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.
Replying to the part you added after I began my response:
I can think of a time when Philadelphia would hold no appeal whatsoever for a Brooklynite. I moved here when that was still the case. Sure, there's going to be a difference in the level of energy and vitality between a city of 2.6m and one of 1.5m*, but Philadelphia's city center has made enormous strides on both counts since the late 1980s — and the current migration trends don't really predate 2000.
If The New York Times can run stories about how "people are calling Philadelphia 'the sixth borough'" — which rankled lots of folks down here, me included, made worse by the fact that the writer of that mid-2000s item was a regular contributor to Philadelphia Weekly — then I'd say that while there's still a gap, it's not as large as it once was, and may no longer be described as "huge" (though 80 percent does mean there's 20 percent missing, and that's not a small difference either).
I guess one other difference between Brooklyn and Philadelphia is that Brooklyn doesn't really have parts that look bombed-out the way parts of the Bronx and North Philadephia do. And that may be why the OP chose to pair those two boroughs. But even so, Brooklyn looks to me like the closer fit.
*though I do note that the population gap between Philadelphia and Chicago is roughly the same, and over on that "Philly vs. Chicago" thread, there seems to be a general consensus that even though Chicago is a notch above Philadelphia, the latter holds its own against the Windy City.
I would say that on the whole, the two places offer comparable QOL and environments.
The beach and museums are not everyday experiences. These are things the vast majority of people only do every so often.
I think the everyday experience is VERY different because Brooklyn is vastly more walkable than Philadelphia and has a lot more foot traffic. It's also going to be vastly different because there is far less car dependence overall than there is in Philadelphia. Since many people here are self-described urbanists, those are going to be two things about these places that are not really comparable, and Philly is going to represent a major downgrade coming from the gentrified areas of BK. That's why I tell people not to move to Philly expecting to get an NYC-lite experience at a fraction of the cost because they're going to be sorely disappointed. Sure, you pay less, but you also get a lot less in terms of transit, walkability and street vibrancy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
Brooklyn is both whiter and a little more ethnic than Philadelphia, but not by so much in the latter category that you'd notice.
Oh, it's very noticeable. There's nothing in Philly comparable to West Indian Flatbush or Jewish Williamsburg.
*though I do note that the population gap between Philadelphia and Chicago is roughly the same, and over on that "Philly vs. Chicago" thread, there seems to be a general consensus that even though Chicago is a notch above Philadelphia, the latter holds its own against the Windy City.
The difference is that Brooklyn packs in Chicago's entire population in a third of the area. This is the difference between having mostly quiet, moderate density SFH rowhouse neighborhoods and more bustling, high density multi-unit dominated neighborhoods. At the street level, there is a night and day difference between Williamsburg and anywhere in South Philly.
The beach and museums are not everyday experiences. These are things the vast majority of people only do every so often.
I think the everyday experience is VERY different because Brooklyn is vastly more walkable than Philadelphia and has a lot more foot traffic. It's also going to be vastly different because there is far less car dependence overall than there is in Philadelphia. Since many people here are self-described urbanists, those are going to be two things about these places that are not really comparable, and Philly is going to represent a major downgrade coming from the gentrified areas of BK. That's why I tell people not to move to Philly expecting to get an NYC-lite experience at a fraction of the cost because they're going to be sorely disappointed. Sure, you pay less, but you also get a lot less in terms of transit, walkability and street vibrancy.
Oh, it's very noticeable. There's nothing in Philly comparable to West Indian Flatbush or Jewish Williamsburg.
Korean Olney, Latin American Zona del Oro. Again, maybe not the level of foot traffic, but hardly sleepy.
"Vastly" more walkable? I'm sure that the percentage of carless households in Brooklyn tops that of Philadelphia, and more of Brooklyn gets Walk Scores of 90 or above than Philadelphia, but car-free living is possible in a surprisingly large part of the city (I've done it ever since moving here, including stints in the Lower Northeast and Germantown). Edited to add: And since I've brought up that metric, you might want to scroll to the bottom of the March Real Estate Issue feature I wrote on the walkable suburbs and city neighborhoods of Greater Philadelphia and check out the Walk Scores for some of the outlying commercial districts. No, none of them are going to have the amount of foot traffic found in those Brooklyn neighborhoods or even Center City Philadelphia, but they won't look dead when you visit them.
And I don't hear much griping from the Brooklyn transplants who've moved here — they all seem to like Philadelphia just fine; they're certainly not "sorely disappointed." I really think the gap is not quite the chasm you are trying to make it out to be.
"Vastly" more walkable? I'm sure that the percentage of carless households in Brooklyn tops that of Philadelphia, and more of Brooklyn gets Walk Scores of 90 or above than Philadelphia, but car-free living is possible in a surprisingly large part of the city (I've done it ever since moving here, including stints in the Lower Northeast and Germantown). Edited to add: And since I've brought up that metric, you might want to scroll to the bottom of the March Real Estate Issue feature I wrote on the walkable suburbs and city neighborhoods of Greater Philadelphia and check out the Walk Scores for some of the outlying commercial districts. No, none of them are going to have the amount of foot traffic found in those Brooklyn neighborhoods or even Center City Philadelphia, but they won't look dead when you visit them.
