Philadelphia 2035 (Indiana, Clark, Penn: photographer, languages, color)

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by cpomp

That is partially true. Many city leaders are attempting to keep neighborhoods affordable, but its more to line their pockets and keep them in office rather than actually help people. I think keeping the entire city affordable in an unrealistic goal, the more Philadelphia grows and claims to be a worldly city, with that comes increased real estate.

While Philadelphia is a fantastic city with a growing energy, I think the affordability factor is a little inflated in peoples minds. Sure, compared to our immediate neighbors we are affordable, but I don't think Philadelphia is a "cheaper" place to live compared to the majority of the US, especially if you want to live in a desirable part of the city, prices are much much higher than the averages you see for the entire city.

That being said, Philadelphia is a great affordable alternative for people living in New York, DC, or Boston.

Philadelphia is the second most affordable of the large Northeast metros after Baltimore; Wendell Cox's Demographia housing affordability survey ranks it "moderately unaffordable" based on the median multiple (the number you get when you divide the area median house price by the area median income. A number above 3 is considered unaffordable. No large Northeast metropolis has a multiple under 3).

Every Midwestern metropolis except Chicago ranks as more affordable than Philadelphia. So do most of those in the Sunbelt outside California, Florida and Texas; Dallas-Fort Worth places just above Philadelphia in unaffordability and Houston (the most affordable large metro in Texas) ranks just below it.

The key difference is the ease with which builders can add supply. Philadelphia is the only large Northeast metro that Demographia classes as having "less restrictive" land-use regulations. Baltimore and the Twin Cities are the only US metros with "more restrictive" land-use regulations that are more affordable than Philadelphia. (A good chunk of Baltimore County is reserved for agricultural use.)

You might, however, want to read the introduction to Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed. Three London School of Economics professors attempt to refine the accuracy of the median multiple by controlling for things like house size (it turns out that as people's incomes rise, the amount of space they buy rises by about double the increase in their income) and breaking down the median multiples by income quintile. That last is especially useful, for when that's done, they find that housing is less affordable for those in the bottom quintile than for those above it. (There is another twist, though: in Britain, where they conduct their experiments, when after- rather than pre-tax income is used, the affordability gap at least narrows, and in some markets disappears completely.)

But what that means is that the apparent paradoxes I see here and in my hometown do make sense. When people say there's an affordable-housing shortage here, they may not be talking through their hats when income differentials are taken into account. Likewise, in Kansas City - which is far more affordable than Philadelphia - the income distribution may also explain why there's a large waiting list for subsidized affordable housing all the same.

Cox belongs to the camp that defends the auto-oriented development pattern that emerged after World War II, and some hold his numbers suspect for that reason. But I don't see why; the median multiple is agnostic regarding how land is subdivided for residences.

[InNH]

Originally Posted by cpomp

That is why I think it can be hard to generalize how expensive or inexpensive Philadelphia is. Many other large cities have become almost uniformly expensive even in the far out stretches, whereas in Philadelphia the pricepoints can very greatly from neighborhood to neighborhood based on the desirability of that area.

So compared to the nation I wouldn't classify Philadelphia as affordable, compared to our Northeastern and West Coast neighbors then yes, Philadelphia is a good deal, as is Chicago.

Some sunbelt cities are going up in cost too so who knows, Philly now could eventually be less than some of them. Dallas I heard is going up, so is Austin, Nashville, Charlotte, Asheville. Philly at least has the same rent as these, maybe even less. Less than Atlanta I'd say now. I think where Philly seems expensive is when you compare it to St Louis or Detroit, its probably more expensive than Pittsburgh. Maybe on par with Phoenix or less than Sacramento maybe.

[southbound_295]

Originally Posted by MarketStEl

Philadelphia is the second most affordable of the large Northeast metros after Baltimore; Wendell Cox's Demographia housing affordability survey ranks it "moderately unaffordable" based on the median multiple (the number you get when you divide the area median house price by the area median income. A number above 3 is considered unaffordable. No large Northeast metropolis has a multiple under 3).

Every Midwestern metropolis except Chicago ranks as more affordable than Philadelphia. So do most of those in the Sunbelt outside California, Florida and Texas; Dallas-Fort Worth places just above Philadelphia in unaffordability and Houston (the most affordable large metro in Texas) ranks just below it.

The key difference is the ease with which builders can add supply. Philadelphia is the only large Northeast metro that Demographia classes as having "less restrictive" land-use regulations. Baltimore and the Twin Cities are the only US metros with "more restrictive" land-use regulations that are more affordable than Philadelphia. (A good chunk of Baltimore County is reserved for agricultural use.)

You might, however, want to read the introduction to Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed. Three London School of Economics professors attempt to refine the accuracy of the median multiple by controlling for things like house size (it turns out that as people's incomes rise, the amount of space they buy rises by about double the increase in their income) and breaking down the median multiples by income quintile. That last is especially useful, for when that's done, they find that housing is less affordable for those in the bottom quintile than for those above it. (There is another twist, though: in Britain, where they conduct their experiments, when after- rather than pre-tax income is used, the affordability gap at least narrows, and in some markets disappears completely.)

