Interesting Article, "Philadelphia's Population Problem" (York, Columbia: loan, homes)

[mako993]

Originally Posted by bryson662001

Philadelphia and it's suburbs are all one city and the whole physical city has never stopped growing. Some people illogically attach too much importance to which side of the city line you live on. It's only a political boundrary, not a physical one.

Agree.

[UDResident]

Originally Posted by Duderino

The Next American City is a Philly-based publication, and they're definitely well-regarded in field of urban affairs/planning journalism. Back in 2009, it definitely was still a legitimate question as to whether Philadelphia was continuing to lose population, so it's not like the article was off-the-mark or speculative during that time.

Today, though, there is no question that the city is growing again, as UDResident and jm02 noted. Philadelphia has a ways to go in terms of re-populating and re-developing, but there is a strong and growing sense that the city has really turned the corner and begun to reverse its decline.

The reason they don't know the situation as well as those of us who are from the city or from similar neighborhoods outside of it is because they don't understand why parts of the city were still losing population even as Center City was starting to gain it. They don't understand why these neighborhoods declined in the first place. For one thing, the metro first started losing industry way back in the Panic of 1873. The Depression pretty much finished the job that the Panic had started, and if it wasn't for WWI and WWII then the city and parts of the metro would've lost almost all of its industry before the 1950s. That's just one factor that those of us who know the city and metro well happen to understand. That article was full of questions that are already answered, with suggestions of things to start doing that had already been started by Rendell back in his time as Mayor, and was entirely based on incorrect, inaccurate, and unreliable data. It's hard to respect such an outsider's view on everything when there are over 1.5 million people they could've talked to and learned about the complex situation of the city and metro.

Originally Posted by bryson662001

Philadelphia and it's suburbs are all one city and the whole physical city has never stopped growing. Some people illogically attach too much importance to which side of the city line you live on. It's only a political boundrary, not a physical one.

That's really not accurate. As much as people in Montco and Bucks like to think they're "basically a part of the city", that city line is still a major border with the exception of a handful of working class or formerly working class communities right outside of the city. For example, if my section of Upper Darby had been in the city, it would've had housing projects the way most working class neighborhoods of the city did that had lost their industry. It would be in the Philadelphia School District. It would be subject to Philadelphia's taxes and to everything else. That's a pretty big difference. Even Eastwick had projects before it even lost a lot of its industry. If you're in Chestnut Hill or some other similar part of the city then the city border isn't that big of a deal but it definitely is if you're in even a more stable, working or middle class "regular" Philly neighborhood.

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by UDResident

That's really not accurate. As much as people in Montco and Bucks like to think they're "basically a part of the city", that city line is still a major border with the exception of a handful of working class or formerly working class communities right outside of the city. For example, if my section of Upper Darby had been in the city, it would've had housing projects the way most working class neighborhoods of the city did that had lost their industry. It would be in the Philadelphia School District. It would be subject to Philadelphia's taxes and to everything else. That's a pretty big difference. Even Eastwick had projects before it even lost a lot of its industry. If you're in Chestnut Hill or some other similar part of the city then the city border isn't that big of a deal but it definitely is if you're in even a more stable, working or middle class "regular" Philly neighborhood.

Certainly there are distinct class/cultural divisions that can be pretty marked by city lines, but I do agree with Bryson. It's still very accurate to classify the Philadelphia region as a cohesive urban area. Despite some stark differences between city/suburbs, and some long-standing city vs. suburbs attitudes, there is still a strong reciprocal relationship between them.

[bryson662001]

Originally Posted by UDResident

That's really not accurate. As much as people in Montco and Bucks like to think they're "basically a part of the city", that city line is still a major border with the exception of a handful of working class or formerly working class communities right outside of the city. For example, if my section of Upper Darby had been in the city, it would've had housing projects the way most working class neighborhoods of the city did that had lost their industry. It would be in the Philadelphia School District. It would be subject to Philadelphia's taxes and to everything else. That's a pretty big difference. Even Eastwick had projects before it even lost a lot of its industry. If you're in Chestnut Hill or some other similar part of the city then the city border isn't that big of a deal but it definitely is if you're in even a more stable, working or middle class "regular" Philly neighborhood.

The reason I disagree with you is that many cities that Philly competes with..... Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, Seattle, Portland, Miami, Phoenix have large areas of their "suburbs" inside the city limits contributing to that cities population growth. Other cities that have much lower population than Philly like Boston and San Francisco are still considered as equals or better. It will always be the metro population that is important.

