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've highlighted the decades with a net population decline.
Except for the fact that Toronto is actually larger than Chicago. I'm pretty sure everyone who says that has prejudice due to preconceived notions derived from things they may have heard. Having lived in both, I can tell you that Toronto has little in common with Chicago. Both are great, but in their own unique ways, not very similar to each other.
I don't understand why you're getting so defensive. No offence to Philadelphia, but I just don't think it can truly compete with the likes of Chicago, and Toronto. Nor can Montreal/Vancouver compete with Toronto/Chicago. You're entitled to your opinion, but in my opinion, this is an odd comparison.
LOL, not getting involved. Obviously, I meant recent and significant growth change.
You are the one that is getting defensive-how do you not see that? Good luck in your new city.
LOL, not getting involved. Obviously, I meant recent and significant growth change.
Despite what you may think, I actually love Philly, but I just don't consider it as great of a city as Toronto, which is much more comparable to Chicago, IMO.
Quote:
You are the one that is getting defensive-how do you not see that? Good luck in your new city.
You're comparing two different entities entirely. All American cities declined and lost population in this period because of suburbanization between 1950 and the 1990s. Also, the decline between 1930 and 1940 was because of World War II. It's clear you don't really know what you're talking about. You're making the decline of American cities out to be simple, when it's a very complex and complicated issue.
Philadelphia's 2012 population is estimated at 1,547,607... and with all the new residential construction going up in the city it's evident that trend is only continuing.
Last edited by RightonWalnut; 11-05-2013 at 09:51 AM..
I can say that Toronto is not only a "good" city, but a great one. To compare it to Philly, a city that is in perpetual decline (and has been for decades) is just odd.
Ahh yes good ole city-data the city vs city circus.
Gotta love it when someone who has lived in Toronto for an hour and 20minutes and most likely has never set foot within 400 miles of Philadelphia has everything figured out.
Ahh yes good ole city-data the city vs city circus.
Gotta love it when someone who has lived in Toronto for an hour and 20minutes and most likely has never set foot within 400 miles of Philadelphia has everything figured out.
I like how you have no response to me... clearly you realize you sounded ridiculous.
Actually, I was hoping you saw your own ridiculousness. Many American cities (especially in the rust belt) have sadly declined, so I'm not sure why you'd want to exclude this decline when comparing Philadelphia to another city, which has had better luck. Remember, I lived in Chicago before moving to Toronto, so to me, large scale abandonment (the kind one sees in a city that has lost more than 500k people in less than a century) is very relevant when comparing a city's livelihood. oh, and to say that all American cities have had this decline is just plain inaccurate; many have not (NYC being one of the few Northern examples). While Philly might have seen its luck turn these past few years, most of this population gain is actually from first generation immigrants, who in this case, do not contribute very much to the city's character, which is important when your character isn't "multiculturalism" (as is the case for Toronto). In any case, I don't think that adding 100k people in 15 years will reverse the dqmage cause by the more than 500k that have left. If this upward trend continues, and at least a good proportion of these people are not first generation immigrants with little knowledge of the city, I will be much more impressed. Like I said, I love Philly, and I do hope that it will regain some of its former prestige, but I don't view it as being in the same league as heavyweights, like Chicago, and Toronto. I hope that diffuses some tension re my position on this topic.
Actually, I was hoping you saw your own ridiculousness. Many American cities (especially in the rust belt) have sadly declined, so I'm not sure why you'd want to exclude this decline when comparing Philadelphia to another city, which has had better luck. Remember, I lived in Chicago before moving to Toronto, so to me, large scale abandonment (the kind one sees in a city that has lost more than 500k people in less than a century) is very relevant when comparing a city's livelihood. oh, and to say that all American cities have had this decline is just plain inaccurate; many have not (NYC being one of the few Northern examples). While Philly might have seen its luck turn these past few years, most of this population gain is actually from first generation immigrants, who in this case, do not contribute very much to the city's character, which is important when your character isn't "multiculturalism" (as is the case for Toronto). In any case, I don't think that adding 100k people in 15 years will reverse the dqmage cause by the more than 500k that have left. If this upward trend continues, and at least a good proportion of these people are not first generation immigrants with little knowledge of the city, I will be much more impressed. Like I said, I love Philly, and I do hope that it will regain some of its former prestige, but I don't view it as being in the same league as heavyweights, like Chicago, and Toronto. I hope that diffuses some tension re my position on this topic.
Actually NYC lost over 100,000 people between 1950 and 1960 and another 800,000 people between 1970 and 1980.
Boston lost 30% of its population or over 250,000 people between 1950 and 1980.
Philadelphia lost 25% of its population between 1950 and 2000 and has been growing consistently and considerably for over 10 years. Any study will actually show that young college educated adults are fueling the growth, although immigration is at the highest it has been in decades, which I consider a good thing. Chicago lost 23% of its population or about 800,000 people between 1950 and 1990.
Actually, I was hoping you saw your own ridiculousness. Many American cities (especially in the rust belt) have sadly declined, so I'm not sure why you'd want to exclude this decline when comparing Philadelphia to another city, which has had better luck. Remember, I lived in Chicago before moving to Toronto, so to me, large scale abandonment (the kind one sees in a city that has lost more than 500k people in less than a century) is very relevant when comparing a city's livelihood. oh, and to say that all American cities have had this decline is just plain inaccurate; many have not (NYC being one of the few Northern examples). While Philly might have seen its luck turn these past few years, most of this population gain is actually from first generation immigrants, who in this case, do not contribute very much to the city's character, which is important when your character isn't "multiculturalism" (as is the case for Toronto). In any case, I don't think that adding 100k people in 15 years will reverse the dqmage cause by the more than 500k that have left. If this upward trend continues, and at least a good proportion of these people are not first generation immigrants with little knowledge of the city, I will be much more impressed. Like I said, I love Philly, and I do hope that it will regain some of its former prestige, but I don't view it as being in the same league as heavyweights, like Chicago, and Toronto. I hope that diffuses some tension re my position on this topic.
Most of America's ACTUAL cities have and they are now on the rebound.
New York City declined between 1950 and 1960. Then grew between 1960 and 1970. Then declined again between 1970 and 1980 New York Population History
Practically ever city lost population in this time period due to suburbanization and deindustrialization and Philadelphia is no different. Where I have beef with your statement is where you said Philadelphia is a city in decline. While that may be truee from 1950-2000, it is no longer true. Philadelphia has been growing by 10,000 residents a year for the past 7 years and I posted links to prove that. IDK how you can ignore 7 straight years of growth and call Philadelphia a city in decline.
The cities that did not decline were those that were sprawling outwards and annexing surrounding towns and suburbs like LA did... but even so, the core of these cities still declined and lost population. The only reason they gained population is from annexing surrounding areas.
"Fading" would denote that there was at some point a hint of credibilty to his/her argument.
My man has absolutely no idea what he is talking about in regards to Philadelphia yet he keeps making these bombastic untrue statements about Philadelphia..
All the new growth is first generation immigrants that bring little to the city? Uggh Can someone please take this dude on a tour of Logan Square,Graduate Hospital, Midtown Village,Fishtown,Northern Liberties,University City, Queen Village,Spring Garden,Cedar Park,Manayunk etc etc etc and show him the ridiculous amount of construction and influx of wealthy newcomers.
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.
