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 don't know...sad, yes, but I think the author is being very selective and doesn't really "live" Camden...hence talking out his rear a bit.
One doesn't move to the Victor Lofts on the waterfront in the "Green Zone" and hover between there, Rutgers and PATCO while jaunting to Philly to do anything and then say that they "live" in Camden. Yes, they have a Camden mailing address, but that's about it. Go live in Cramer Hill, Morgan Village, Parkside, North Camden, Dudley or Bergen Square and then write about what it's like to live in Camden.
I do think he is correct in that Camden isn't built for residents, but he never attempts to explain why that is. If it wasn't for the limited development to attract/force outsiders to go to Camden there would be no real economic activity. The city did what it needed to do and the county/state did what it could/had to do to try and keep the place alive. Camden needs a radical overhaul if it's going to blossom and not just lumber along like it has been.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,813 posts, read 34,657,307 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
I don't know...sad, yes, but I think the author is being very selective and doesn't really "live" Camden...hence talking out his rear a bit.
One doesn't move to the Victor Lofts on the waterfront in the "Green Zone" and hover between there, Rutgers and PATCO while jaunting to Philly to do anything and then say that they "live" in Camden. Yes, they have a Camden mailing address, but that's about it. Go live in Cramer Hill, Morgan Village, Parkside, North Camden, Dudley or Bergen Square and then write about what it's like to live in Camden.
I do think he is correct in that Camden isn't built for residents, but he never attempts to explain why that is. If it wasn't for the limited development to attract/force outsiders to go to Camden there would be no real economic activity. The city did what it needed to do and the county/state did what it could/had to do to try and keep the place alive. Camden needs a radical overhaul if it's going to blossom and not just lumber along like it has been.
Someone who thinks that they can help change the city.
How can they help change the city when over 60 percent of the buildings are damaged beyond repair? They have been sinking money into Camden for decades and nothing ever changes. I am pretty sure it will soon follow in Detroit's footsteps and file bankruptcy. The state runs its schools and police department now already. What's next?
Someone who thinks that they can help change the city.
I agree with the naysayers on this one. The problems of Camden are too systemic and too far gone for Margaret Mead to be right. Camden needs a radical overhaul, but it simply lacks the economic draw or opportunity be worth revitalizing like true city cores are. Camden is basically a suburb of Philadelphia and as such will never have the draw of the regions core. If it did, it wouldn't be in the situation it is. Camden can't revitalize until a large amount of spillover exists from Philly and that is a long way off. Even then, there are plenty of nice suburban industrial/office parks that are arguably even better located then Camden for them to go to.
Hopefully this World Trade center they've been talking about building on the waterfront really happens.
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.