[UDResident]

Originally Posted by Duderino

Certainly there are distinct class/cultural divisions that can be pretty marked by city lines, but I do agree with Bryson. It's still very accurate to classify the Philadelphia region as a cohesive urban area. Despite some stark differences between city/suburbs, and some long-standing city vs. suburbs attitudes, there is still a strong reciprocal relationship between them.

Right but what I'm saying is that it's inaccurate to think that just because places that were increasingly further away from the cities of the metro had gained population while those in or near the cities of the metro were continuing to lose it that the whole "urban area" grew together as one. In reality, up until about a decade ago, it was just people from this neighborhood moving to that neighborhood and so on and so forth.

Originally Posted by bryson662001

The reason I disagree with you is that many cities that Philly competes with..... Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, Seattle, Portland, Miami, Phoenix have large areas of their "suburbs" inside the city limits contributing to that cities population growth. Other cities that have much lower population than Philly like Boston and San Francisco are still considered as equals or better. It will always be the metro population that is important.

We don't disagree on that point. What I'm saying though is that this metro, like the metros of other cities that declined in the mid to late 20th Century, did not grow in the same way. People have been moving into Boston and especially into San Francisco for a long time now. Even when those cities were losing population, they were still big cities that appealed to people who could live elsewhere. During that time, this metro was not that. Up until recently, the majority of people who lived in this metro were people who had grown up in this metro.

[mako993]

Originally Posted by UDResident

Right but what I'm saying is that it's inaccurate to think that just because places that were increasingly further away from the cities of the metro had gained population while those in or near the cities of the metro were continuing to lose it that the whole "urban area" grew together as one. In reality, up until about a decade ago, it was just people from this neighborhood moving to that neighborhood and so on and so forth.

We don't disagree on that point. What I'm saying though is that this metro, like the metros of other cities that declined in the mid to late 20th Century, did not grow in the same way. People have been moving into Boston and especially into San Francisco for a long time now. Even when those cities were losing population, they were still big cities that appealed to people who could live elsewhere. During that time, this metro was not that. Up until recently, the majority of people who lived in this metro were people who had grown up in this metro.

Then given that the city has recently started gaining a newer population that is not from there, what types of industry are employing alot of these folks now? Since the industrial base has long since dropped off as already discussed, I am curious what industries Philly has created is creating to attract. I know that health care may be a big one.

[rotodome]

Originally Posted by mako993

[/b]

Then given that the city has recently started gaining a newer population that is not from there, what types of industry are employing alot of these folks now? Since the industrial base has long since dropped off as already discussed, I am curious what industries Philly has created is creating to attract. I know that health care may be a big one.

One thing is that college & universities nationwide have been booming and expanding across the board, and the Philadelphia area has a LOT of colleges & universities. Lots of new facilities, lots of new support & administrative staff. It's been a great thing for the city.
I just hope that when/if this higher education bubble (since that's what it looks like to me) bursts, it doesn't impact Philly too negatively.

[mako993]

Originally Posted by rotodome

One thing is that college & universities nationwide have been booming and expanding across the board, and the Philadelphia area has a LOT of colleges & universities. Lots of new facilities, lots of new support & administrative staff. It's been a great thing for the city.
I just hope that when/if this higher education bubble (since that's what it looks like to me) bursts, it doesn't impact Philly too negatively.

You're right, there are alot of higher ed institutions:

List of colleges and universities in Philadelphia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I knew of the big ones (Drexel, Temple, LaSalle, Villanova, etc), but not nearly that many.

[Boompa]

Originally Posted by mako993

Philadelphia’s Population Problem – Next American City

What say everyone else?

These people need something serious to worry about. As the center of the city renovates poverty has been pushed to what used to be almost suburban parts of the city like the North-east. As property declines it will become more attractive to redevelop. If anything iis to be done it would be mass transit to the Northeast and Germantown

[rotodome]

Originally Posted by Boompa

These people need something serious to worry about. As the center of the city renovates poverty has been pushed to what used to be almost suburban parts of the city like the North-east. As property declines it will become more attractive to redevelop. If anything iis to be done it would be mass transit to the Northeast and Germantown

Gemantown is actually served pretty well by mass transit. The NE has a much greater need.