Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Perhaps The main reason Philadelphia lags statistically against the top ranked cities is location and geography. 60 miles of livable land between Philly and the coast.Land is plentiful, real estate cheaper which is actually a very good thing but tends to lower economic statistics like median home value ,cost of goods and services,gdp etc etc..
The Top economic statistical cities are all located right on the coast where you get the benefit of ocean front property and 50% of their possible real estate is under water, commercial and residential real estate becomes a premium.
And of course DC creates its own bloated economy fed by Billion Dollar contracts paid by the us worker+consumer.
I don't think proximity to the ocean matters that much. I just think it's a matter of timing. Philadelphia's economy declined about 30 years after Boston's did, so it's had 30 fewer years to reinvent itself than Boston has. Anybody who can't see the progress made in Philadelphia in since 2000 is blind and ignorant, especially those who fancy themselves as cosmopolitan and sophisticated. If they were even half as worldly as they think they are, they'd actually know a little more than ****-all about Philadelphia.
The Boston Globe once called Boston "a hopeless backwater, a tumbled-down has-been among cities" back in the 1950s. Economically, Boston fell apart in the 1940s and 1950s, and reached its cultural and economic nadir in 1970. If you called Boston a world-class city in 1970, or even in 1980, everybody would laugh at you, just like you laugh at people who call Philadelphia a world-class city today.
The only difference between Boston and Philadelphia is that Boston fell apart 30 years before Philadelphia did, and has had 30 extra years to reinvent itself as a result. Philadelphia fell apart in the 1970s and 1980s, and reached its cultural and economic nadir in 2000. Philadelphia has become a better city since 2000, just like Boston started to become a better city after 1970.
If Boston can wake up from the 30-year coma it was in and become a world-class city again, then so can Philadelphia, believe it or not, like it or not. For that matter, who's to say that Philadelphia won't end up growing faster than Boston 30 years from now? There's no guarantee it will, but there's no guarantee it won't either. Cities ebb and flow.
Anyway, you strike me as a bandwagon urbanist, buying into cities after they become trendy instead of before, and pretending that where you live makes you better than other people, so you might want to buck the trend and jump on the Philadelphia bandwagon now, before it gains too much momentum for people to get on. It's already begun to move, so you better hurry up.
Good post, especially the bolded. There's no reason to argue with noodles like that.
I haven't read this thread, but this is not a fair fight. Philly has a downtown that can rank with any in the U.S., excepting NYC. It's at the same rough level as Chicago, SF, Boston and DC. Seattle has a nice downtown but is a big step down from Philly in terms of urban core.
I would say the difference is so big that they're not really comparable, not in quantity nor quality of downtown core.
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,278,704 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
I haven't read this thread, but this is not a fair fight. Philly has a downtown that can rank with any in the U.S., excepting NYC. It's at the same rough level as Chicago, SF, Boston and DC. Seattle has a nice downtown but is a big step down from Philly in terms of urban core.
I would say the difference is so big that they're not really comparable, not in quantity nor quality of downtown core.
Yes ..... you say that of ALL Cities against NYC or bring NYC in to say NO other city has comparisons. Worthy to go back to back with NYC. That irks me every time I see it repeated.... or using the PHASE with other cities too.
But this is C-D. We CAN make comparisons of cities. We merely SPECIFY what areas on city has that stand out of we feel are compatible even with something in NYC. We await you to say how dare we. Not even close. But yes I RATHER SOME SAY WHERE THEY PREFER PHILLY'S DOWNTOWN and WHY'S AND OTHERS SEATTLE? Not just chose one and say.... NOT EVEN CLOSE.
They are in different parts of the nation and worthy of FAIR COMPRISONS. Not one WAY BENEATH another as ONE HERE ALWAYS SAYS OTERS ARE OF NYC.
I do not see city's are on the same levels when street grids greatly differ, availability to Parks and open space, and development levels of their opposing Waterfronts. Like I note when my favorite city comes in. But WAY BENEATH another ...no. But a mention of differences, and which and why we prefer one is part of the comparisons. I generally do.... and use documentation if I need to, if asked further why? Or that I am totally wrong?
But in Seattle's corner is its Waterfront developed and continuing improving it. Philly can.... and hopefully WILL do much more with theirs. I have said in Philly threads. What I can see done on its Waterfront with COLUMBUS BLVD. there. It is under-developed to me with land on this Blvd. open to development.
It ADDS TO VIBRANCY. That is in....the WHOLE comparison of Cities. Especially with cores on Waterfronts. A city like SEATTLE should get points for beauty in scenery as we give SF .... as most do when they praise SF for even density and walkability too.
