I am wondering how bad was the city of Philadelphia in the 60's and early 70's? (taxes, to live)

[thedirtypirate]

I wasn't alive, but my parents/grandparents were. From talking to them, older coworkers, etc. my impression has always been people wanted two things in that: a bigger house and more land. Two things that were scarce in Philadelphia and abundant in all the counties around it.

By the 60s and 70s, people were moving beyond even the inner ring suburbs into the exburbs and surrounding farming communities.

The city's industrial economic base was in a free fall by 1970. By the end of the 70s', a population as large as all of Pittsburgh had left the city in a single decade.

Philadelphia is lucky enough to have one of the best documentary series about a city's history available for free on youtube.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRarFD4S6So





https://youtu.be/1h_iuuLaw5Y

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by Avalon08

Don't forget too that nothing was allowed to be built higher than Billy Penn's hat. Or that was the "gentleman's agreement", anyway. So our skyline wasn't keeping up with those of the other cities but we, being Philadelphians, didn't want change so we were vehemently opposed to One Liberty Place being built in the 80s. But now I'm so glad folks more visionary than we were went ahead with it. I love our skyline now, particularly the view from the Expressway at dusk coming east toward Center City. Blows me away every time.

What do you mean, "we", and who were these "more visionary" people aside from Willard Rouse?

It was City Council itself that signed off on Rouse's request to break the "gentlemen's agreement," which was not part of any written ordinance or the city zoning code. The lot's zoning, which in its category based allowable building height on FAR (floor area ratio), allowed a building as tall as One Liberty to be built by right IIRC, but since everyone had observed the unwritten rule up until then, Rouse thought it wise to get official sanction to break it.

ISTR almost no organized opposition to the request, though Ed Bacon did weigh in against discarding the rule. I think most city residents actually didn't really care one way or the other.

But I consider 1987, the year One Liberty was built, as the turning point in the city's resurgence.

[JacksonPanther]

Originally Posted by MarketStEl

But I consider 1987, the year One Liberty was built, as the turning point in the city's resurgence.

Agreed 100%!!!

[GuyBucks]

I lived in Philadelphia for a long time until 1991. I actually remember there being quite a bit of resistance to the construction of One Liberty Place, but in the end the developers won out.

City Hall is a remarkable and magnificent building. It was meant to be the city’s centerpiece, and when it was the tallest building in the city it truly was. Driving down the Parkway and approaching City Hall felt like an event.

One Liberty Place is an architecturally undistinguished rip off of New York’s Chrysler Building. It opened the floodgate to a lot of ugly new skyscrapers. The fact that Jewelers Row will soon be replaced with a high-rise is the icing on the cake. To me, the skyline of Philadelphia now looks like any other city.

I see people in this thread talking about the city’s resurgence and joking about how awful it was in the old days. To me, despite the grittiness the city had a special flavor that was quintessentially Philadelphian. I find now it increasingly looks and feels like a smaller version of New York.

[JacksonPanther]

Originally Posted by GuyBucks

I see people in this thread talking about the city’s resurgence and joking about how awful it was in the old days. To me, despite the grittiness the city had a special flavor that was quintessentially Philadelphian. I find now it increasingly looks and feels like a smaller version of New York.

My comment was no joke. I had to live here and use septa during the 70s and 80s. Nothing was funny about riding in filthy, graffiti covered trains. A city where you paid taxes yet received diminishing levels of service. Where the teachers went out on strike seemingly every 2 or 3 years.

There was nothing romantic about it, regardless of your rose colored memory. Philly is a hundred times better today, yet retains all the grittiness a big city can have and not be located in south america.

[moneymkt]

Originally Posted by JacksonPanther

My comment was no joke. I had to live here and use septa during the 70s and 80s. Nothing was funny about riding in filthy, graffiti covered trains. A city where you paid taxes yet received diminishing levels of service. Where the teachers went out on strike seemingly every 2 or 3 years.

There was nothing romantic about it, regardless of your rose colored memory. Philly is a hundred times better today, yet retains all the grittiness a big city can have and not be located in south america.

So it was a lot of strikes in the 70's? I did know about the strikes in the early 80's

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by GuyBucks

I lived in Philadelphia for a long time until 1991. I actually remember there being quite a bit of resistance to the construction of One Liberty Place, but in the end the developers won out.

City Hall is a remarkable and magnificent building. It was meant to be the city’s centerpiece, and when it was the tallest building in the city it truly was. Driving down the Parkway and approaching City Hall felt like an event.

