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.
It doesnt really bother me at all that Houston is #4. It really is a massive urban city even if most of it is suburban. LA is too. Besides, they overtook us back in 1987, just a few years after LA overtook Chicago.
What bothers the hell out of me is Now Philly is losing its rightful spot at #5, and to Phoenix of all nonsensical places. And Chicago will stay #3 for decades at the rate Houston is growing. And not only that, but now San Antonio is scheduled to drop Philly to #7! in just the next few years, less than 10 years after we lost #5.
Philly has never been #7 before. What's different about Philadelphia from any city formed since we became a country, is we didn't work our way up. We started from the top, and now we are falling down. Philly has also been it's current size longer than any other city. Every other city has annexed land since 1854. As a matter of fact, MOST cities annexed MOST of their land AFTER 1900. Phoenix actually annexed over 95% of its land since 1950.
It's an unpopular opinion because it's not even a thought in most peoples minds, but Philly should annex some land for the first time in 165 years and get back to #5.
I like this fact though: only 3 cities that were in the top ten largest cities in 1920 are still there: NYC, Chicago and Philadelphia. Ones that will never be in the top ten again? Five from 1920: Detroit, Cleveland, St Louis, Baltimore and Pittsburgh. Probably not Boston either.
Philadelphia will not be annexing any land from bordering counties. lol. Not going happen. 1854 was a consolidation of Philadelphia county. What we need to do is grow the population within the city's existing borders which used to hold over 2 million people.
It doesnt really bother me at all that Houston is #4. It really is a massive urban city even if most of it is suburban. LA is too. Besides, they overtook us back in 1987, just a few years after LA overtook Chicago.
What bothers the hell out of me is Now Philly is losing its rightful spot at #5, and to Phoenix of all nonsensical places. And Chicago will stay #3 for decades at the rate Houston is growing. And not only that, but now San Antonio is scheduled to drop Philly to #7! in just the next few years, less than 10 years after we lost #5.
Philly has never been #7 before. What's different about Philadelphia from any city formed since we became a country, is we didn't work our way up. We started from the top, and now we are falling down. Philly has also been it's current size longer than any other city. Every other city has annexed land since 1854. As a matter of fact, MOST cities annexed MOST of their land AFTER 1900. Phoenix actually annexed over 95% of its land since 1950.
It's an unpopular opinion because it's not even a thought in most peoples minds, but Philly should annex some land for the first time in 165 years and get back to #5.
Plus you bumped a thread that was 9 years old(?????). Why????
Plus you bumped a thread that was 9 years old(?????). Why????
You always think everyone not praising Philadelphia has a hating arterial motive. (replying whether you see it or not). I always liked your post we did comment to each then , but I became a hater to you and that was it.
I've seen a change in your post with anger and accusations. This poster reopened many threads. I questioned why at least once. But sometimes the threads surprise me in new post get added. Polls can't be changed but impressions and improved ones can and if outsides say so. It says things DID improve.
Having a interest in re-opening old threads. Is not all bad. But some get paranoid more of the same negatives did not change enough to change impressions. Though some may.
We all know Phoenix is going to continue its growth. Just as a retire destination alone. So the thread premise is no longer valid.
My reply was on paranoid it's merely to mock Philly.
I like this fact though: only 3 cities that were in the top ten largest cities in 1920 are still there: NYC, Chicago and Philadelphia. Ones that will never be in the top ten again? Five from 1920: Detroit, Cleveland, St Louis, Baltimore and Pittsburgh. Probably not Boston either.
Philadelphia will not be annexing any land from bordering counties. lol. Not going happen. 1854 was a consolidation of Philadelphia county. What we need to do is grow the population within the city's existing borders which used to hold over 2 million people.
This. I don’t even think there’s a mechanism for a city or borough to annex land across county lines. There are occasionally boroughs like Telford, in Montgomery/Bucks Counties, and Trafford, in Allegheny/Westmoreland, that straddle two counties, but I have a feeling (though am not certain) that’s a product of those settlements preexisting the creation of those county lines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavePa
You always think everyone not praising Philadelphia has a hating arterial motive. (replying whether you see it or not). I always liked your post we did comment to each then , but I became a hater to you and that was it.
