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.
Median household income in Philly is below El Paso... That is why it's affordable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtyfygiu
Philly is the poorest major city in America.
A few things on that topic:
1. It's not truly an apples-to-apples comparison. Unlike most of the "10 largest cities," Philadelphia's city limits are nearly exclusively inner-city or downtown core neighborhoods, whereas cities like Dallas or Houston or Phoenix city limits contain much larger share of typically higher-earning suburban neighborhoods. It's why the Philly metro overall still has higher or comparable income levels than most of the other Top 10 city metro areas.
2. Current measures of poverty don't take into account cost-of-living differences between cities, which makes for a pretty inaccurate comparison, especially in this age of inflation.
3. As much as I hate to admit it, Philadelphia is really a tale of two cities, moreso than most (in the past, it has been characterized as "Bos-troit"). You have an increasingly thriving and affluent core of 350-400K in population surrounded by a lot of working-class or worse, deeply impoverished neighborhoods (with the notable exceptions of affluent-leaning Northwest Philly or the largely Middle Class "Great Northeast"). You also see dramatic differences in "affordability" between the core of Philly and the outlying neighborhoods. That's what makes the city such a complex case, as opposed to the broad-brush painting you're suggesting.
1. It's not truly an apples-to-apples comparison. Unlike most of the "10 largest cities," Philadelphia's city limits are nearly exclusively inner-city or downtown core neighborhoods, whereas cities like Dallas or Houston or Phoenix city limits contain much larger share of typically higher-earning suburban neighborhoods. It's why the Philly metro overall still has higher or comparable income levels than most of the other Top 10 city metro areas.
2. Current measures of poverty don't take into account cost-of-living differences between cities, which makes for a pretty inaccurate comparison, especially in this age of inflation.
3. As much as I hate to admit it, Philadelphia is really a tale of two cities, moreso than most (in the past, it has been characterized as "Bos-troit"). You have an increasingly thriving and affluent core of 350-400K in population surrounded by a lot of working-class or worse, deeply impoverished neighborhoods (with the notable exception of Northwest Philly). That's what makes the city such a complex case, as opposed to the broad-brush painting you're suggesting.
Isn't that most cities? Name an American city that has equal income distribution all over.
Right, it's more pronounced. Compared to El Paso, for example, even with a (barely) lower household income, 6% of Philly households earn $200K+ versus 3% in the former. That's double the proportion of affluence in a city that also has a higher poverty rate.
But yes, I think you're correct that the PA 'burbs have the highest level of affluence between both regions, whereas Chicago proper is definitively wealthier than Philadelphia proper.
Chicago has suburbs North, Northwest, and West whose affluence rivals or exceeds that of the blue chip suburbs along the main line. I’d be surprised if Chicago doesn’t have more, and more evenly dispersed affluence in its suburbs. It’ll be an exercise, but I’ll poke around tomorrow at the toniest suburbs across the different parts of each metro.
I’d also add, some of these Chicago suburbs at $200k+ median income levels are not small enclaves like they are along the Main Line. They are large villages of 20k+.
Chicago has suburbs North, Northwest, and West whose affluence rivals or exceeds that of the blue chip suburbs along the main line. I’d be surprised if Chicago doesn’t have more, and more evenly dispersed affluence in its suburbs. It’ll be an exercise, but I’ll poke around tomorrow at the toniest suburbs across the different parts of each metro.
I’d also add, some of these Chicago suburbs at $200k+ median income levels are not small enclaves like they are along the Main Line. They are large villages of 20k+.
Well, there's more than the Main Line for Philadelphia-area suburban affluence.
But generally speaking, on a per capita basis (the Chicago area is significantly larger, after all), you actually see remarkably similar affluence levels at the metro level in both areas (per 2019 Census data, the Philly metro has a very slight edge on per capita income, and $200K+ households comprise 12% in the Philly area versus 11% in the Chicago area).
Chicago has suburbs North, Northwest, and West whose affluence rivals or exceeds that of the blue chip suburbs along the main line. I’d be surprised if Chicago doesn’t have more, and more evenly dispersed affluence in its suburbs. It’ll be an exercise, but I’ll poke around tomorrow at the toniest suburbs across the different parts of each metro.
