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.
I know little about the history of Philadelphia but I think your statement summarizes the lengths at which locals, even at the risk of sounding ridiculous, will go to defend the city. I'm new in the city and therefore I'm less biased than long term residents who are emotionally invested in the city. I've lived around the world and when my friends ask me how is Philly, I tell them it's fine. I could as well be living in Detroit as long as it takes care of my needs.
It's more than likely the fact that, educationally, I'm a historian that I find it absurd that you would move somewhere without knowing some valuable facts about that place's history. It might help explain to you why there are passionate defenders of Phila. on this board.
I wish you could focus less on my responses and devout more of your time in responding to OP's. If you don't agree with my absurdities, how about you counter with information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyb01
It's more than likely the fact that, educationally, I'm a historian that I find it absurd that you would move somewhere without knowing some valuable facts about that place's history. It might help explain to you why there are passionate defenders of Phila. on this board.
Christ, people. I don't think anyone here is really said anything untrue or incorrect, so why must this devolve into a bitchfest? 1ondoner is stating that there are plenty of other cities/metropolitan areas that are faring much better than Philadelphia in economic and population growth, which is true. The Philly defenders are stating that Philadelphia is improving and exhibiting some economic and population growth, which is also true.
Philly IS growing and getting better. Does the future look more promising than the present? Yes. But it IS, as so eloquently shown in the charts by Burger Fan, lagging well behind many other metropolitan areas and the country as a whole (there are plenty of other cities growing faster than Philly not listed in that table as well, like Austin, San Antonio, Seattle, Charlotte, Research Triangle, etc.). So, as Philly improves in ABSOLUTE growth, in RELATIVE growth, it is falling behind, and if trends continue, some cities currently behind Philly will surpass it and may provide more ample opportunities for people going forward.
I believe that it is projected by the 2020 Census that Phoenix will overtake Philadelphia is the 5th largest city in the U.S. If current trends continue, by 2030, San Antonio will surpass it as well. San Diego will be close. Of course, population trends are bound to change, so who knows.
Philadelphia is a logical choice for people and businesses who find New York City too prohibitive to wind up. This isn't something new and has been happening for a long time. This is probably Philadelphia's biggest hope for growth in the future. If it ever reaches a point where there is a "purging" in New York City and we get a rapid outflow, Philly stands to gain much. At the moment though, it seems like NYC's satellite cities (mostly Jersey City, though Newark is just starting to get its feet wet as well, Stamford and Yonkers don't seem to be doing much new) are getting more of that benefit than Philly is.
Philly is certainly not growing like Dallas, Houston, San Francisco and other cities that are experiencing a boom in tech and/energy but I think it's growing. I think Chicago has the benefit of being a newer city and hence it has more potential for urban growth unlike Philly which is pretty established. I don't think Philly was affected like other cities during the last recession but so I'm not sure why you say it has declined so much. May be it's status has been over shadowed by New York city that doesn't mean it is decline.
I don't think it will ever be the next hot city for millennials because it's a more expensive city compared to Austin which like you have said is much cheaper because it is in Texas or rather in the South.
I took a lot of flak on this board for advising a young nurse to-be against moving from Houston to Philly because I said it is much more expensive to live in Philly. My philosophy is one should live where they can afford to buy a home and build a comfortable financial nest.
Regarding real estate prices, I believe prices in Philly will rise faster than Chicago because I feel there's more new inventory in Chicago unlike in Philly where the I think there are not as many new developments like in the mid west. So while the supply may be constrained, the demand side is also affected by the affordability aspects. The tight underwriting standards makes it harder for people to own homes but the lower house prices in Chicago means there are more buyers.
You must not be aware that about 1/3 of Chicago properties remain underwater, employment and population is stagnant. Underwriting standards have loosened in some cases that there are again no down payment mortgages, 100% financing and inflated sales prices with large seller concessions to purchasers as closing cost credits. I know Chicago's downtown looks exciting so no one would think the city is in financial and, in some areas, physical calamity. Throw in that the fact that Mayor Emmanuel is involved in a murder cover-up.
On top of that is the 10s of billions of debt owed for unfunded public pensions.
