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.
He'll find evidence to support his claim when he sees pictures of North Philly, South Philly and part of West Philly past Penn; not exactly God's Country, and not exactly a small portion of the city, either.
Phoenix? Well, if you like 100 degrees 4-5 months of the year, with no rainfall, then you'll love the Southwest.
South Philly? Hardly any rough and tumble areas of South Philly anymore. Aside from Grays Ferry every other area is nice or gentrifying.
West Philadelphia? Plenty of nice parts outside of UPenn. And North Philadelphia has nice sections bordering Center City and even up to Temple University now. And then more nice sections out before you hit the burbs.
There is far more to Philadelphia than the rough sections, and there are plenty of nice sections that aren't rough, rundown and dirty... that was exactly my point.
I would think that Phoenix will eventually pass Philly, it seems inevitable.
That said, who cares. Phoenix may be bigger but it's nothing more than a collection of disconnected housing and shopping malls connected by freeways. Philly is a REAL city and that's what really matters.
I would think that Phoenix will eventually pass Philly, it seems inevitable.
That said, who cares. Phoenix may be bigger but it's nothing more than a collection of disconnected housing and shopping malls connected by freeways. Philly is a REAL city and that's what really matters.
How very simple-minded of you. Cities are made up of much more than what many of you describe. They each have people and businesses, history (however short or long), events, culture (yes all big cities have it), etc. Just because these things do not mesh with each individual's personally tastes and "tolerance" doesn't make them less important overall. Furthermore, unless you have spent significant time in a city, you don't know a city and for some of you posters, it shows. I happen to think that both Philly (based upon limited experience) and Phoenix have plenty to offer in their own ways. Why does every city's urban fabric need to be a carbon copy of the next? How boring and unoriginal for those of you who think that way.
How very simple-minded of you. Cities are made up of much more than what many of you describe. They each have people and businesses, history (however short or long), events, culture (yes all big cities have it), etc. Just because these things do not mesh with each individual's personally tastes and "tolerance" doesn't make them less important overall. Furthermore, unless you have spent significant time in a city, you don't know a city and for some of you posters, it shows. I happen to think that both Philly (based upon limited experience) and Phoenix have plenty to offer in their own ways. Why does every city's urban fabric need to be a carbon copy of the next? How boring and unoriginal for those of you who think that way.
Sorry, but there is little that is "urban" about Phoenix. It's not a true city, nor was it ever supposed to be.
This is not a put down. Phoenix's lack of urbanity used to be its selling point (and to an extent, still is). The people who designed and planned cities like Phoenix hated cities. Americans have always been suspicious of cities including FDR, Thomas Jefferson, and probably your grandmother. Americans tend to find them dirty, overcrowded, and dangerous.
By the mid-twentieth century, most Americans had to concede urbanization was inevitable and economically beneficial. But Americans still hated cities. So the challenge was to create centers of economic activity that didn't look like cities. Widespread car ownership and a federally subsidized highway system made this dream possible. So now we have a lot of "cities" like Phoenix that don't really look or feel like cities.
Sorry, but there is little that is "urban" about Phoenix. It's not a true city, nor was it ever supposed to be.
This is not a put down. Phoenix's lack of urbanity used to be its selling point (and to an extent, still is). The people who designed and planned cities like Phoenix hated cities. Americans have always been suspicious of cities including FDR, Thomas Jefferson, and probably your grandmother. Americans tend to find them dirty, overcrowded, and dangerous.
By the mid-twentieth century, most Americans had to concede urbanization was inevitable and economically beneficial. But Americans still hated cities. So the challenge was to create centers of economic activity that didn't look like cities. Widespread car ownership and a federally subsidized highway system made this dream possible. So now we have a lot of "cities" like Phoenix that don't really look or feel like cities.
Regardless of whether it is a put down or not, why does it bother people like yourself whether or not Phoenix is up to your "urban" standards or the standards of other cities? I would really like to know this. I just do not understand why some posters will go out of their ways to point out inadequacies without mapping out the entire picture/fabric of what truly makes up a city in addition to the progress that cities have made. People in these forums sure do like to losely toss around that word urban and I bet many of them do not even know the actual meaning of the word. These useless sweeping generalizations about cities are becoming quite boringly redundant.