I've seen a change in your post with anger and accusations. This poster reopened many threads. I questioned why at least once. But sometimes the threads surprise me in new post get added. Polls can't be changed but impressions and improved ones can and if outsides say so. It says things DID improve.
Having a interest in re-opening old threads. Is not all bad. But some get paranoid more of the same negatives did not change enough to change impressions. Though some may.
We all know Phoenix is going to continue its growth. Just as a retire destination alone. So the thread premise is no longer valid.
My reply was on paranoid it's merely to mock Philly.
But the post wasn’t anti-Philly. It was expressing fear and dissolution over Philly probably becoming the seventh-largest U.S. city in the near-future, and musing over the possibility of Philly beating those other cities “at their own game” by grabbing a slice of the surrounding suburbs. But since Philly proper is still steadily growing after decades of population loss, who cares if a few sunbelt cities with a completely different urban infrastructure and far more liberal annexation powers outgrow it? That’s not to knock either San Antonio or Phoenix, by the way. I just don’t think their city proper population growth is a meaningful metric in relation to Philadelphia.
Last edited by ElijahAstin; 02-16-2020 at 02:08 PM..
But the post wasn’t anti-Philly. It was expressing fear and dissolution over Philly probably becoming the seventh-largest U.S. city in the near-future, and musing over the possibility of Philly beating those other cities “at their own game” by grabbing a slice of the surrounding suburbs. But since Philly proper is still steadily growing after decades of population loss, who cares if a few sunbelt cities with a completely different urban infrastructure and far more liberal annexation powers outgrow it? That’s not to knock either San Antonio or Phoenix, by the way. I just don’t think their city proper population growth is a meaningful metric in relation to Philadelphia.
Fwiw, I have zero faith that the 2020 Census will be anywhere near accurate for blue cities and Philadelphia is, pretty much , a blue city.
Fwiw, I have zero faith that the 2020 Census will be anywhere near accurate for blue cities and Philadelphia is, pretty much , a blue city.
You could very well be right about the Census. At the very least, undocumented immigrants will probably opt out in even greater numbers (and who can blame them?).
This. I don’t even think there’s a mechanism for a city or borough to annex land across county lines. There are occasionally boroughs like Telford, in Montgomery/Bucks Counties, and Trafford, in Allegheny/Westmoreland, that straddle two counties, but I have a feeling (though am not certain) that’s a product of those settlements preexisting the creation of those county lines.
The only city that straddles two counties in PA is Bethlehem and that city originally consisted of two boroughs plus the original city of Bethlehem on the north bank of the Lehigh River.
If Philadelphia were to grow it’s land area, then it would have no choice but to annex land form Montgomery, Bucks, and Delaware Counties and evening then, that’s going to be one tough overtaking to do that because the boundaries of Philadelphia was officially set around 1854, when Philadelphia annexed Southwark, Northern Liberties, and Frankfort Boroughs as well as Mill Creek, Germantown Townships to its current city limits.
I don’t believe we should really be in the business of expanding land but I do believe that the city needs to further density. If the city had 20K people per square mile, then the city would have a population of 2,680,000 people. If Philadelphia wanted to really be on NYC’s level as far as density, then we’d be talking about a population of close to 4 million people!!!
If that’s the case, and Philly was very ambitious of not only competing with NYC not by the population but by having higher density, then what that would mean is that Philadelphia would have to build tall condominiums, cooperatives and apartments around the city as well as greatly expand its subway system to 8 lines and maybe consider circulating double decker buses throughout the area.
Center city and the nearby environs would truly be Philly’s Manhattan with nothing but tall buildings and if we’re talking about competing with NYC and even being the second largest city behind only NYC and larger than LA, Chicago, Houston and especially Phoenix, then we have to be very serious about building very tall residential buildings in places such as the Northeast, Northwest, Southwest, and North and South Philly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElijahAstin
But the post wasn’t anti-Philly. It was expressing fear and dissolution over Philly probably becoming the seventh-largest U.S. city in the near-future, and musing over the possibility of Philly beating those other cities “at their own game” by grabbing a slice of the surrounding suburbs. But since Philly proper is still steadily growing after decades of population loss, who cares if a few sunbelt cities with a completely different urban infrastructure and far more liberal annexation powers outgrow it? That’s not to knock either San Antonio or Phoenix, by the way. I just don’t think their city proper population growth is a meaningful metric in relation to Philadelphia.
