Philadelphia 2035 (Norristown: canal, mining, census)

[AJNEOA]

Originally Posted by timeEd32

This would be great, specifically the blade sign: Signs at the `Met' on North Broad Street to emulate Philadelphia venue's 1930s look

Very very cool!

[cpomp]

500 Walnut tops off. Hopefully more of these projects pop up soon.

http://philly.curbed.com/2017/3/23/1...ff-scannapieco

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by cpomp

500 Walnut tops off. Hopefully more of these projects pop up soon.

http://philly.curbed.com/2017/3/23/1...ff-scannapieco

There are a slew of them already under construction, some of them maybe nearly as stylish as what Cecil Baker's creating.

But I expect some of the apartment projects that have already been announced to be put on hold if they don't get started soon, for the number of units set to come on line this year is way higher than in any previous year, and the growth of the Millennial population is leveling off.

[kyb01]

Originally Posted by cpomp

500 Walnut tops off. Hopefully more of these projects pop up soon.

http://philly.curbed.com/2017/3/23/1...ff-scannapieco

Only if he is behind it will it, it seems, get big national/international attention. He advertised both of his city buildings in, at least, the New Yorker and Wall St Journal.

[AJNEOA]

https://billypenn.com/2017/03/24/the...in-population/

And this is the reason that Philly is really still the 4th largest city in the US. Hands down. The only cities that come close in terms of a serious population in a reasonable land area, anchoring a large metro are Boston, San Fran and eventually DC. The rest are small cities with large sprawling metros.

[cpomp]

Originally Posted by AJNEOA

https://billypenn.com/2017/03/24/the...in-population/

And this is the reason that Philly is really still the 4th largest city in the US. Hands down. The only cities that come close in terms of a serious population in a reasonable land area, anchoring a large metro are Boston, San Fran and eventually DC. The rest are small cities with large sprawling metros.

Which is why I don't care when people act as if Phoenix passing Philadelphia is a blow toward Philadelphia.

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by AJNEOA

https://billypenn.com/2017/03/24/the...in-population/

And this is the reason that Philly is really still the 4th largest city in the US. Hands down. The only cities that come close in terms of a serious population in a reasonable land area, anchoring a large metro are Boston, San Fran and eventually DC. The rest are small cities with large sprawling metros.

I'm not going to dispute this, as it's basically correct, but:

All of the large Northeastern cities save Baltimore and Washington underwent a period where they added to their land area either through annexation (Boston) or consolidation (Philadelphia and New York). What Phoenix and the other cities west of the Mississippi whose boundaries continue to expand, or that have the power to expand their boundaries (such as my hometown of Kansas City, which encompasses more than 320 square miles of land, about as much as San Diego contains), are doing now is what the older cities did in the 19th century before they ran up against opposition to further expansion (as Denver is now experiencing; the issue there is that Denver is a county as well as a city, and any land Denver annexes in an adjacent county ceases to be part of that county) or state laws (Pennsylvania municipalities cannot expand into adjacent counties).

Former Albuquerque Mayor David Rusk wrote a widely discussed book in the early 1990s titled "Cities Without Suburbs" that argued that those cities that were able to annex their suburban growth did better on just about every metric - quality of governance, delivery of municipal services, socioeconomic mobility, education, you name it - than those that could or did not. East of the Mississippi, about the only avenue for expansion for constrained older cities lay in city-county consolidation - what Philadelphia did in 1854 - and I think the revised edition of Rusk's book examines how those cities have fared as well.

So while Phoenix may not be a real city, it may be better off and better run than here because it does annex its sprawl.

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by MarketStEl

I'm not going to dispute this, as it's basically correct, but:

All of the large Northeastern cities save Baltimore and Washington underwent a period where they added to their land area either through annexation (Boston) or consolidation (Philadelphia and New York). What Phoenix and the other cities west of the Mississippi whose boundaries continue to expand, or that have the power to expand their boundaries (such as my hometown of Kansas City, which encompasses more than 320 square miles of land, about as much as San Diego contains), are doing now is what the older cities did in the 19th century before they ran up against opposition to further expansion (as Denver is now experiencing; the issue there is that Denver is a county as well as a city, and any land Denver annexes in an adjacent county ceases to be part of that county) or state laws (Pennsylvania municipalities cannot expand into adjacent counties).