I’d also add, some of these Chicago suburbs at $200k+ median income levels are not small enclaves like they are along the Main Line. They are large villages of 20k+.
To your point, Bloomberg's list of America's richest towns. Of the top 50, Chicago has 5, ( Winnetka, Glencoe, Hinsdale, Lake Forest, Long Grove ) Philly 0.
Two ( Winnetka and Glencoe ) are #8 and #9 in the U.S., and 12 of the top 100 are in Chicago, Philly not on the list ( and am surprised that Villanova or Berwyn are not, frankly ). But I am not doubting Duderino's assertion that they are statistically even.
To your point, Bloomberg's list of America's richest towns. Of the top 50, Chicago has 5, ( Winnetka, Glencoe, Hinsdale, Lake Forest, Long Grove ) Philly 0. 2 ( Winnetka and Glencoe ) are #8 and #9 in the U.S. 12 of the 100, Philly not on the list ( and am surprised that Villanova or Berwyn are not, frankly ). But I am not doubting Duderino's assertion that they are statistically even.
The issue with lists like those, is that they pass over many towns (I’d assume based on some unknown criteria). The Census is the only way to really sift through the data.
As an example, Gladwyne has an average income of $844k, only bested by Kenilworth in IL at $882.
There are glaring omissions on the list you shared… One I’m very familiar with, Weston, MA is near the top of every zip code list (only one zip code serves Weston).
Again, I’ll do some digging as I’m a census fanatic. I did something similar between Greater Boston and Chicagoland in the past.
Well, there's more than the Main Line for Philadelphia-area suburban affluence.
But generally speaking, on a per capita basis (the Chicago area is significantly larger, after all), you actually see remarkably similar affluence levels at the metro level in both areas (per 2019 Census data, the Philly metro has a very slight edge on per capita income, and $200K+ households comprise 12% in the Philly area versus 11% in the Chicago area).
I see it as a wash statistically.
Though the Main Line is the epicenter for area wealth, many on here seem to forget that tidbit. And doesn't Lower Merion at large have like ~65,000 people? Just a unique makeup of towns, villages, zip codes, unincorporated communities, etc.
But yea as you said, it's generally a wash when comparing wealth, income stats, etc.
Sure, that would be the one off. But go inland a few blocks from the Drake or Hancock and it’s predominately mid rise residential and not a lot of commercial activity.
I was looking for a clearer marker, that would extend from Lake Michigan all the way to the river with no break in commercial and business.
Quite honestly, you could argue the Viaga Triangle is downtown Chicago and nobody would argue. But, those areas extending away from the core downtown can be found anywhere, so you kind of have to draw a logical line.
I think saying the Loop is that makes sense given the historical context. I think there's fairly decent rationale for saying downtown Chicago in the more general sense or the downtown area includes more than that. The Chicago River is pretty narrow both west and north of the Loop and with many, many crossings and parts of it operate as a park including activities on the river itself. I think I-90 is actually more of a barrier than the Chicago River. Now that's a good prime candidate for where a big cap project with some of the ramps removed makes a lot of sense to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
The one freeway that got built since I moved here actually made the original northern border of the 1682 Town of Philadelphia (City of Philadelphia as of 1701) more pedestrian-friendly.
Note also how she characterizes the San Franciscans' reactions to her moving back.
Seems to me that many in "Everyone's Favorite City" are coming to the conclusion that the bloom is off the rose.
Somewhat relevant aside triggered by the article's URL: Philadelphia does have a world-class municipal inferiority complex. I've also written about it in an article suggesting that it could learn something about how Kansas City got past its. I tend to say that "Philadelphia is underrated — and nobody underrates it more than the natives."
As I think I said above, that downtown residential population does matter, and it goes a long way towards explaining why people like OyCrumbler perceive Center City Philadelphia to be more vibrant than the Loop. I should note that in Chicago, some of the main skyscrapers, the most prestigious shopping street and the Gold Coast all lie within the CBD as the city defines it but not within the Loop. The residential population of the Near North especially, but also the other neighborhoods ringing the Loop, are what give Chicago the second-largest downtown residential population, behind New York and ahead of Philadelphia.
