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.
No, but expensive real estate = disincentive for those considering relocating and a factor that leads residents already there to seek relief elsewhere.
There's a reason the net population flows between New York and Philadelphia have been towards Philadelphia for about 20 years, differences in economic growth rates notwithstanding. Even the immigrants from abroad are beginning to feel the squeeze:
There is no Midwestern skyline that rivals Chicago's. I think you meant to say "Northeastern," and even there, you're really talking only about New York.
I think he was referring to just the growth in the south loop that rivals other entire midwestern skylines.
Boston is growing much faster than Philly, the idea that Philly has more room to grow is frankly wishful thinking.
And this is why those "why isn't Philadelphia more prominent?" discussions take on a life of their own.
The city does have more room to grow - we have acres of rundown neighborhoods awaiting revitalization and plenty of space for locating offices and plants.
Besides, growth rates say nothing about space available for expansion.
If what you meant was that the city and region couldn't become much more populous, again, I refer you to our semi-empty quarters in North Central Philadelphia and lots of open space in Montgomery, Bucks and Chester counties, not all of it protected. It's our economic performance, not lack of space or affordable housing, that keeps us from growing faster, and as I said above, I don't think that's a completely bad thing.
And this is why those "why isn't Philadelphia more prominent?" discussions take on a life of their own.
The city does have more room to grow - we have acres of rundown neighborhoods awaiting revitalization and plenty of space for locating offices and plants.
Besides, growth rates say nothing about space available for expansion.
If what you meant was that the city and region couldn't become much more populous, again, I refer you to our semi-empty quarters in North Central Philadelphia and lots of open space in Montgomery, Bucks and Chester counties, not all of it protected. It's our economic performance, not lack of space or affordable housing, that keeps us from growing faster, and as I said above, I don't think that's a completely bad thing.
Visited lately?
This is about Downtowns which neither city really has vast tracks of empty land.
This is about Downtowns which neither city really has vast tracks of empty land.
But once you start talking about growth rates, you're talking about the metropolitan area, not merely the downtown.
At which point the entire region comes into play.
But if you want to focus on the downtown:
Philadelphia's "downtown" is one of the most well-defined geographically of any large U.S. city; Boston rivals it in that department. Everyone agrees on its boundaries: it's those of the original 1682 town (1701 city) of Philadelphia, encompassing about 2.2 square miles. It's often referred to as "Center City."
The special services/business improvement district charged with making its commercial districts more appealing has for the past six or so years taken to referring to something called "Greater Center City."
This area takes in good chunks of North and South Philadelphia next to those 1682 boundaries. The populations of these districts have risen over the past 20 years or so, building off Center City's population growth (when the rest of the city was still shedding residents in the 1980s, Center City and the Lower Northeast neighborhood of Juniata Park added them. That latter neighborhood was experiencing an influx of immigrants from the Spanish-speaking Caribbean, the "canary in the coal mine" for the transformation of lower Northeast Philadelphia into an immigrant magnet, a develpment that did as much as Center City's growth, maybe more, to halt the city's overall population slide).
"Greater Center City" extends north of Vine Street up to Girard Avenue and south of South Street down to Tasker. Many of the neighborhoods that make up this district were poorer and more rundown than they are now; waves of investment in rehabilitation and new construction on vacant lots where houses once stood have produced the transformation (in South Philly, it's mostly rehab east of Broad and a mix west of it; new construction figures more prominently in the North Philly transformations).
Neighborhoods adjacent to these are also beginning to attract development interest: Brewerytosn, South and East Kensington, the area near the Temple campus. I'm even beginning to read stories about development heading towards Strawberry Mansion,an even poorer neighborhood next to Fairmount Park in North Central Philly that is home to a public high school ABC News dubbed "the most dangerous high school in America." I can personally confirm the rumors: I have a (white) friend who lived there until about a month ago, when he moved down to Washington (where he was born and raised). Visting his house, I walked past a shell that was clearly a new building under construction on an infill lot. I was told by a neighbor that the building would house apartments - and I'm sure the builder wasn't the Philadelphia Housing Authority, for they're pouring all their money right now into a swath of land in Sharswood, a neighborhood to Strawberry Mansion's southeast.
So yes, that underdeveloped land in North Central does represent "room to grow" for the downtown. In fact, it recapitulates the way the city grew in the first place. The difference this time is that there's recycling involved instead of building on virgin territory.
Last edited by MarketStEl; 09-23-2018 at 07:36 PM..
Our lack of greenery, I suspect, may turn more people off than we might know.
Philadelphia's tree canopy of 20 percent is the lowest of the five major cities on the East Coast. Even New York edges us out with 22 percent.
The residential districts of the city center are quite green, and so is most of the city's northwest section. Take away those two, though, and the rest is pretty barren save for parts of West Philadelphia, in particular Powelton Village, Spruce Hill, Squirrel Hill, Garden Court and Cedar Park.
I think that this might be as important an issue to address as the city's stubbornly high poverty rate. The environmental benefits would be enormous, never mind the aesthetic ones.
