Why the comparisons between Philadelphia and Chicago

[Chicago60614]

Well population loss really depends on who has left.

Chicago's public housing projects had 200,000+ people in the late 1990's. Today they house 20,000. Chicago lost 200,000 people during the 2000's (that is up to a huge debate given many factors, but for a different discussion), and if you look at the census tracts, the more dangerous and hard hit areas of the south and west sides actually counted greater than a 200,000 person decline. The more stable areas of the southeast, southwest, north and northwest sides were actually stable or slightly growing when looked at as a whole.

The 2000's were a very strange time in Chicago. You had tens of thousands of new condo units going up, gentrification booming in large areas of the city (even many impoverished areas had a ton of construction), over 100 new highrises going up downtown, neighborhoods stabilizing, violent crime dropping by 50%, murders down by 33%, projects being cleared out and renovated, lots of work improving the L and roads, wacker drive rebuilt, O'hare expanding, the Dan Ryan rebuilt, over 50,000 people moving into the greater downtown area...........and then the census came out and surprised everyone with a decline.

It's not as easy as saying the city is going to crap. All activity on the ground point to otherwise. It's more a factor of who was moving out and in what areas than just "Chicago is becoming the next Detroit".

[couldntthinkofaclevername]

Originally Posted by rotodome

How exactly are you defining decline?
And what were the factors that caused Chicago to lose 25% or it's population that are SO fundamentally different from what caused Philadelphia to lose 25%? You know..."objectively"?

Chicago has been "better off for decades" only in that it's been a bigger and more prominent city for decades, but it's had big problems and has experienced decline in a proportionate manner.

And Philly actually turned a corner and grew slightly in the last census period, while in the same period Chicago lost another 200,000 people. Someone might even argue that Philly was better off in some ways.

I'm defining decline as decline. You know, the actual definition of the word. Yes, they were, because Chicago didn't decline on Philadelphia's scale; only Detroit did. You can put things in quotations all you like but the fact is that any OBJECTIVE (wanted to make it very clear that it's not a word that is in quotes) person would never say that Chicago went through what Philadelphia did.

Exactly what do you think better off means?

Except they wouldn't unless they don't have a clue what they're talking about. Chicago still to this day has a lot of advantages that work in its favor.

Once again.. population loss does not equal decline, let alone decline on the scale of Philadelphia. Not sure why you're even trying to argue this because it's flat out a non-comparison.

Originally Posted by Lizz0rd

Given the choice, I think most people would take a few more starbucks and condos over supposed "culture" and bullets flying.
Yeah *some* neighborhoods would be better off without gentrification, but a lot of the neighborhoods that have gentrified were already losses. The original ethnic groups left in the 50s and 60s and were replaced with high crime... the original ethnic groups aren't moving back, and are already something else... So better to bring in some new folks I suppose and at least make the places hospitable.

Culture to me takes a back seat to crime.

You clearly don't know anything about Philadelphia. There were plenty of neighborhoods that were family-oriented and safe (albeit hard-nosed) even so much as a decade ago. The majority of more working class, blue collar but not ghetto places that have gotten worse is because of crime and "the ghetto" being pushed outward towards them. Supposed "culture"? What exactly do you know about culture? Who are you to judge people who have produced more culture than you ever will?

What on Earth are you talking about? The original ethnic groups are just as stuck as every other working class or poor person. Ever been to Kensington or South Philly or any of those places? I'm guessing not. People with money moved, not people of one ethnicity or another.

Originally Posted by Lizz0rd

Don't tell me what I don't know. What are you some history keeper or something that thinks they know more than other posters? Get of your high horse, this is a discussion, and I am welcome to my opinion without some obnoxious poster on the internet trying to say my experiences weren't valid. Maybe you should stick to other cities comparisons, as obviously any critique of Philadelphia is going to get your blood boiling.


That is all I'm saying. It wasn't a slight on Philadelphia, not sure why others are getting so defensive.

I'll tell you whatever I want. If you're wrong then you're wrong, whether you like it or not. I'm not somebody who sees what a place is now and assumes it's always been like that, for starters. There's no "thinks" involved in it. You clearly don't know what Chicago or NYC were like even a few decades ago.

But do continue to insult me. It just shows how defensive and insecure you clearly are.

Originally Posted by Slevin Kelevra

"Nobody in Philadelphia is insecure in regards to New York or anywhere else nor do they want their city to be New York or Chicago or wherever."

If you have to say this......

Actually, it is you who has to try to put down other cities because you're so insecure about your own. We just happen to remind you for the umpteenth time that this envy or jealousy that you wish we had for your city just flat out doesn't exist and we really don't care about any other city but our own. We don't want to be like you.. at all.

So we don't have to say anything, thanks.

Originally Posted by Chicago60614

It's not as easy as saying the city is going to crap. All activity on the ground point to otherwise. It's more a factor of who was moving out and in what areas than just "Chicago is becoming the next Detroit".

I think anybody who thinks Chicago is in a decline let alone "becoming the next Detroit" doesn't know anything and should be ignored.

There will never be another Detroit.

[Tex?Il?]

[quote=Chicago60614;23126233]Well population loss really depends on who has left.

Chicago's public housing projects had 200,000+ people in the late 1990's. Today they house 20,000. Chicago lost 200,000 people during the 2000's (that is up to a huge debate given many factors, but for a different discussion), and if you look at the census tracts, the more dangerous and hard hit areas of the south and west sides actually counted greater than a 200,000 person decline. The more stable areas of the southeast, southwest, north and northwest sides were actually stable or slightly growing when looked at as a whole.

The 2000's were a very strange time in Chicago. You had tens of thousands of new condo units going up, gentrification booming in large areas of the city (even many impoverished areas had a ton of construction), over 100 new highrises going up downtown, neighborhoods stabilizing, violent crime dropping by 50%, murders down by 33%, projects being cleared out and renovated, lots of work improving the L and roads, wacker drive rebuilt, O'hare expanding, the Dan Ryan rebuilt, over 50,000 people moving into the greater downtown area...........and then the census came out and surprised everyone with a decline.

It's not as easy as saying the city is going to crap. All activity on the ground point to otherwise. It's more a factor of who was moving out and in what areas than just "Chicago is becoming the next Detroit".[/QUOTE]

Besides, its an irrelevant point at this moment, because of the last year and a half, Detroit and Michgan are actually experiencing one of the strongest rebound from the Great Recession.

Sure Detroit fell harder than just about anywhere else, and Michigan got hit harder and earlier than anywhere else, but it is rebounding more than anyone else thought it would.

[Warren09]

Originally Posted by nobettername

That simply not true. Your data is outdated. Chicago is no longer a transportation hub of America. Cities like Atlanta for passenger traffic and intercontinental port cities like LA or NYC are far more relevant to US transportation than Chicago.

I think the major advantage for Philly in XXI century is that it is located to in the richest, most economically advanced and populous area of the county i.e. Bosh-Wash corridor.
Philly already serves as an alternate location for many companies trying to escape NYC's prices and congestion. Another fifty years and it will simply become a part of the city.

Chicago has more class 1 rails passing through it than any other American city. Chicago is absolutely a major transportation hub via rail, air (O'Hare 2nd in traffic) .... my data isn't outdated.