The Central Philadelphia Development Corporation / Center City (business improvement) District makes a similar distinction here when it speaks of "Greater Center City." The latter describes an area that encompasses the ZIP codes directly touching Center City in lower North and upper South Philadelphia, extending for about a mile beyond the original, pre-1854 city boundaries. Including these largely residential districts pushes the residential population of the city's "core" to nearly 200,000. (68,000 people, a little more than live in the city of Lancaster, live in Center City proper. 190,000 live in "greater Center City.")
A local developer had proposed a 30-story residential skyscraper for a principal intersection in the southern part of "Greater Center City."
Its would-be neighbors hated it. The project has been reconfigured as a cluster of four 10- to 14-story buildings that I think looks better and is better put together than the original one. It's still going to be huge, though: 1,457 apartments and 65k sf of commercial space.
Take a look at a map of "Greater Center City." It comes awfully close. Yorktown doesn't make it in, but part of East Passyunk does.
I can see your point about Vine Street having been foreboding after its widening and before the expressway. I think burying lanes for traffic can be a very good idea though there's a question of how much in resources to expend on such rather than just making the streets more conducive for other uses as I assume Vine Street was prior to its widening. I think it may have been better to never have widened Vine Street to begin with, but I don't take issue with the idea that burying it was better than an already widened Vine Street. I think now that it's already done and vehicles aren't nearly as incredibly polluting as they were in the 20th century, probably the best step now is to cap it though in general, I think multiple, wide expressways through a city core is not a great idea.
If somehow I had some say in what the city does, I'd probably put a Vine Street expressway cap pretty high on the list of priorities, but lower than turning SEPTA regional rail into a S-Bahn system that serves as express rapid transit for much of the city and integrating NJT Atlantic City branch with battery electric trains (that can also draw from electrification especially as it gets expanded) and those also expanding into former SEPTA diesel routes. Getting an extension to the PATCO Speedline and integrating it into SEPTA would also be great (I think headed west and then northwards on 22nd street). With that, then I think it'd be good for the region for there to be secondary CBDs developed in North Philadelphia and downtown Camden. Also wouldn't mind having a study look into expanding the trolley to see how feasible it is to bust through its current stop and be through-running onto a riverfront line and passing into the Girard Avenue to the north and the stadium complex to the south.
San Francisco does have a lot going for it, but it's really a bit further away from the downtown core that's usually more attractive to me. I'm lucky enough that the price shell shock isn't that bad for me coming from Brooklyn and doing pretty alright there, but it also seems pretty obvious to me that a lot of people aren't doing alright in SF and especially around the downtown area. They don't have or don't provide the resources to make it work for a lot of people so the prices seem to push a lot of people to the margins. Even for those that aren't at the margins, it feels like a lot of the oxygen has left the area in terms of having a wide breadth of retail, entertainment, and communities to support such. In my teens I thought SF, and at that point my limited experience was with the downtown area almost exclusively, coming from Los Angeles, was incredible and bustling especially with all the music and art venues and interesting small stores. That seems to have taken a massive hit in the greater downtown SF area. It's still interesting to me though, and I think downtown SF would certainly hit a top 20 mark for my personal preferences which is pretty good given the many municipalities in the US. As it stands now though, I like Center City and its environs more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justabystander
This actually woke me up. Quote: "Weighted heavily by my own preferences". Translation: " I am a homer obviously from Philadelphia, and readily admit my own bias".
No question Chicago is #2.
If you were asking me to rate based on jobs, clout and importance and the like, then no question Chicago is above Philadelphia and a good candidate for #2 with the only arguable contenders for that spot being SF and DC (though DC is a weird one). Note that the list I made was heavily not that given the inclusion of Pittsburgh, New Orleans, Madison, and Portland downtowns on that list for top 10.
I do readily admit my biases as I very much enjoy the mixed-use, mixed architecture, scale, and layout of Center City and its nearby neighborhoods especially going on south--that's the weighted heavily by my own preferences part. However, it's not really a homer thing as I've never lived in Philadelphia. I've stayed for the longest at a stretch maybe a bit over a couple of weeks, and I quite like it, but I've lived in, or stayed in in the case of Chicago for longer stretches (though I think for shorter total time given its fewer visits). Certainly wouldn't mind living in Philadelphia at some point though as I really do like it a *lot*. I certainly wouldn't mind living in Chicago either as it's pretty high up on my list.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 02-14-2022 at 09:10 AM..
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.