One Liberty Place is an architecturally undistinguished rip off of New York’s Chrysler Building. It opened the floodgate to a lot of ugly new skyscrapers. The fact that Jewelers Row will soon be replaced with a high-rise is the icing on the cake. To me, the skyline of Philadelphia now looks like any other city.

I see people in this thread talking about the city’s resurgence and joking about how awful it was in the old days. To me, despite the grittiness the city had a special flavor that was quintessentially Philadelphian. I find now it increasingly looks and feels like a smaller version of New York.

When I arrived here in 1983, the West Market office canyon offered a municipal buzz cut from a distance because all the buildings came up to Billy Penn's hatbrim and stopped.

If the aim was for City Hall to truly dominate the skyline, the height limit should have been set significantly lower than 548 feet, for having the skyscrapers all touch Penn's hat, so to speak, eliminated that appearance. The view down the Parkway was just about the only one* where City Hall Tower still held pride of place, and that was the result not of the "Billy Penn hatbrim rule" but rather one that was in the zoning code, namely, the much lower height limit for buildings within 200 feet of the Ben Franklin Parkway to preserve the view corridor (this is why the Bell Atlantic Tower (now 1717 Arch Street) has its corners shaved off; its northeast corner would otherwise have intruded on the view corridor).

With the addition of one more up-to-his-hatbrim tower east of Market to give PSFS company in 1984, the die had pretty much been cast. We could have a skyline or we could have something that lived up to the letter but violated the spirit of the "gentlemen's agreement." I imagine Council's thinking was, Since the spirit of the rule had already been trashed, it's really no big deal to get rid of the letter of the rule.

Helmut Jahn's boxier version of the Chrysler Building was more interesting than any of the skyscrapers then extant save two: The two east of City Hall, PSFS and the Reading Terminal (later Aramark, now Jefferson) Tower. I'd say much the same for most of the taller buildings built since then, including BNY Mellon Center and the two Comcast towers (even though I consider the spire atop the second one a stupid building trick).

And I'd say that this city is no more "a smaller New York" now than it was then, except that more New Yorkers now live here.

*The others, of course, are the views along Broad Street. And along South Broad, the high-rises envelop the tower more than they defer to it, and that embrace makes the tower more prominent.

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by GuyBucks

One Liberty Place is an architecturally undistinguished rip off of New York’s Chrysler Building. It opened the floodgate to a lot of ugly new skyscrapers. The fact that Jewelers Row will soon be replaced with a high-rise is the icing on the cake. To me, the skyline of Philadelphia now looks like any other city.

I'm not happy about what's now Toll Brothers' hole in the ground at Jewelers Row's east end, but the tower isn't replacing the entire 700 block of Sansom Street, down which I walked twice daily pre-pandemic and will again once we return to the office on a part-time basis.

Agreed, however, that that tower is (or rather will be) completely out of scale for the block it's on.

[Lenses & Lights.]

Originally Posted by Hedonism

I don't know anybody who cares about the Sixers.

In the late 70's to early 2000's people cared about the Sixers. C'mon now, we had the Doc, World B. Free, Dawkins, Bibby era, and the Doc, Cheeks, Jones and Toney era, the Doc, Moses, Barkley, and Hawkins era which transitioned to the Barkley, Mahorn, Manute and Giminski era, then that franchise sort of lulled for a few years post Barkley, then the Allen Iverson era entered and drew excitement thst hadn't been seen in a while.

The Sixers took a serious dip post Iverson and have had some serious buzz over the past few years and I dont see that changing anytime soon.

As far as the Flyers go, they've gone the way of hockey in general. Just like baseball they've taken hits in popularity but in the 70's through mid 2000's the Fly Boys were always greatly appreciated and pretty popular.

[Hedonism]

Originally Posted by Lenses & Lights.

In the late 70's to early 2000's people cared about the Sixers. C'mon now, we had the Doc, World B. Free, Dawkins, Bibby era, and the Doc, Cheeks, Jones and Toney era, the Doc, Moses, Barkley, and Hawkins era which transitioned to the Barkley, Mahorn, Manute and Giminski era, then that franchise sort of lulled for a few years post Barkley, then the Allen Iverson era entered and drew excitement thst hadn't been seen in a while.

The Sixers took a serious dip post Iverson and have had some serious buzz over the past few years and I dont see that changing anytime soon.

As far as the Flyers go, they've gone the way of hockey in general. Just like baseball they've taken hits in popularity but in the 70's through mid 2000's the Fly Boys were always greatly appreciated and pretty popular.

Yes, those teams were fun.


I'm talking about 2021, though. I know two people who care about the Sixers - one coworker (older black guy), one nephew (35 y/o Chinese guy).


Plenty of people still obviously care about the Sixers, just not in my circle.