking: Our buildings at 204-206 East Girard (just a few doors down from this project) added 4 new apartments to the area and only 1 of our tenants has a car. One has a scooter and the rest have bicycles.

I don't think 5 apartments necessarily = 5 new cars to the block. Most of our tenants use the El to get to work. I think the close proximity of our area to the El & Trolley attracts people who use public trans.

Half of our employees that work @ YIKES use public trans and the number of car users goes down when it's nice out and people ride bikes.

TLP's picture

stbenjamin wrote:
I would love for Palm to get a deli/take-out beer license, though I doubt that is likely.

That really would be nice and convenient, but it wasn't in their plans so far. I'm not sure what the process is if they decide to add that in the future. They might not even have enough space in their store either for additional fridges?

jbette01's picture

TheTracyL wrote:
Regarding parking: Our buildings at 204-206 East Girard (just a few doors down from this project) added 4 new apartments to the area and only 1 of our tenants has a car. One has a scooter and the rest have bicycles.

I don't think 5 apartments necessarily = 5 new cars to the block. Most of our tenants use the El to get to work. I think the close proximity of our area to the El & Trolley attracts people who use public trans.

Half of our employees that work @ YIKES use public trans and the number of car users goes down when it's nice out and people ride bikes.

Interesting info. Thanks Tracy.