I honestly believe Philadelphia will be surpassed out of America’s Top 10 largest cities by either 2030 or 2040. It’s not that Philadelphia isn’t growing because we started growing in the mid-2000s but cities such as Phoenix and soon to be San Antonio have higher, much robust growth than Philadelphia. Ditto for cities such as Dallas, San Diego, Austin, San Jose, and Fort Worth. CA has growth even though it’s slated to losing at the most a couple of congressional seats while TX is literally shooting for the stars when it comes to its cities.
The real problem with Philadelphia lies in its local and regional economy. This city had 8 Fortune 500 companies but were now down to about 2 and I’m not particularly sure whether Aramark is going to stay here for another decade because it’s uncharacteristic for a company to move out of a taller tower into a shorter building in the same city. Either companies stay here at the same building or they move out. It’s gotten so bad that even consulates such as the Dominican Republic, Canada, the United Kingdom, Venezuela, France, and Germany don’t have their offices here and for any consular service one must go make the two hour trek to NYC.
Losing legacy companies like Sunoco, UGI, Sovereign (Santander), and even companies like Lincoln Financial doesn’t give companies any incentive towards staying in Philly because if you can’t maintain HQs here in Philly, then what makes you think a corporation like GE, Amazon, or even TD Bank wants to stay here. We don’t have a healthy local economy and it looks like Philly is destined to being a backwater to NYC when it comes to business HQs and consulates. In other words, I hate using this term, but slowly and surely, we’re starting to become. NYC’s sixth borough!!!
We did have an oppurtunity to have the tallest building in America at one point (American Commerce Center), which should’ve had a major corporation had the city and state not become Comcast’s ******* but if the ACC was able to be mothballed, then ditto for Schuylkill Yards because the original proposal was flawless and even then I’m not sure if the developers are going to stick with that plan fully. My opinion is that the city isn’t as ambitious as I’d love for it to be and the only reason why I feel it’s not like that compared to cities like Boston, SF, and even Atlanta and Miami is because the city and state doesn’t really look towards the future and how the state could grow because if PA had any shred of ambition, we’d have an Acela corridor connecting Philadelphia to Pittsburgh right now!!!
The only city that straddles two counties in PA is Bethlehem and that city originally consisted of two boroughs plus the original city of Bethlehem on the north bank of the Lehigh River.
If Philadelphia were to grow it’s land area, then it would have no choice but to annex land form Montgomery, Bucks, and Delaware Counties and evening then, that’s going to be one tough overtaking to do that because the boundaries of Philadelphia was officially set around 1854, when Philadelphia annexed Southwark, Northern Liberties, and Frankfort Boroughs as well as Mill Creek, Germantown Townships to its current city limits.
Yes, I'm well aware of the Act of Consolidation. There is, evidently, a Municipal Consolidation and Merger Act which would apply, and bordering muncipalities will occasionally combine under this law. Per this WHYY article:
Quote:
There are three ways to initiate a merger or consolidation—by a joint agreement, a voter initiative by petition, or (since 2003) a petition for Home Rule Charter. All require an affirmative vote by voters in the involved municipalities.
Suffice to say, given the bolded requirement, I don't think any surrounding municipality will be merging with Philadelphia any time soon, and the few distressed inner ring suburbs in Delaware County that might consider it would not really help the City.
I appreciate you bringing this up, though. Now I know more about consolidation and merger procedures in our fair Commonwealth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderer34
I don’t believe we should really be in the business of expanding land but I do believe that the city needs to further density. If the city had 20K people per square mile, then the city would have a population of 2,680,000 people. If Philadelphia wanted to really be on NYC’s level as far as density, then we’d be talking about a population of close to 4 million people!!!
It's nice to have goals, but 20,000 people per square mile just isn't realistic, at least not in the foreseeable future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderer34
If that’s the case, and Philly was very ambitious of not only competing with NYC not by the population but by having higher density, then what that would mean is that Philadelphia would have to build tall condominiums, cooperatives and apartments around the city as well as greatly expand its subway system to 8 lines and maybe consider circulating double decker buses throughout the area.
Why should Philadelphia try to compete with New York? Increasing density in the right places is a good idea for other reasons. Does our mass transit usage justify the expense of double-decker buses? I'm not a SEPTA maven, so I don't purport to know the answer, though I have a feeling it's "no."
