When it comes to development issues, Cherelle Parker must think broadly about Philly’s growth | Editorial

Cherelle Parker was talking up her plans to bolster public safety in Philadelphia long before she sought the Democratic nomination for mayor. Now that she’s won the primary, Parker has given little indication of how, as the city’s chief executive, she would handle another contentious issue: development.

As a district councilmember, Parker had a strong record of delivering for homeowners in what she calls “middle neighborhoods” — the middle and working-class areas of the city where residents often report feeling ignored by politicians. As mayor, she’ll need a plan that works for buttressing other areas of the city and serves Philadelphia’s rising number of renting residents as well.

It is no secret that Philadelphia, or at least some of Philadelphia, has changed. Long synonymous with economic stagnation and population decline, the revitalization of Center City, led by Paul Levy and the Center City District, coupled with a national trend toward urban living for young professionals, led to a surge in demand for housing in and around the city’s commercial and cultural hub. To this day, the Center City District estimates that roughly 75% of all housing constructed last year in the city was built in a Center City or Center City adjacent zip code, continuing a two-decade trend.

For Parker, her legacy concerns a very different part of the city: uptown and Northwest Philadelphia. Rather than towering condominiums and renovated factories, the homes in the neighborhoods Parker represented are detached single-family dwellings made of brick and stone. At times, the only way a visitor can tell that they are still in Philadelphia and haven’t crossed into nearby Montgomery County is the plethora of potholes.

These areas, like most of Philadelphia, don’t experience the same demand for housing as Center City. But the construction proposals that are submitted in those areas are often treated by critics as an existential threat. This is something Parker knows well. When, as a district councilmember, she supported a modest mixed-income senior housing development sponsored by a local church, it provoked a revolt.

Neighbors criticized the project for its scale and density. Others brought up potential impacts to traffic congestion and parking. The message was clear: Not this, not here, not now — maybe not ever.

Oak Lane is hardly the only city neighborhood where residents have mobilized against the construction of apartment buildings and other medium-density housing developments. In West Philadelphia, a mixed-income housing proposal directly adjacent to a trolley line at 48th Street and Chester Avenue has been delayed for nearly two years by a series of vigorous, well-funded legal challenges from nearby neighbors.

During the primary race for City Council’s 8th District, which is located not far from Parker’s former constituency, union organizer Seth Anderson-Oberman made opposition to housing development a key part of his campaign against incumbent district councilmember Cindy Bass, and fell only 400 votes short of victory.

It is certainly tempting for elected officials to side with anti-development neighbors (who, after all, tend to also be voters). Complaints about parking and traffic congestion often dominate the public comment portion of meetings at City Council, neighborhood civic associations, and the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Parker herself has said on multiple occasions that she is opposed to what she calls “we know what’s best for you people” planning.

At the same time, Parker should remember what she has said about the Sixers arena, a proposal backed by her political ally Ryan Boyer and the Philadelphia Building Trades Council: “Reflexive opposition is a luxury that our city simply cannot afford and one that I will not indulge.”

Parker is right to warn about reflexive opposition. The question is how can she balance promoting growth in all corners of the city without destroying the character of the neighborhoods that make up so much of her political base.

It might be tempting for Parker to green-light development of all sizes and scales in Center City — and the gentrification belt of neighborhoods directly surrounding it — while restricting growth elsewhere. This would continue the path City Council has placed the city on over the last five years. Because of strict zoning regulations known as overlays and the establishment of historic preservation districts, roughly 70% of the land in Philadelphia now requires some sort of special restriction or approval before construction begins.

The problem with pursuing that approach is that Philadelphia’s neighborhoods need development, too — even if it produces howls of disapproval.

Philadelphia’s neighborhoods need development, too — even if it produces howls of disapproval.

Parker has said that she is devoted to reviving the city’s commercial corridors. In order to achieve her goal, she should take note of research that has demonstrably shown that “where residential growth and revitalization is occurring, retail is primed to follow; it simply will not occur the other way around.” If Philadelphia is to once again host thriving commerce in every part of the city, it simply can’t afford a “just say no” approach to development and density outside of Center City.

There’s another reason the city needs development — keeping housing prices stable.

Currently, many residents associate development with higher prices. That’s not a totally unreasonable assumption. New development and higher housing prices do tend to go hand in hand.

But blaming the builders misses a key part of the equation: demand. Developers go to where prices are increasing, rather than prices increasing where developers go.

As analysis of price appreciation in the area makes clear, the biggest factor determining cost increases in Philadelphia is location. Center City, where new construction is relatively common, has seen relatively small increases in costs. South Philadelphia neighborhoods like Queen Village and East Passyunk, where development is more of a rarity, have seen larger jumps in appreciation. It may seem counterintuitive to some, but if Philadelphia wants to stabilize housing costs, which have spiked recently, new market-rate housing development is a part of the solution.

Evidence from other cities bears this out. Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and New York attract a disproportionate share of America’s job migrants. Politics, technology, and finance, respectively, are high-status and high-compensation careers, and each region has become prohibitively expensive for working- and middle-class people as a result. The high cost of living in these cities is pushing residents out, especially residents of color.

Yet the D.C. region, unlike its rivals, has tried a different approach. There is evidence that it is working. Rather than stifling density and development, D.C. and its suburbs have embraced it. According to housing researcher Emily Hamilton, D.C. has seen more than twice the amount of growth in its housing stock as the Bay Area. As a result, housing prices have increased at a much slower rate. In fact, in recent years, rents in D.C. itself have increased at a slower rate than inflation. Considering the continued draw of federal employment and growth of the region, that’s remarkable.

Philadelphia, for better or worse, does not face the same pressure on housing demand as these other cities. Still, if Parker wants to be remembered as a successful mayor for Philadelphia’s middle neighborhoods, she’ll have to find a way to ensure development happens, even when there’s reflexive opposition.

It is, as Parker has said, a luxury that Philadelphia cannot afford.