I don't think proximity to the ocean matters that much. I just think it's a matter of timing. Philadelphia's economy declined about 30 years after Boston's did, so it's had 30 fewer years to reinvent itself than Boston has. Anybody who can't see the progress made in Philadelphia in since 2000 is blind and ignorant, especially those who fancy themselves as cosmopolitan and sophisticated. If they were even half as worldly as they think they are, they'd actually know a little more than ****-all about Philadelphia.
Agree Philadelphia at least Center City/University City and environs are making great strides
I disagree on another point though. Location and geography is a huge factor in economic prowess. Its no coincidence that the top 3-4 elite economical cities are all located directly on the coast.There is a reason Silicon Valley grew on the coast instead of the middle of Utah.. The only outlier would be washington DC but you could also argue thats right up against the Chesapeake which limits its regional real estate options
The fact that there is 60 miles of land between Philly and the Atlantic Ocean in part kept it from being a per capita juggernaut like SF,Bos,NYC
Home median prices 2015 first quarter.
Coast
Stone Harbor NJ- $1,145,000
Avalon NJ- $1,071,000
Diamond Beach NJ $699,000
Sea Isle City NJ $628,000
Cape May NJ $530,000
30 miles inland
Hammonton NJ $171 K
50 Miles Inland
Cherry Hill NJ $240 K
The Philly region sprawls an additional 40 miles west of Philly.There is just too much real estate around Philly for it to compete statistically with the coastal cities. Same can be said for other inland cities Dallas,Atlanta ,Pittsburgh etc etc.
I dont even see how this is a question. Philly has the 3rd largest downtown in the country.....
Actually 2nd. I understand that Chicago might be more "urban" but there is nothing to do in downtown Chicago besides sleep and work, with the occasional overpriced steak house. Philly has museums, restaurants, concert venues, shopping, parks, work, entertainment, and sleep rolled in one.
Brookings Institute did a study on American downtowns
They found only 5 downtowns they consider fully developed.
Phildelphia was one Seattle was not, interesting read none-the-less. Seattle was considered an emerging DT with the likes of LA, Portland, Atlanta, San Diego, Baltimore, and Denver. Philadelphia was catagorized with NYC, Chicago, and Boston considerred fully-developed DTs.
That was in 2015, I wonder where DC and San Francisco would be now. Interesting at the time only Boston, NYC, Chicago and Philadelphia were the only full developed downtowns.
37% of Seattle adults msa have a bachelors degree.
34% of Philadelphia adults msa have a bachelors degree.
Yes--a difference that is essentially within the margin of error.
Even more interesting, especially based on the comment that Seattle is a "city of the future"--something that may come to the surprise of the anti-post-industrialists is Philadelphia has done a fantastic job at attracting and retaining young college graduates compared to Seattle. Educational attainment among Philly area young adults now surpasses the Seattle metro. This has some very strong implications for the future workforce of both cities/regions:
Four-year Degree Attainment Rate of 25-34 Year-Olds (2012)(Entire Metro Area)
Philadelphia Metro: 40.2%
Seattle Metro: 39.4%
2000-2010 Percent Growth of Young, Well-educated Adults (Close-in Neighborhoods)
Philadelphia Metro: 77.5%
Seattle Metro: 35.0%
2000-2010 Numerical Growth of Young, Well-educated Adults (Close-in Neighborhoods)
Philadelphia Metro: 21,956
Seattle Metro: 8,209
2000-2010 Current Number of Young, Well-educated Adults (Close-in Neighborhoods)
Yes--a difference that is essentially within the margin of error.
Even more interesting, especially based on the comment that Seattle is a "city of the future"--something that may come to the surprise of the anti-post-industrialists is Philadelphia has done a fantastic job at attracting and retaining young college graduates compared to Seattle. Educational attainment among Philly area young adults now surpasses the Seattle metro. This has some very strong implications for the future workforce of both cities/regions:
Four-year Degree Attainment Rate of 25-34 Year-Olds (2012)(Entire Metro Area)
Philadelphia Metro: 40.2%
Seattle Metro: 39.4%
2000-2010 Percent Growth of Young, Well-educated Adults (Close-in Neighborhoods)
Philadelphia Metro: 77.5%
Seattle Metro: 35.0%
2000-2010 Numerical Growth of Young, Well-educated Adults (Close-in Neighborhoods)
Philadelphia Metro: 21,956
Seattle Metro: 8,209
2000-2010 Current Number of Young, Well-educated Adults (Close-in Neighborhoods)
We visited both Portlands, Seattle, Boston, Providence and Baltimore before re-locating to Philly about 4 years back. Makes me wonder how many other old well-educated adults like us decided to move here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That irks me every time I see it repeated.... or using the PHASE with other cities too. 