Former Albuquerque Mayor David Rusk wrote a widely discussed book in the early 1990s titled "Cities Without Suburbs" that argued that those cities that were able to annex their suburban growth did better on just about every metric - quality of governance, delivery of municipal services, socioeconomic mobility, education, you name it - than those that could or did not. East of the Mississippi, about the only avenue for expansion for constrained older cities lay in city-county consolidation - what Philadelphia did in 1854 - and I think the revised edition of Rusk's book examines how those cities have fared as well.

So while Phoenix may not be a real city, it may be better off and better run than here because it does annex its sprawl.

in some ways its a shame from a tax and service aspect that Philly could not annex parts of lower bucks, eastern montco and DE counties


even some form of joint tax (I know how would that ever fly) but say Bucks, Montgomery, Delaware, and Chester along with Philly imposed a .25% income tax as a SE PA development tax or services tax - I truly feel it would actually be for a stronger region for development and jobs if done well but the in fighting on those places wanted their fair share within their boundaries versus the synergy and region carry over would never fly sadly


just some basic numbers at .25% would be 328M per year or at .5% 650M etc.


imagine if 328M per year could go to infrastructure and PT etc


maybe it should really be closer to .5 or .75 and allow the city to maybe take 1/3rd and offset internal city wage tax and have an additional 650M per year to regional infrastructure


tough sell though on so many fronts

[phillies2011]

Originally Posted by MarketStEl

I'm not going to dispute this, as it's basically correct, but:

All of the large Northeastern cities save Baltimore and Washington underwent a period where they added to their land area either through annexation (Boston) or consolidation (Philadelphia and New York). What Phoenix and the other cities west of the Mississippi whose boundaries continue to expand, or that have the power to expand their boundaries (such as my hometown of Kansas City, which encompasses more than 320 square miles of land, about as much as San Diego contains), are doing now is what the older cities did in the 19th century before they ran up against opposition to further expansion (as Denver is now experiencing; the issue there is that Denver is a county as well as a city, and any land Denver annexes in an adjacent county ceases to be part of that county) or state laws (Pennsylvania municipalities cannot expand into adjacent counties).

Former Albuquerque Mayor David Rusk wrote a widely discussed book in the early 1990s titled "Cities Without Suburbs" that argued that those cities that were able to annex their suburban growth did better on just about every metric - quality of governance, delivery of municipal services, socioeconomic mobility, education, you name it - than those that could or did not. East of the Mississippi, about the only avenue for expansion for constrained older cities lay in city-county consolidation - what Philadelphia did in 1854 - and I think the revised edition of Rusk's book examines how those cities have fared as well.

So while Phoenix may not be a real city, it may be better off and better run than here because it does annex its sprawl.

Great point. There is nothing wrong with pointing out that in actuality Philly is the bigger city. But the author seems to imply that what Phoenix is doing is bad and causing sprawl. Like you, i disagree.

Being a giant metropolis is not easy nor cheap. Even if not directly in some cases, so many in the suburbs have philly to thank for their income rate and quality of life. They benefit from the economic vortex that is Philadelphia but they live outside the center of the storm and much of the financial obligation to keep this beast running falls at the feet of those who live within these arbitrary and imagined lines.

Imagine how much Philly's schools would improve if they were getting property taxes from all the wealthy areas of the Philadelphia suburbs. Plus it would be much cheaper for Philly to provide services such as police, fire, sanitation, etc than all of these small balkanized towns due to economies of scale.

The overall health of the metro would be improved if Philly annexed the neighboring suburban counties and it would be a good thing. But it will never happen here.

[asiandudeyo]

Originally Posted by cpomp

500 Walnut tops off. Hopefully more of these projects pop up soon.

http://philly.curbed.com/2017/3/23/1...ff-scannapieco

I hope so too.
I am waiting in anticipation that the North Broad Station project will be approved.

I also might be in the minority, but I am rooting for View II.