The Philadelphia Housing Authority will seize nearly 1,300 properties for a major urban renewal project in the city’s Sharswood neighborhood. The plan includes the demolition of two of the neighborhood’s three high-rise public housing buildings — the Blumberg towers — that will be replaced with a large mixed-income development. The new buildings will increase the neighborhood population tenfold with the majority of the new units to be affordable housing.
The majority of the 1,300 lots slated for eminent domain are currently vacant. At a City Council hearing on Tuesday, Philadelphia Housing Authority CEO Kelvin Jeremiah testified that the redevelopment plan furthers the agency’s efforts to replace high-rise housing projects with lower-density units. However, PHA’s plan misses the forest for the trees. The benefits of demolishing the two towers are immediately undone by creating an entire neighborhood of public housing, effectively increasing the concentration of poverty in Sharswood.
Adam Lang has lived in Sharswood for 10 years, and he posted about the plan in the Market Urbanism Facebook group. Adam has raised concerns that the PHA does not have an accurate number of how many of the 1,300 properties in the redevelopment territory are currently occupied. Adam’s primary residence is not under threat of eminent domain, however he owns four lots that are. He uses two lots adjacent to his home as his yard. The other two are a shell and a vacant lot. He purchased them, ironically, from the city with the plan to turn them into rentals.
Adam’s concern about the inaccuracy of PHA’s vacancy statistics stem from the method that PHA employees used to create their estimate: driving by homes to see if they look occupied or not. Adam’s own property was on the list of vacants, and he said that he’s aware of other properties in the neighborhood that PHA identified as vacant but are actually lived in. Nichole Tillman, Executive Vice President of Communications for PHA disagreed:
PHA entered into an interagency agreement with the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority (PRA) in March 2014 to perform eminent domain services on behalf of PHA. They are very skilled in these matters.
[…]
The overwhelming majority of parcels are vacant land or structures. The PRA projects that approximately 70 structures, or 6% are occupied, and the occupants include homeowners, renters, and businesses.
Sharswood is adjacent to the neighborhood of Brewerytown, a rapidly gentrifying area. Sharswood, however, retains many blighted properties and as of 2008 its median income was about 20-percent lower than Brewerytown’s. Adam posits that Sharswood’s prevalence of abandoned properties relative to Brewerytown is driven by the presence of run-down PHA properties and their attendant crime and poverty. “Sharswood hasn’t gentrified so much because of PHA and other subsidized housing, much of it blighted,” he said. The PHA’s redevelopment plan, if realized, will result in a large population increase in the neighborhood, with 83-percent of the new housing designated as affordable units, according the Jeremiah’s testimony.
Adam supports the PHA plan to demolish the high-rise housing projects. Based on his experience visiting residents of the towers, he said, “it’s amazing that the government would house human beings in there.” However, he’s also against the drastic increase in public-housing in the neighborhood that would further concentrate low-income housing in Sharswood. “It will look like it’s done a lot of good,” he said “because new buildings always look better, but the issue will be over time because PHA has an atrocious maintenance record.”
Tillman countered:
In recent years, PHA has demonstrated a proven track record of success in developing and maintaining, low density, cost effective, and energy efficient units that are consistent with the respective neighborhoods. PHA has a large and effective maintenance program. Challenges that face PHA in regards to maintenance are largely due to funding and considerable large aging housing stock.
Sharswood’s redevelopment will be financed with a combination of local money and funds from HUD’s Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grants. The first Choice Neighborhood grants were awarded in 2011 for city agencies to undertake redevelopment studies. Now HUD is giving much larger implementation grants to cities across the country, including $30 million for redevelopment in North Philadelphia where Sharswood is located. In the first phase of the project, the Inquirer reports that construction will begin on 57 affordable rental units at a cost of $21 million, or nearly $370,000 per unit in construction costs alone.
Jane Jacobs would have called this arrangement “cataclysmic money” because a large influx of cash from the local and federal governments will finance rapid redevelopment. If redevelopment happened from the bottom up, with residents gradually purchasing homes and businesses and fixing them up, the neighborhood would house greater diversity, which, Jacobs argued, was crucial for a healthy neighborhood. The plan will result in many new housing units, all built in quick succession, and many for a specific income level. This is not the diversity that will allow for the neighborhood to age successfully, nor will it facilitate a diversity of uses. This type of cataclysmic public housing development has a long, failed history in the United States.
Tillman said that PHA’s plan are a departure from disastrous slum clearance efforts of the past:
Many of the failures that are chronicled revolve around the federal model of public housing high-rises constructed during the 50’s and 60’s that isolated neighborhoods and residents, making it hard for them to get to work and to receive services, and also make them vulnerable to criminal activity. Post World War Two, there was a housing shortage that affected everybody. High-rises were an efficient way to build modern apartments for families in need, very often on relatively small footprints, but other times over superblocks.