Regardless of whether it is a put down or not, why does it bother people like yourself whether or not Phoenix is up to your "urban" standards or the standards of other cities? I would really like to know this. I just do not understand why some posters will go out of their ways to point out inadequacies without mapping out the entire picture/fabric of what truly makes up a city in addition to the progress that cities have made. People in these forums sure do like to losely toss around that word urban and I bet many of them do not even know the actual meaning of the word. These useless sweeping generalizations about cities are becoming quite boringly redundant.
It doesn't "bother" me whether Phoenix is urban or not. Do some historical research and you will find that a city like Phoenix was never meant to look like a traditional city. It came of age in an era when dense, urban centers were deemed by planners to be unfashionable. And old cities like Philadelphia were unfashionable. Times have changed and "urban" has lost its negative connotations and has become a positive attribute, especially on C-D.
It doesn't "bother" me whether Phoenix is urban or not. Do some historical research and you will find that a city like Phoenix was never meant to look like a traditional city. It came of age in an era when dense, urban centers were deemed by planners to be unfashionable. And old cities like Philadelphia were unfashionable. Times have changed and "urban" has lost its negative connotations and has become a positive attribute, especially on C-D.
You're spot on. What once made Philly unattractive and lead to 40 years of population decline has become very attractive again. It's is why places like Philly are getting so much investment and gentrification. But this trend isn't limited to just Northeastern and Midwestern cities that were in decline. You'd be amiss to think this trend also isn't happening in Phoenix. The difference being Philadelphia already has the dense urban infrastructure for which to create a new gentrified canvas. There ARE areas of Phoenix that were developed under the old school urban planning thought for cities. Obviously they aren't comparable to a place like Philly, but they exist and aren't hard to find.
What was once Philadelphia's greatest disadvantage over a place like Phoenix does give it a leg up. But the development and mentality for new things in Central Phoenix is based on urbanity and walkability. They aren't just building new beige subdivisions next to strip malls in virgin desert as is the worn out stereotype driven like a freight train on here about PHX.
You can blame the lack of vision in Phoenician planning on developers cashing in on the trends of the times which is always the case. But it exists in almost every sunbelt growth child, not just Phoenix.
You're spot on. What once made Philly unattractive and lead to 40 years of population decline has become very attractive again. It's is why places like Philly are getting so much investment and gentrification. But this trend isn't limited to just Northeastern and Midwestern cities that were in decline. You'd be amiss to think this trend also isn't happening in Phoenix. The difference being Philadelphia already has the dense urban infrastructure for which to create a new gentrified canvas. There ARE areas of Phoenix that were developed under the old school urban planning thought for cities. Obviously they aren't comparable to a place like Philly, but they exist and aren't hard to find.
What was once Philadelphia's greatest disadvantage over a place like Phoenix does give it a leg up. But the development and mentality for new things in Central Phoenix is based on urbanity and walkability. They aren't just building new beige subdivisions next to strip malls in virgin desert as is the worn out stereotype driven like a freight train on here about PHX.
You can blame the lack of vision in Phoenician planning on developers cashing in on the trends of the times which is always the case. But it exists in almost every sunbelt growth child, not just Phoenix.
I actually live out here in Phoenix. Planners are developing both urban and suburban styles of development throughout the metro. In Tempe and on Central Ave, you're seeing much more urban development. Light rail is being expanded to more areas. More outlying areas like Scottsdale are seeing a more suburban style. And both are good. There are people who want cars and people who want buses. People who like density and people who want space. And we should cater to both. Unfortunately, C-D only believes that urbanity is good, meaning that Phoenix can never be a "great" city like Philly. When I see people say things like "lack of vision" about Phoenix or any sunbelt city, then I know they haven't been there. The elitist idea that a city that doesn't emulate New York, SF, Philly, or Boston is inferior needs to go. Everyone doesn't want urbanity and everyone doesn't want suburbs. There needs to be a middle ground for both parties to be satisfied. There is no leg up for either Phoenix or Philly. People have their preferences and they are moving in high numbers to get what they want in Phoenix and Philly. Neither is better than the other. End of story.
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.