Christ, people. I don't think anyone here is really said anything untrue or incorrect, so why must this devolve into a bitchfest? 1ondoner is stating that there are plenty of other cities/metropolitan areas that are faring much better than Philadelphia in economic and population growth, which is true. The Philly defenders are stating that Philadelphia is improving and exhibiting some economic and population growth, which is also true.
Philly IS growing and getting better. Does the future look more promising than the present? Yes. But it IS, as so eloquently shown in the charts by Burger Fan, lagging well behind many other metropolitan areas and the country as a whole (there are plenty of other cities growing faster than Philly not listed in that table as well, like Austin, San Antonio, Seattle, Charlotte, Research Triangle, etc.). So, as Philly improves in ABSOLUTE growth, in RELATIVE growth, it is falling behind, and if trends continue, some cities currently behind Philly will surpass it and may provide more ample opportunities for people going forward.
I believe that it is projected by the 2020 Census that Phoenix will overtake Philadelphia is the 5th largest city in the U.S. If current trends continue, by 2030, San Antonio will surpass it as well. San Diego will be close. Of course, population trends are bound to change, so who knows.
Philadelphia is a logical choice for people and businesses who find New York City too prohibitive to wind up. This isn't something new and has been happening for a long time. This is probably Philadelphia's biggest hope for growth in the future. If it ever reaches a point where there is a "purging" in New York City and we get a rapid outflow, Philly stands to gain much. At the moment though, it seems like NYC's satellite cities (mostly Jersey City, though Newark is just starting to get its feet wet as well, Stamford and Yonkers don't seem to be doing much new) are getting more of that benefit than Philly is.
If you're going by population standards then, yes, these sunbelt cities may subsequently have higher populations. But these same cities currently have more population than other NE corridor, except NY, and industrial Great Lakes cities. Chicago will be the 4th largest city when Houston takes the 3rd city spot.
Philly's metro area like DCs, Boston etc still are much larger than the cities you cite as well.
Christ, people. I don't think anyone here is really said anything untrue or incorrect, so why must this devolve into a bitchfest? 1ondoner is stating that there are plenty of other cities/metropolitan areas that are faring much better than Philadelphia in economic and population growth, which is true. The Philly defenders are stating that Philadelphia is improving and exhibiting some economic and population growth, which is also true.
Philly IS growing and getting better. Does the future look more promising than the present? Yes. But it IS, as so eloquently shown in the charts by Burger Fan, lagging well behind many other metropolitan areas and the country as a whole (there are plenty of other cities growing faster than Philly not listed in that table as well, like Austin, San Antonio, Seattle, Charlotte, Research Triangle, etc.). So, as Philly improves in ABSOLUTE growth, in RELATIVE growth, it is falling behind, and if trends continue, some cities currently behind Philly will surpass it and may provide more ample opportunities for people going forward.
I believe that it is projected by the 2020 Census that Phoenix will overtake Philadelphia is the 5th largest city in the U.S. If current trends continue, by 2030, San Antonio will surpass it as well. San Diego will be close. Of course, population trends are bound to change, so who knows.
Philadelphia is a logical choice for people and businesses who find New York City too prohibitive to wind up. This isn't something new and has been happening for a long time. This is probably Philadelphia's biggest hope for growth in the future. If it ever reaches a point where there is a "purging" in New York City and we get a rapid outflow, Philly stands to gain much. At the moment though, it seems like NYC's satellite cities (mostly Jersey City, though Newark is just starting to get its feet wet as well, Stamford and Yonkers don't seem to be doing much new) are getting more of that benefit than Philly is.
Well, Phoenix was declared to be the 5th city in the mid-to-late 2000s; however, the 2010 census disproved this as the estimated growth of Phoenix was overestimated while Philly's was underestimated. Not to say Phoenix will not have more residents later but Philly thought it was the 6th city about 8 years ago or so.
Christ, people. I don't think anyone here is really said anything untrue or incorrect, so why must this devolve into a bitchfest? 1ondoner is stating that there are plenty of other cities/metropolitan areas that are faring much better than Philadelphia in economic and population growth, which is true. The Philly defenders are stating that Philadelphia is improving and exhibiting some economic and population growth, which is also true.
