In a message dated 4/5/2008 3:36:00 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> The existence of Penn Alexander is causing its catchment area to undergo gentrification, and that would be increased if UC High became "Penn-Assisted High". If so, then what explains the gentrification of the areas outside the catchment area, such as the North side of the 4400 block of Sansom, my own 4400 block of Chestnut, and similar parts of UC? It can't be the school, since the residents don't benefit from it. At best, Penn Alexander is one of many causes of gentrification within its catchment area. Dave makes a very good point here about "gentrification" (could also be read as "additional demand" or "rise in prices") all over UC & areas adjacent to it. The entire area is more "popular" with homebuyers now, and prices have risen accordingly. There are probably many reasons, but several would be: 1. Penn stopped talking negatively about the area - negative talk from that direction scared people away for years and held back demand, and therefore artificially limited price appreciation. It wasn't only Penn people who were scared away; anyone who read Penn quotes in the media tended to believe them, and therefore people from many backgrounds thought that the area was terribly dangerous, not merely "broken car window" dangerous. It used to make those of us who lived here, raised our families here, and loved the area feel like either laughing or crying, or both. 2. Once the negative talk stopped, prices were so reasonable compared to other areas that we suddenly had more demand than supply - and even with my very basic background of one economics course, I can easily understand that when demand exceeds supply, prices go up. 3. With more folks gardening and working on the exteriors of their houses, the area looks cleaner and "safer" at the same time that living in cities is gaining in popularity again. Newcomers are attracted because of the trolleys, Philly Car Share, walkability, nearby restaurants, friendly neighbors, the dog park, Clark, Cedar & Malcolm X Parks....most of which are not new, exactly, but have more attention, upkeep, and/or availability than they used to. Ironically, the "fascinating social experiment," which is what I've long called the Penn Alexander School, continues to bring about many changes that weren't originally anticipated. The latest is that the higher prices have left many Penn staff and faculty members unable to afford the catchment area! In today's market, many of the catchment area buyers are folks coming from center city, selling a house there and moving here when they start to think about sending kids to school. This is a population which ALMOST NEVER moved to University City in the past! Folks from UC might have "moved up" to center city, but the reverse was almost unheard of! I think the valuable lesson the school has taught us is the old "if you build it, they will come." I've never heard that this was a lesson that this fascinating social experiment sought to prove, but the school has shown that a good school in a city attracts taxpaying city residents who care about education, even if living near the school is expensive. If cities could afford to build MORE good schools, other areas would also attract more middle class taxpayers to help balance the city budgets - therefore allowing them to build MORE good schools, and so the cycle might go. And of course, if they built enough of them, demand wouldn't drive the prices so high around them because there would be more places to choose from, and then, finally, a much greater percentage of students would benefit and have good schools. It isn't perfect, but it would be an improvement. For now, are the West Philadelphia price increases bad, in the sense of gentrification? Or good, in the sense of building equity for homeowners in areas where houses have not appreciated in the recent past? It depends on whose perspective one is looking at, but it has been repeatedly said that in many city neighborhoods, especially many African American neighborhoods, a lack of home equity has prevented wealth building, which affects not only the homeowners but their children and grandchildren. With more equity, homeowners could pay for better education, contribute to their childrens' career startups, etc. There would be more wealth to pass on to the next generation, and that generation would not start out as far "behind" their middle class white contemporaries (who are at this time more likely to have fewer student loans, parents' help with down payments on a first house, etc.). Without sufficient equity, homeowners can't even sell and afford to move elsewhere if they become elderly and ill and need to live in a different setting. So one can call all price rises "gentrification," but I think a case can also be made for the positive effects of "wealth building" for West Philadelphians. Why should someone who has spent years caring for his/her home on 62nd St. not see price appreciation for that, as someone who has done the same in Bryn Mawr would see? - Melani Lamond Melani Lamond, Associate Broker Urban & Bye, Realtor 3529 Lancaster Ave. Philadelphia, PA 19104 cell phone 215-356-7266 office phone 215-222-4800, ext. 113 office fax 215-222-1101 Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors awards: - Diamond award for over $8 million in sales, and ALL SIX of the West Philadelphia awards: - Top Lister - Top Seller - Top Overall Combined Volume - Top Listing Units by Area - Top Selling Units by Area - Top Overall Combined Units by Area **************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides. (http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016)