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderer34
Center city and the nearby environs would truly be Philly’s Manhattan with nothing but tall buildings and if we’re talking about competing with NYC and even being the second largest city behind only NYC and larger than LA, Chicago, Houston and especially Phoenix, then we have to be very serious about building very tall residential buildings in places such as the Northeast, Northwest, Southwest, and North and South Philly.
The eastern reaches of University City (which, apart from the Cira Center, were a "no man's land" until the past ten years) is on its way to becoming a secondary central business district, which is great. Why does Center City need to be nothing but tall buildings? Do you propose bulldozing the rowhouses in Rittenhouse, Fitler Square, Old City, etc.?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderer34
I honestly believe Philadelphia will be surpassed out of America’s Top 10 largest cities by either 2030 or 2040.
That's quite possible. But so what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderer34
It’s not that Philadelphia isn’t growing because we started growing in the mid-2000s but cities such as Phoenix and soon to be San Antonio have higher, much robust growth than Philadelphia. Ditto for cities such as Dallas, San Diego, Austin, San Jose, and Fort Worth.
If we're going to play "keeping up with the Joneses," I would venture to say that Phoenix, San Antonio, Dallas, San Diego, Austin, San Jose, and Fort Worth should not be our Joneses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderer34
CA has growth even though it’s slated to losing at the most a couple of congressional seats while TX is literally shooting for the stars when it comes to its cities.
California has its own problems (namely, water), that fortunately Pennsylvania does not have to contend with. Texas has liberal annexation and flexible (to put it lightly) zoning laws. Is that what you mean by shooting for the stars?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderer34
The real problem with Philadelphia lies in its local and regional economy. This city had 8 Fortune 500 companies but were now down to about 2 and I’m not particularly sure whether Aramark is going to stay here for another decade because it’s uncharacteristic for a company to move out of a taller tower into a shorter building in the same city. Either companies stay here at the same building or they move out. It’s gotten so bad that even consulates such as the Dominican Republic, Canada, the United Kingdom, Venezuela, France, and Germany don’t have their offices here and for any consular service one must go make the two hour trek to NYC.
And that's a legitimate concern. But grabbing land to increase the city's population on paper won't help in this (or, really, any other) regard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderer34
Losing legacy companies like Sunoco, UGI, Sovereign (Santander), and even companies like Lincoln Financial doesn’t give companies any incentive towards staying in Philly because if you can’t maintain HQs here in Philly, then what makes you think a corporation like GE, Amazon, or even TD Bank wants to stay here. We don’t have a healthy local economy and it looks like Philly is destined to being a backwater to NYC when it comes to business HQs and consulates. In other words, I hate using this term, but slowly and surely, we’re starting to become. NYC’s sixth borough!!!
I wouldn't say we have an unhealthy local economy. I would say we punch below our weight due to job sprawl causes by historically astronomical (and still quite high) in-city corporate and wage taxes. My understanding is the problem of locally based companies decamping to the suburbs is starting to resolve itself (see, e.g., GSK).
Everywhere in the U.S. is a "backwater" in comparison to New York. We do not need to be, nor should we strive to emulate New York. That's not to say we can't or shouldn't take some pages out of New York's book. But borrowing successful ideas and initiatives that are equally suited for Philadelphia is a long way off from trying to become New York, which is a losing proposition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderer34
We did have an oppurtunity to have the tallest building in America at one point (American Commerce Center), which should’ve had a major corporation had the city and state not become Comcast’s ******* but if the ACC was able to be mothballed, then ditto for Schuylkill Yards because the original proposal was flawless and even then I’m not sure if the developers are going to stick with that plan fully.
Thank your lucky stars that Comcast is here and here to stay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderer34
My opinion is that the city isn’t as ambitious as I’d love for it to be [. . .]
You're not wrong, but there are some fundamental issues constraining grand ambitions (namely, money).
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderer34
[. . .] and the only reason why I feel it’s not like that compared to cities like Boston, SF, and even Atlanta and Miami is because the city and state doesn’t really look towards the future [. . .]
I don't think the problem, or solutions, are anywhere as simple as you make them out to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderer34
[. . .] and how the state could grow because if PA had any shred of ambition, we’d have an Acela corridor connecting Philadelphia to Pittsburgh right now!!!