Philly IS growing and getting better. Does the future look more promising than the present? Yes. But it IS, as so eloquently shown in the charts by Burger Fan, lagging well behind many other metropolitan areas and the country as a whole (there are plenty of other cities growing faster than Philly not listed in that table as well, like Austin, San Antonio, Seattle, Charlotte, Research Triangle, etc.). So, as Philly improves in ABSOLUTE growth, in RELATIVE growth, it is falling behind, and if trends continue, some cities currently behind Philly will surpass it and may provide more ample opportunities for people going forward.
I believe that it is projected by the 2020 Census that Phoenix will overtake Philadelphia is the 5th largest city in the U.S. If current trends continue, by 2030, San Antonio will surpass it as well. San Diego will be close. Of course, population trends are bound to change, so who knows.
Philadelphia is a logical choice for people and businesses who find New York City too prohibitive to wind up. This isn't something new and has been happening for a long time. This is probably Philadelphia's biggest hope for growth in the future. If it ever reaches a point where there is a "purging" in New York City and we get a rapid outflow, Philly stands to gain much. At the moment though, it seems like NYC's satellite cities (mostly Jersey City, though Newark is just starting to get its feet wet as well, Stamford and Yonkers don't seem to be doing much new) are getting more of that benefit than Philly is.
Well, at least Pennsylvania is about to become the 6th largest state due Illinois population loss.
Well, Phoenix was declared to be the 5th city in the mid-to-late 2000s; however, the 2010 census disproved this as the estimated growth of Phoenix was overestimated while Philly's was underestimated. Not to say Phoenix will not have more residents later but Philly thought it was the 6th city about 8 years ago or so.
It's important to also realize that Phoenix "grew" by annexing it's surrounding suburbs. Phoenix is 516 Square miles because of this virtually all of it land, and beyond the city limits is basically desert.
Quote:
According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 517.9 square miles (1,341 km2); 516.7 square miles (1,338 km2) of it is land and 1.2 square miles (0.6 km², or 0.2%) of it is water. Even though it is the 6th most populated city, the large area gives it a low density rate of approximately 2,797 people per square mile. In comparison, Philadelphia, the 5th most populous city has a density of over 11,000.
Philadelphia is 141 square miles, and immediately outside of the city are fairly dense, well populated and in many cases VERY wealthy suburbs full of industry. If we expanded Philadelphia's city limits as far as Phoenix expanded theirs, Philly would absorb large chunks of Delaware, Montgomery, Bucks, and Chester counties- reaching from the Delaware possibly all the way out to Lancaster with a population of around 3.5-4+ million, beating out Chicago soundly and rivaling Los Angeles for #2 behind NYC! This is impossible though due to political and demographic reasons, as well as the fact that expanding city services and infrastructure over THAT wide of an area isn't practical, as Phoenix is finding out- it simply isn't feasible for Philly to become that large.
edit: edited to correct population and area figures
Last edited by Burger Fan; 12-31-2015 at 09:59 AM..
I didn't realize Chicago RE market was that bad. That said, I was considering a move to Chicago at the beginning of the year and I found the house prices to be pretty reasonable, based on $/ft.
Like I said, the bigger problem is new inventory that keeps the supply of homes high. This is more problematic in the mid-west. The OP was interested in finding out if house prices will rise faster in PHL than CHI, and I thought this is more likely. However, on a $/ft basis, house prices are higher in PHL.
I think Chicago has bigger problems considering it's history of corrupt politicians. I think IL has the highest number of convicted governors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamms
You must not be aware that about 1/3 of Chicago properties remain underwater, employment and population is stagnant. Underwriting standards have loosened in some cases that there are again no down payment mortgages, 100% financing and inflated sales prices with large seller concessions to purchasers as closing cost credits. I know Chicago's downtown looks exciting so no one would think the city is in financial and, in some areas, physical calamity. Throw in that the fact that Mayor Emmanuel is involved in a murder cover-up.
On top of that is the 10s of billions of debt owed for unfunded public pensions.
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.