While just about any urban observer would support PHA’s plan to demolish the Blumberg towers, their tabula rasa plan to redevelop the neighborhood from the top down robs the neighborhood of the chance to develop sustainable market-rate affordable housing. Any city-led redevelopment spanning an entire neighborhood and relying on hundreds of millions in federal funding will fail to create the diverse, organic neighborhood that Jacobs espoused.
kclo3 says
Would anyone seriously call towers-in-a-park an efficient design? Or were they built, as Jacobs detailed, solely as a reactionary measure to create a moat around a “blighted” street? Even in terms of public housing, one can see the vast improvement that care towards “eyes on the street” brings with the 1935 Carl Mackley Houses, now successfully redeveloped into privately-owned affordable housing.
Adam Lang says
Thanks for covering this, Emily. There are a variety of responses in there from Tillman at PHA that are pretty mind-boggling.
“PHA entered into an interagency agreement with the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority (PRA) in March 2014 to perform eminent domain services on behalf of PHA. They are very skilled in these matters.”
The house I live in they have marked vacant. Erik Solivan from PHA even admitted at the local civic association meeting that they were drive-by inspections.
“The overwhelming majority of parcels are vacant land or structures.”
Which gets to the bigger issue that the City of Philadelphia and PHA don’t discuss… WHY there is so much vacant land in that neighborhood.
It’s because they bulldozed it and hoarded it and wouldn’t let it go back into private circulation for decades.
“In recent years, PHA has demonstrated a proven track record of success in developing and maintaining, low density, cost effective, and energy efficient units that are consistent with the respective neighborhoods. PHA has a large and effective maintenance program. Challenges that face PHA in regards to maintenance are largely due to funding and considerable large aging housing stock.”
This is the most ridiculous of her comments.
First, she is basically saying “ignore the last 50 years of failure and only look at the new construction over the last 5 or so.
Second, “cost effective”. Their Phase 1 project is $370K PER UNIT!
Third, she says “PHA has a large and effective maintenance program.” and in THE NEXT SENTENCE says “Challenges that face PHA in regards to maintenance are largely due to funding and considerable large aging housing stock.”
So do you have an effective program or is it underfunded? If it is because of the size of the housing stock, how does adding another 100+ units help?
Fourth, “Post World War Two, there was a housing shortage that affected everybody. High-rises were an efficient way to build modern apartments for families in need”
The Blumberg towers were built in 1969. In addition, People live perfectly fine in high rises. Manhattan isn’t “Escape From New York” because of high rises. High rises from Housing Authorities are a problem because they have poor maintenance track records and actively concentrate poverty into one area. It is hard to believe that mutliplying the residents by 5, but over several more blocks is going to solve that problem.
It is important for the reader to know, this project is over a 4 block by 6 block area.
Judith Robinson says
Thank you Adam Lang ! Please people ,Call President of City Council Darrell Clarke 215-686-2070 …With your support this can be paused for input from the people!!!
Judith Robinson says
Soooo True!
RoamDawG says
I would also like to stress that this plan eschews adaptive reuse of older (modest though attractive) buildings in favor of building faux-suburban schlock and faux Victorian rubbish (still better than a G-Ho special (for those familiar with the Philadelphia-centric term)). PHA consistently builds extremely anti-urban designs because of the out-dated belief that putting black people too close to one another is the reason why they commit crimes (plenty of low-density ghettos in Flint and Detroit should be proof enough). Not only will this bar market-rate housing from the area (as the PHA has in the vast area between Temple University and Kensington), but it will also result in an unattractive neighborhood that lacks vibrancy and irresponsible turns its back upon its history.
Steve S. says
The problem is that Darrell Clarke wants this project. He’s doubtless thinking of the Richard Allen Homes redevelopment from the early- mid-’90s, and subsidized-housing redevelopment to its west, as his model here.
The irony is, precisely what are bugs for urbanists are features for Councilman Clarke, whose core constituency is, let’s face it, not the inhabitants of the southern quarter or so of his District.
Adam Lang says
And as I point out to people that bring up Richard Allen, the two projects are completely different.
With Richard Allen, the bulldozed and dropped the amount of housing units from about 2000 to 700. They deconcentrated poverty.
With Sharswood they are INCREASING the amount of units.
Steve S. says
I agree that the increase of units = concentration of poverty*, and in fact I would like to point out that the stretch of 13th St. that runs through the East Poplar annex** to the Allen homes was, a few years ago, the city’s most dangerous relative to local population.
My point is, as far as Darrell Clarke is concerned, that is a feature, not a bug. Remember that people who live in units like these are his core constituents — not people who live in Fairmount or Logan Square or Spring Garden.
____________
* Unless enough of the units are “market-rate” to drive the overall count of “affordable” units down anyway.
** I would also point out that the East Poplar development — also concentrating on “affordable” units — was done in tandem with the Allen Homes’ redevelopment (as detailed in Fixing Broken Cities). Which leads to an interesting question: Are the Allen Homes and East Poplar units put together, today, more or less than the historic Allen Homes’?
FrancisvilleMGD says
There’s only one reason he’s so aggressively behind this project, and we all know what that is.