Pennsylvania covers a number of geographic regions with some overlapping, but ultimately distinct, sets of perks and drawbacks and problems and potential solutions. I don't know if the problem is a lack of "ambition." I think there are a number of wonderful things Governor Wolf would like to do but can't because the General Assembly is at a constant gridlock between two political machines which are quite happy that way.
And why does there need to be an Acela line between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh? How many people would ride it? Who would fund it?
It's nice to have goals, but 20,000 people per square mile just isn't realistic, at least not in the foreseeable future.
Why should Philadelphia try to compete with New York? Increasing density in the right places is a good idea for other reasons. Does our mass transit usage justify the expense of double-decker buses? I'm not a SEPTA maven, so I don't purport to know the answer, though I have a feeling it's "no."
Density can be easily increased in Center City, Univeristy City, and certain areas such as the Delaware Waterfront, Northern Liberties, Temple University Area, and even certain portions of the Northeast and Northwest.
The reason Philadelphia needs to compete with New York is due to geography. We’re the closest major city next to NYC, and we have the most similar demographics like NYC. They’re the most similar of all cities. Plus Philly’s economy is weaker compared to NYC, which has 50+ Fortune 500 companies headquartered in NYC, compared to the current two that we have right here. Ditto losing consulates and having those consulates consolidate PA’s operations in NYC. As much as we’d like to differentiate from NYC, as long as NYC is 90 minutes away, when it comes to economy, arts, sciences, and even sports, Philadelphia has no choice but to a least be a better city than NYC, not necessarily a bigger one, just better!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElijahAstin
The eastern reaches of University City (which, apart from the Cira Center, were a "no man's land" until the past ten years) is on its way to becoming a secondary central business district, which is great. Why does Center City need to be nothing but tall buildings? Do you propose bulldozing the rowhouses in Rittenhouse, Fitler Square, Old City, etc.?
No I never said he should bulldoze those historic homes, but what I’m saying is that the city should expand its horizons and that if the city wants to gain 2 M people again, it’s going to have to diversify its housing stock. I don’t hate the rowhome. I do believe that the city is going to have to further grow that way as we only have 134 sq mi of land and we need to do the best to carefully manage whatever precious land we have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElijahAstin
If we're going to play "keeping up with the Joneses," I would venture to say that Phoenix, San Antonio, Dallas, San Diego, Austin, San Jose, and Fort Worth should not be our Joneses.
I don’t agree that those aforementioned cities are our peers, but I do believe that in 10-20 years in some form, those cities are going to pass us by in population. It’s not that Philadelphia isn’t better than those cities, but compared to those cities, we’re growing at a snails pace. The fact if the matter is that at least Philadelphia isn’t Baltimore, Cleveland, St Louis, and Detroit.
Chicago and the entire state of Illinois, after a brief period of prosperity from the 1990s to last decade, is starting to slide thanks to the violence in Chicago, as well as high taxes and the rampant corruption that’s plaguing both entities. Philadelphia and PA is lucky that we’re not sliding down that same trajectory and the fastest growing state isn’t PA, not is it NY or NJ, it’s Delaware, just 30 minutes away!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElijahAstin
California has its own problems (namely, water), that fortunately Pennsylvania does not have to contend with. Texas has liberal annexation and flexible (to put it lightly) zoning laws. Is that what you mean by shooting for the stars?
And that's a legitimate concern. But grabbing land to increase the city's population on paper won't help in this (or, really, any other) regard.
I never said we should annex municipalities like Upper Darby, Bensalem and Cheltenham, I suggested that rather than annex more land, the city needs to increase its density, as well as fix its infrastructure meaning building subway lines, converting the Blvd into a true limited access highway as well as encouraging legal immigration here and maintaining an affordable lifestyle here compared to cities like NYC, Boston, and DC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElijahAstin;57396901 I wouldn't say we have an [i
unhealthy[/i] local economy. I would say we punch below our weight due to job sprawl causes by historically astronomical (and still quite high) in-city corporate and wage taxes. My understanding is the problem of locally based companies decamping to the suburbs is starting to resolve itself (see, e.g., GSK).