But what that means is that the apparent paradoxes I see here and in my hometown do make sense. When people say there's an affordable-housing shortage here, they may not be talking through their hats when income differentials are taken into account. Likewise, in Kansas City - which is far more affordable than Philadelphia - the income distribution may also explain why there's a large waiting list for subsidized affordable housing all the same.

Cox belongs to the camp that defends the auto-oriented development pattern that emerged after World War II, and some hold his numbers suspect for that reason. But I don't see why; the median multiple is agnostic regarding how land is subdivided for residences.

Keep in mind that Baltimore City & Baltimore County are separate entities. That could change your calculations.

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by southbound_295

Keep in mind that Baltimore City & Baltimore County are separate entities. That could change your calculations.

No; the stats are for the metropolitan areas, and Baltimore County's "agricultural preserve" factors into that "more restrictive" designation. Baltimore City may have fewer restrictions on building, but the argument Cox and his fellow defenders of the status quo make is that the restrictions that really drive up housing prices are those on the production of housing on the metropolitan periphery. In some of the metros so classified, Portland (OR) being the best known, these restrictions take the form of "urban growth boundaries" that apply across the entire metropolitan region.

[kyb01]

Originally Posted by asiandudeyo

I wonder what the significance of this LOVE statue.
I always thought that it was indigenous to Philly. But then, I found out that DC has an "AMOR" version. And I came across the same statue in Manhattan.
Anybody with deep historical root to Philly care to enlighten? (AFAIK, I cannot find info about this online, just to find that Indiannapolis also has one).

Afaik, of all the LOVE statues ours is the original created by Robert Indiana in 1976 for the Bicentennial. So yes it is sort of indigenous wrt Philly. There's history of it on curbed philly or phillymag.

We have an AMOR statue too at Sister Cities Park.

[cpomp]

Originally Posted by InNH

Some sunbelt cities are going up in cost too so who knows, Philly now could eventually be less than some of them. Dallas I heard is going up, so is Austin, Nashville, Charlotte, Asheville. Philly at least has the same rent as these, maybe even less. Less than Atlanta I'd say now. I think where Philly seems expensive is when you compare it to St Louis or Detroit, its probably more expensive than Pittsburgh. Maybe on par with Phoenix or less than Sacramento maybe.

Not really, you don't seem all that educated on this topic, especially because you said "I heard Dallas is going up"... I hear that the Earth is flat, but I do my research.

Performing a quick search for apartment/condo/home listings it is clear that the desirable neighborhoods are Philadelphia are more expensive than its counterparts in the South and Midwest. Atlanta, Dallas and Austin come close. Nashville and Charlotte are noticeably more affordable than Philadelphia.

And that is just housing, doesn't take into account for food, clothing, transportation, entertainment, etc.

Here is a quick link comparing Philadelphia with Atlanta: https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-l...elphia/atlanta

This site has Cost of Living in ATL at 13% lower than Philadelphia.

Lastly, I am talking strictly city limits not metro areas. Of course they all seem affordable to me since I moved to Manhattan :/

[Redddog]

Originally Posted by cpomp

....

This site has Cost of Living in ATL at 13% lower than Philadelphia.

:/

and 87% less awesome...

[southbound_295]

Originally Posted by MarketStEl

No; the stats are for the metropolitan areas, and Baltimore County's "agricultural preserve" factors into that "more restrictive" designation. Baltimore City may have fewer restrictions on building, but the argument Cox and his fellow defenders of the status quo make is that the restrictions that really drive up housing prices are those on the production of housing on the metropolitan periphery. In some of the metros so classified, Portland (OR) being the best known, these restrictions take the form of "urban growth boundaries" that apply across the entire metropolitan region.

That's interesting. There's a lot of agricultural preservation in the Philadelphia metro, as well.

[Pine to Vine]

Originally Posted by cpomp

While Philadelphia is a fantastic city with a growing energy, I think the affordability factor is a little inflated in peoples minds. Sure, compared to our immediate neighbors we are affordable, but I don't think Philadelphia is a "cheaper" place to live compared to the majority of the US, especially if you want to live in a desirable part of the city, prices are much much higher than the averages you see for the entire city.

Philadelphia is not cheap. Chicago is not cheap. Houston is cheap.

[Pine to Vine]

Originally Posted by kyb01

Afaik, of all the LOVE statues ours is the original created by Robert Indiana in 1976 for the Bicentennial. So yes it is sort of indigenous wrt Philly. There's history of it on curbed philly or phillymag.

We have an AMOR statue too at Sister Cities Park.

The story I heard is that ours is the original. Indiana didn’t patent it (or whatever you do to protect art from being copied), so there are quite a few copies out there. There is even one on the Penn campus. The letters and coloring actually appeared on the cover of a popular and cheesy novel from 1970 called Love Story:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Story_(novel)

The book (and movie) were inescapable for those of us of a certain age. I have no idea if Indiana was involved in the cover design or whether he copied it himself for the sculpture.