Thursday, June 18, 2009

What is YOUR vision for Powelton Village?

At this critical moment in the history of Powelton Village, consensus among neighbors is key to successfully crafting a vision for the future. What is YOUR vision for the neighborhood? Should recommendations seek to be transformative or pragmatic? Can we do both?
The orange areas on the map show sites that are currently vacant or underutilized, or where some change is likely to occur. What should happen in these places? Should new retail and housing occur at a higher density along the Lancaster Avenue and Spring Garden corridors or should smaller, more decentralized neighborhood nodes occur throughout the neighborhood?

9 comments:

  1. I would say we need to think about transformative ideas within our capabilities. Obviously the neighborhood won't change overnight, but it would be nice if significant improvements could be realized at key locations.

    The land occupied by UCHS, Drew, and the Walnut center is completely underutilized and physically seperates us from the rest of University City. If the city could sell off portions of the property for private development, we might be able to see a stronger commercial corridor and better connections to shopping along Walnut Street.

    The corner of 31st and Spring Garden is abysmal between the auto shop and vacant land. I think the Southeast corner of 31st and Spring would make a great restaurant location, particularly with the view to Center City.

    Kimey's and the Super Deli need major incentives to spruce up the exteriors of their stores. Simple efforts could go along way in improving that stretch.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Iagree with mike z that our vision for the neighborhood should be transformative yet conservation minded. We need to position the Village to be relevant to the future and rethink how we use our beautiful stock of existing homes and structures. Would homeowners be interested in a large scale SOLAR energy and or wind energy project? Could poweltonians jump on the GREEN ENERGY wagon in a big way? How about geothermal? Grey water reuse. We have many like minded people but just need to be more organized and this doesnt have to just include homeowners but could extend to the other Stakeholders has well, Penn Drexel, the City, business owners!

    ReplyDelete
  3. 1) Lancaster Ave. is already a corridor, although poorly used. We should encourage better usage of the commercial properties.
    2) We have lost much of the neighborhood to the south of Powelton Ave. to Drexel. We should encourage investment in residential areas to the north to make a larger solid residential zone. This will clearly require collaborating with Mantua.
    3) Any new residential structures should have a reasonable set-back from the street in order to maintain the green character of the neighborhood.
    Scott Ryder & Douglas Ewbank

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm very excited about the prospect of Powelton Village being a leader in Philadelphia going green with solar by leasing solar equipment.

    Having met with Chris Metcalf of UEE, I'm interested in bringing this opportunity to the attention of as many people as possible:
    www dot go-uee dot com

    As for geothermal, that should certainly be part of the planning for any new construction done in the area. Retrofitting it doesn't seem to be cost effective. [Correct me if I'm wrong here, Frank.]

    Many years ago there was a grocery store and a hardware store on Haverford Avenue, and a pharmacy on Spring Garden Street. I think Haverford Avenue rather than Spring Garden street is the optimal target for future commercial development.

    Such development would both foster interaction between Powelton and Mantua residents, and reverse creeping desolation north of Spring Garden Street.

    I heartily concur that the "no-person's land" between Lancaster Avenue and Market Street along 38th Street most definitely needs development and activity.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree that Lancaster Ave already is a corridor. However, it surely needs to improve. I also think it makes sense to eventually create another corridor along Spring Garden. In order for these to become destinations for residents and non-residents, a critical mass would need to be reached. That certainly requires density.

    ReplyDelete
  6. UCD is targeting Lancaster Ave already for development. Until density increases greatly, we should focus on one to-be-successful area. Plus Lancaster Ave has more parking than Spring Garden and it is a dual-way street rather than one way like Spring Garden.

    PV should aim to be transformed: A dense green city neighborhood happily co-existing with university. Now if we can get the landlords to pitch in!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I fear little will change as long as simple problems can't be addressed. For instance, getting together to level out and re-lay our great but often decrepit brick sidewalks, and to eliminate any chainlink or delapidated fencing in the neighborhood (why do any of us need barbed wire, btw?).

    Sorry to keep sounding the pessimistic note, but UCD supplied planters, and trees were planted along Lanc. Ave., and many owners just let them die.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The "Neighborhood Nodes" photo/plan is incorrectly linked to the corridor plan when you try to enlarge it. Without seeing this alternative it is hard to make meaningful judgments and comments. Can someone please fix this. Thanks, Josh Markel

    ReplyDelete
  9. Josh, when I click on the image both maps appear. That being said, the information on the map is relatively lacking. I would add 36th and Lancaster as an important node within the neighborhood.

    ReplyDelete