The business taxes in this city don’t help our local economy. There’s a reason why UGI is in King of Prussia, AmerisourceBergen is in Conshohocken, Sunoco left for Dallas, and now Crown Holdings left for Yardley, and I don’t think it’s because Philadelphia has bad air, bad food, and even bad people. If you can’t provide a business friendly environment for big and small business (the soda tax sucks, IMHO), then what makes you think we’ll attract more businesses, let alone retain them.
I used to be a big booster for Philadelphia when it came to its businesses, but now I’m not so sure if the Philadelphia today can really hold a candle and I’d really hate to see Philadelphia devolve into a one company town (ahem Comcast).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElijahAstin
Everywhere in the U.S. is a "backwater" in comparison to New York. We do not need to be, nor should we strive to emulate New York. That's not to say we can't or shouldn't take some pages out of New York's book. But borrowing successful ideas and initiatives that are equally suited for Philadelphia is a long way off from trying to become New York, which is a losing proposition.
We don’t need to be another New York. But we do need to compete. NYC and Philadelphia are very similar, however Philadelphia’s problem isn’t that we don’t have 8 million people living within the city limits, it’s the fact that the city and state leaders are short sighted about how to compete with not just NY, but even states like NJ, MA, MD, and even now souther states like FL, GA, and NC.
PA needs a major stimulus which is why I proposed high speed rail between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh for both passenger as well as freight service. PA never placed a fracking tax compared to states such as TX and OK, which despite being very conservative has a tax. We’re not living in a conservative state, but a very moderate one, and we don’t even a fracking tax here, and that’s a shame considering tha PA needs such a tax to fix the roads, as well as providing clean water and clean air for those communities affected by fracking.
[quote=ElijahAstin;57396901 Thank your lucky stars that Comcast is here and here to stay.[/quote]
Comcast is a great company, but my problem isn’t Comcast’s success, but the fact that the city seems to favor them over other companies. I still wonder why Sunoco left for Dallas, Sovereign (Santander) left for Boston, Lincoln Financial left for the suburbs, and even Pepboys was acquired by a New York company. I’d love for Philadelphia to have its own niche the way Boston has biotechnology, NYC has finance, DC has government, and even cities like Detroit had auto manufacturing, Pittsburgh had steel, and St Louis had brewing.
It’s not that Philadelphia didn’t nor doesn’t have those niches but the point of the matter is that the city and state isn’t doing a good job maintaining companies in Philadelphia nor are we trying to specialize in a particular niche and before you say cable/Wifi, albeit Comcast is the number one cable company in America, Spectrum (formerly Time Warner Cable) is practically a close second!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElijahAstin
You're not wrong, but there are some fundamental issues constraining grand ambitions (namely, money).
I don't think the problem, or solutions, are anywhere as simple as you make them out to be.
Pennsylvania covers a number of geographic regions with some overlapping, but ultimately distinct, sets of perks and drawbacks and problems and potential solutions. I don't know if the problem is a lack of "ambition." I think there are a number of wonderful things Governor Wolf would like to do but can't because the General Assembly is at a constant gridlock between two political machines which are quite happy that way.
And why does there need to be an Acela line between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh? How many people would ride it? Who would fund it?
While I never voted for Wolf the first time, I voted for him the second, however, despite being this liberal and even being better than that conservative yahoo than Wagner, I still feel that Wolf is disappointing concerning the fracking issue and schools. However, I’d rather have Wolf than many of the “guns and Bible” Republicans that permeate in the state’s GOP.
And I’ve already talked about the issue of having high speed rail between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. If traveling to Philadelphia and Pittsburgh takes three hours, then a lot of people would take it, especially business types and college students since the line would go to State College as well, and since the line is associated with Amtrak, the federal government would fund much of the project.
I like this fact though: only 3 cities that were in the top ten largest cities in 1920 are still there: NYC, Chicago and Philadelphia. Ones that will never be in the top ten again? Five from 1920: Detroit, Cleveland, St Louis, Baltimore and Pittsburgh. Probably not Boston either.
Philadelphia will not be annexing any land from bordering counties. lol. Not going happen. 1854 was a consolidation of Philadelphia county. What we need to do is grow the population within the city's existing borders which used to hold over 2 million people.
Los Angeles ranked #10 in the 1920 census with 576,673 people.
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.
