The recent report on Southwest Center City (SWCC) posted on PlanPhilly, (created with support from the William Penn Foundation), addresses a pivotal development dynamic that has had, and will have, a more potent effect on the future of the city than virtually any single project -- however large. The story of the investments made, the social change that resulted, and their effects on Philadelphia, has repeated itself in many substantial neighborhoods: Spring Garden, Fairmount, Brewerytown, Spruce Hill, Powelton, Gray's Ferry, Bella Vista, Queen Village, Pennsport, Old City, and, more recently, in Northern Liberties and Fishtown. This list is hardly comprehensive as the spill-over confidence generated by these successful neighborhoods has affected individual and developer decisions to invest in many areas at the fringes of these, now more stable, areas and in areas much farther away from the cachet of Center City. The total scale of these investments is likely more than 1000 times the total housing development investments made by the city through various programs, largely federally funded, to supply low and moderate citizens with affordable housing. It is a scale of investment that is actually capable of improving/restoring the physical condition of entire neighborhoods. In a city with tens of thousands of vacant houses, vacant and obsolete factories and warehouses, and a vast supply of vacant lots it is inconceivable that public sector investment alone could address the physical problems facing our wonderful 300+ year old city. There are social consequences to these reinvestment processes, they are quite real and deserve effective attention, but the fundamental capability of the public sector to mitigate these consequences is extremely limited.
A few examples are telling. Detailed survey work, by the City Planning Commission (PCPC), in Queen Village (Lombard to Washington, Front to 6th) in 1975 found 642 vacant buildings in the area. Many of the occupied buildings were in horrific condition. Residents included a range of white and African American families, many of which were low income. Today, vacant properties are rare and few show the signs of significant dilapidation. In SWCC PCPC conducted a limited analysis in 1979 of housing transactions, i.e. selling prices year over year, for an eight block area from 18th to 22nd, South to Fitzwater, and found more than $30 million dollars in value increases in a four year period during which the city had renovated, for low income residents, less than a dozen homes. The investment ratio was at least 30 to 1. This entire area of the city, Lombard to Washington, Schuylkill River to I-95, known as South Central, was declared a Redevelopment Area, largely as a result of the radical disinvestment in the properties triggered by the planned expressway that would have leveled the entire swath South to Bainbridge, river to river. The expressway story is a very complex one extending from a doodle by the great architect Louis Kahn to vicious fighting among the corridor neighborhoods that had significant racial overtones. Ironically, the incredible renaissance of the eastern portion of South Street was made possible in large part by the depressed property values in the area caused by the expressway threat. As the SWCC study ably noted, these changes have morphed again and again.
It is difficult to imagine how to effectively deal with the social dislocation that is caused when these waves of investment reach a neighborhood housing a significant number of low income residents. It is surely true that these residents, particularly renters, are pushed out, sometimes openly by refusal to renew leases or by large increases in monthly rents, and sometimes less openly by owners who neglect properties until they are uninhabitable. These owners -- or the parties they will sell the buildings to -- know that a 'gut' renovation will be needed to meet the new market, so... why spend money on the building to keep it patched together for the present tenants? Are there bad guys and good guys? Maybe sometimes, but the problem is clearly economic. This writer has never been comfortable with the label 'gentrification' because the new arrivals are also solving a housing problem, albeit in a higher cost bracket, because they seek an urban living style, something clearly good for old rusty places like Philadelphia, but cannot afford neighborhoods like Society Hill or Rittenhouse and therefore expand their search to larger surroundings. When Spring Garden became too pricey Fairmount and Brewerytown became next best. Other examples of this sort exist around the city. The public sector has responded with substantial upgrades to public housing, a variety of focused housing subsidy programs for elderly and handicapped persons and with Section 8 rental subsidies among others. Section 8 remains controversial in Philadelphia because in some areas it has resulted in the transformation of solid homeowner neighborhoods into rental zones -- with oft cited destabilizing effects on certain areas. This may largely be a program management issue that may be correctable. In any case, the quantity of affordable housing needs to be increased but it is unrealistic to believe that a publicly subsidized housing system can meet all of these needs in the foreseeable future. Fundamental economic conditions must improve: schooling and meaningful employment will be the key issues in achieving success.
Kudos to the William Penn Foundation and to the authors of the SWCC study.