Yes, vastly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
And I don't hear much griping from the Brooklyn transplants who've moved here — they all seem to like Philadelphia just fine; they're certainly not "sorely disappointed." I really think the gap is not quite the chasm you are trying to make it out to be.
I don't hear much from the transplants who move to Florida either.
I don't hear much from the transplants who move to Florida either.
Walkability is a function of how many of one's day-to-day needs one can fulfill within a 10- to 15-minute walk on foot. Above a certain threshold, any more businesses are gravy. Thus East Passyunk Avenue has a Walk Score of 99 even though its level of activity is well below that of any Brooklyn neighborhood with a Walk Score that high.
So no, not "vastly more walkable." Many more places to walk to, yes. But enough places people want to go to within walking distance for the Walk Scores to be identical. No one would confuse East Passyunk Avenue for Rittenhouse Square or Washington Square West (both with 99 Walk Scores as well), either.
There must have been a reason those Brooklynites moved to Florida as well. In both cases, the transplants were looking for something they felt they weren't getting in Brooklyn. In one case, it's probably warmer weather; in the other, lower housing costs. Sure, there are tradeoffs in both cases. But if the transplants were disappointed with their decision, I think they would have moved back by now. That you've heard nothing to that effect suggests to me that they're not, and that their new environments have enough other things to satisfy them on top of the prime motivating force.
Let's not get carried away with the Brooklyn comparison. No one claimed that it's a carbon copy of Philadelphia, but it does definitely come closest in a number of ways, absolutely moreso than any other borough.
Bajan, I think you're also under-selling Philadelphia's urbanism and over-selling Brooklyn's quite a bit. Not all of Brooklyn is Williamsburg, Park Slope or Bed-Stuy--not even close. I'd say at least half gets no more urban than a street like this, which looks very similar to West Philly, the city's original street car suburb(!):
I get that there's a ton of development spillover in BK from Manhattan, which has allowed it to take on an even greater Manhattan-lite feel compared to Philly, but it appears that your perception is skewed.
Walkability is a function of how many of one's day-to-day needs one can fulfill within a 10- to 15-minute walk on foot. Above a certain threshold, any more businesses are gravy. Thus East Passyunk Avenue has a Walk Score of 99 even though its level of activity is well below that of any Brooklyn neighborhood with a Walk Score that high.
There's no one singular definition of walkability. But when I say "walkability" here, I mean a combination of "things to walk to," lack of blight/disruption to urban fabric and high levels of foot traffic (the latter, I think, makes you want to keep walking more than anything). It's not simply a function of "can I walk to get orange juice?" which is what many East Coast boosters were saying to LA posters a few years ago.
That area of Philadelphia--basically the more vibrant, gentrified areas that are the go-to neighborhoods that Philly boosters point to when comparing Philly to some other city (i.e., Center City, Bella Vista, etc.)--are not that large.
Last edited by BajanYankee; 06-20-2022 at 08:58 PM..
There's no one singular definition of walkability. But what I say "walkability" here, I mean a combination of "things to walk to," lack of blight/disruption to urban fabric and high levels of foot traffic (the latter, I think, makes you want to keep walking more than anything). It's not simply a function of "can I walk to get orange juice?" which is what many East Coast boosters were saying to LA posters a few years ago.
That area of Philadelphia--basically the more vibrant, gentrified areas that are the go-to neighborhoods that Philly boosters point to when comparing Philly to some other city (i.e., Center City, Bella Vista, etc.)--are not that large.
Eh, it's large in the context of any place in the US not NYC. Center City is well known, but from there on out, you have a massive chunk of South Philly, north to some newly gentrified and "grittier" neighborhoods, and west to an ever expanding University City.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 06-20-2022 at 08:49 PM..
Bajan, I think you're also under-selling Philadelphia's urbanism and over-selling Brooklyn's quite a bit. Not all of Brooklyn is Williamsburg, Park Slope or Bed-Stuy--not even close. I'd say at least half gets no more urban than a street like this, which looks very similar to West Philly, the city's original street car suburb(!):
I'm not underselling anything. Did you forget I was actually born and raised there? I know what I'm talking about. Objectively, these two places aren't even close from an urbanity standpoint, and the only reason Philly would even have a chance here is because it has a true downtown while Downtown Brooklyn is a secondary or even tertiary employment center within the New York metropolitan area.
"Greater Center City" is defined as a 7.7 square mile area encompassing everything from Northern Liberties to swaths of South Philadelphia. In that area, there's a population of around 172K, meaning it has a population density of 22K ppsm. Bed-Stuy has about 158K in 2.8 sq. mi. Neighboring Clinton Hill has about 30K in 0.62 sq. mi. And bordering Ft. Greene has about 28K in 0.55 sq. mil. So you have about 44K more people in half the area. That's not including Prospect Heights. Or Downtown. Or Brooklyn Heights. Or Borerum Hill. Or Cobble Hill. Or Crown Heights. Or DUMBO. Or Park Slope.
If the argument is that all those extra people don't make much of a difference, or really can't be felt on a real level, then I don't know what else to say.
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.
