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.
Philly is much more similar to Chicago or Boston on this metric with losses between 20-25%
Detroit, St Louis, Cleveland all had greater than 55% peak loss
I agree on percentages, I was talking numbers and forgot about Chicago, so Philly had the third highest numbers decline. And what I was saying was really a compliment, it's a comeback story.
^^^
Exciting that Philly is getting some great towers.
San Diego will never have that exciting, or varied of a skyline simply because of FAA regulations because of our downtown airport. Building heights are strictly capped at 500'. Because of that there are plenty of buildings that approach that height but from a distance it looks like most of tall buildings are truncated right at that height, and then a bunch of buildings at around 1/2 that, 20 stories or so because of code/earthquake requirements that sharply change for buildings above that (so, for economic sense, they tend then to go right up to 40). So the skyline is mostly a mix of ~45 story "towers" and 20 story mid rises and a slew of ~6 story mixed use but not much between.
I think SDs skyline will be closer to Vancouver in the future.
Philly is much more similar to Chicago or Boston on this metric with losses between 20-25%
Detroit, St Louis, Cleveland all had greater than 55% peak loss
Exactly. slo1318 is talking out of his/her ass with that false information. Gtfoh, You expect non factual information from trolls not long time members.
Exactly. slo1318 is talking out of his/her ass with that false information. Gtfoh, You expect non factual information from trolls not long time members.
I didnt say anything non factual. I corrected the ranking from 2 to 3 in total loss of over 500,000 people. It is what it is.
I didnt say anything non factual. I corrected the ranking from 2 to 3 in total loss of over 500,000 people. It is what it is.
You said "The CITY of Philadelphia went through a very steep decline. Second only to Detroit". Then people proved that statement wrong (non factual) by showing Philadelphia's loss was similar to Boston, DC, Chicago etc and not second to Detroit and then you admitted that you were wrong (just like you did right now) so that means you were saying non factual information.
You said "The CITY of Philadelphia went through a very steep decline. Second only to Detroit". Then people proved that statement wrong (non factual) by showing Philadelphia's loss was similar to Boston, DC, Chicago etc and not second to Detroit and then you admitted that you were wrong (just like you did right now) so that means you were saying non factual information.
So what, whoop dee doo, thats old news I already corrected. The fact is Philadelphia went through the 3rd steepest population loss in the US.
So what, whoop dee doo, thats old news I already corrected. The fact is Philadelphia went through the 3rd steepest population loss in the US.
it did, though the root causes of the loss is more similar to Boston and Chicago rather than Detroit, Cleveland and St Louis though all did have some level of abandonment/flight.
For the first three the largest impact was built out cities with a significant reduction in occupancy per dwelling whereas the other three had more significant reductions in number of dwellings
losses none the less but the driving factors are different
it did, though the root causes of the loss is more similar to Boston and Chicago rather than Detroit, Cleveland and St Louis though all did have some level of abandonment/flight.
For the first three the largest impact was built out cities with a significant reduction in occupancy per dwelling whereas the other three had more significant reductions in number of dwellings
losses none the less but the driving factors are different
Sure, it was a huge phenomenon during that time period, alot of those cities will never fully recover. Philly is going through a great renaissance though, better than most.
Sure, it was a huge phenomenon during that time period, alot of those cities will never fully recover. Philly is going through a great renaissance though, better than most.
recover to what? The peak population? probably not as that would be 20K density over area 3 times the size of SF, over 30% of the current footprint is industrial, airports, parks or ports so don't see it ever getting back to that level unless HH size increases significantly, trends suggest the other way actually
On prosperity, the city lost a large portion of its middle class as the job market changed significantly and left the legacy industrial cities unable to evolve quickly to retrofit jobs in the same way
Philly is changing from the inside out within the city, where it could end up is with a more prosperous core similar in footprint to say a SF or Boston but will still have more impoverished areas within the limits that continue to get pushed toward the fringes of the current city.
I guess it depends on what you consider recover, if you are saying will 2.2 million live within the 134 sq. miles in our lifetime, probably not mostly due to HH size more than anything else.
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.