Edited to add: Though it is interesting that that other poster downgraded Philadelphia's downtown based on the visual appeal of the areas outside it.
Market, where do you find accurate data on tree canopy % among major cities?
I don't think there's any question that NYC and Chicago are head and shoulders above the rest. They are #1 and #2 respectively in number of skyscrapers in America and they are loaded with amenities and landmarks, unlike any other city in America. NYC also has legendary Central Park (I know that's more Midtown than Downtown but Midtown is still a CBD).
Chicago has the Mag Mile, Millennium Park, Grant Park, the Chicago River, Lake Michigan, and multiple beaches all in the downtown, which is insane. I can't think of any other city in North America with multiple bodies of water or beaches in the downtown.
The city I believe we're sleeping on, though, and *FULL DISCRETION*, I have never been (I'm going in three months), is Miami. #3 in number of skyscrapers and an absolutely beautiful looking downtown/Brickell situated right next to the bay. I believe the reason it gets slept on is because there doesn't appear to be much hustle and bustle. Besides that, it looks very strong.
Although Downtown/Brickell Miami lacks the hustle and bustle and cultural landmarks of Boston, Philly, and SF, it was absolutely pristine and loaded with beautiful skyscrapers. Its proximity to the bay was wonderful, too.
Philly is helped by a good % of Parkland in the city with aspects of vast frosted areas of Fairmont Park and its divisions where it was separated into other parks. Also its Northwestern regions are very suburban in much with housing in forested areas. Like another Philly most commonly seen.
As we know ..... much of Philly lacks this tree-canopy in neighborhoods of vast areas of tight row-housing. Some neighborhoods of rows .... especially post we 2 areas. Did a tree-canopy much better. Colonial areas in CC too. But this Boston vs Philly river on C-D keeps being rehashed.
Mighty NYC does well in tree-Canopy %. Also its parks add a lot to that.
When I think of a tree-Canopy..... I really want to know trees that line neighborhoods. Not including Parks that give some cities a edge that a visitor who sees it doesn't see in much of its neighborhoods. Again, the reason is vast Parkland trees counted. Some cities parks are less forest stretches too that hurts them.
Aerial views if neighborhood locks in summer are also telling signs of the scope of neighborhoods tree-canopy.
On blighted hoods. Many only if more leveled is it perhaps more relevant for downtown expansions. Former Industrial areas usually work well for core expansions. But all areas valid if in proximity to the core ..... unless pretty much residential housing already and not going to be altered much more then gentrification.
Philly was lucky to have University City and the Schuylkill Yards between them that will be developed as a part of downtown City Center.....
I'm sure both cities will find land to utilize as needed and have new in-core areas added in the future ..... or they just go upward more as needed.
But Center City Philly is still one of the Top Downtowns in the Nation .... with a live-in population to its credit at the top 3.
Philly is helped by a good % of Parkland in the city with aspects of vast frosted areas of Fairmont Park and its divisions where it was separated into other parks. Also its Northwestern regions are very suburban in much with housing in forested areas. Like another Philly most commonly seen.
As we know ..... much of Philly lacks this tree-canopy in neighborhoods of vast areas of tight row-housing. Some neighborhoods of rows .... especially post we 2 areas. Did a tree-canopy much better. Colonial areas in CC too. But this Boston vs Philly river on C-D keeps being rehashed.
Mighty NYC does well in tree-Canopy %. Also its parks add a lot to that.
When I think of a tree-Canopy..... I really want to know trees that line neighborhoods. Not including Parks that give some cities a edge that a visitor who sees it doesn't see in much of its neighborhoods. Again, the reason is vast Parkland trees counted. Some cities parks are less forest stretches too that hurts them.
Aerial views if neighborhood locks in summer are also telling signs of the scope of neighborhoods tree-canopy.
On blighted hoods. Many only if more leveled is it perhaps more relevant for downtown expansions. Former Industrial areas usually work well for core expansions. But all areas valid if in proximity to the core ..... unless pretty much residential housing already and not going to be altered much more then gentrification.
Philly was lucky to have University City and the Schuylkill Yards between them that will be developed as a part of downtown City Center.....
I'm sure both cities will find land to utilize as needed and have new in-core areas added in the future ..... or they just go upward more as needed.
But Center City Philly is still one of the Top Downtowns in the Nation .... with a live-in population to its credit at the top 3.
If you click on the "UTC Status" link at the site I posted earlier, you will get a map showing cities and (in some cases) counties that have conducted urban tree canopy assessments. Each one will have four figures: existing tree canopy, areas covered with impervious surfaces (sidewalks, etc.) that could be modified to support tree canopy, areas where there's vegetation on the ground that could support trees, and area not suitable for tree planting.
The detailed description below the numbers explains also what type of land accounts for the bulk of the trees in a city. Only in New York does open space and recreation account for the largest share of tree cover; in the other cities, including Philly, it's residential land that accounts for the largest share. Sure, our parks help, but it's our streets and yards that need more trees, as you point out above.
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.
