Hello, Philadelphians, wake up: You gained like 9,000 more residents as of 7/1/12. (York: house, neighborhood)

[RightonWalnut]

Originally Posted by frankgn87

stop. I merely pointed out that its a 1/2 of 1% growth. Nothing to write home about. But it IS a good thing.

Any growth is a positive thing, especially after 60 years of decline and population lose. The city is seeing a turn around and a lot of positive forces are finally working FOR the city. That is something to be celebrated. Instead, you twist every positive thing into a negative because you refuse to celebrate Philadelphia and it's renaissance.

[Cnote11]

Originally Posted by FKD19124

What do you get for that 7 grand a year though.
As someone pointed out, what philly needs is families, not just one person or couples transplants. People who are going to raise kids here and be here for the long term.

I honestly think families, and therefore children, have to be the most overrated topic ever. The core of Philadelphia certainly does not need more families, especially if there is a high turnover rate of "young professionals" and empty nest elderly, etc. I see a lot of families around here as it is. The vacancy rate in the core has been reducing every year, and if those aren't families and if that percentage sustains itself, then I would say no, families aren't needed. They can easily live in the Northwest/Northeast, etc and not necessarily in the core. FYI, I'm planning on staying here for the long term, but having children is a low, low priority, if I even begin to entertain the thought.

[Marius Pontmercy]

Getting college students to come to Philadelphia and stay during their young professional years would be a step in the right direction and imo, you're capturing a big demographic that would have left or never come to the city anyway. If some of them stay long term and start families here, great, if not, they still spent 4-10 some odd years here they wouldn't have otherwise.

[Charlestondata]

Originally Posted by frankgn87

When you get married and have kids your view will change

Married people with children living in the city should form a pact to stick together when it's time to start school and stop scattering to the burbs. I believe that day is coming. But who knows? Maybe young people will continue to marry, multiply, and then go forth into the burbs, and in turn their children will continue to flood back into the city as they reach adulthood. That sounds like a win-win scenario.

[frankgn87]

Originally Posted by Summersm343

As I pointed out before. A city can be an attractive place for young professionals, singles, couples with no kids, empty nesters, retirees, etc. etc. A city does not HAVE to attract families with kids, just like San Francisco. All the city needs is JOBS. The rest will fall into place. JOBS, JOBS, JOBS are the absolute TOP priority. Attract all those thousands and thousands of college students to stay in the area after school.

Actually families don't go where the jobs are. They travel to the jobs but live in the best location for the families well being.. Schools are what keeps residents. Parents can commute to jobs, kids can't commute to better schools

[Charlestondata]

I just wish they would stop building schools out on byways. A school should be one of the central and major "organs" within the "body" of a community. I believe that leaving a cookie-cutter neighborhood of McMansions every morning and riding out to go to school at some fortress near the newest, biggest Walmart or Costco has caused a warped sense of community that our whole nation is in the midst of paying for. That's why I always say live in the place, not near it, whether it's a city, a town or the country. I hate the burbs.

[pman]

Originally Posted by Summersm343

There are plenty of cities all around the country that survive just fine without families. San Francisco has very few families that stay in the city. Schools is not necessarily a requirement for a city to thrive and survive.

If you ask me, the first priority for the city should be attracting jobs by lowering wage and businesses taxes.

To me. JOBS are the top priority.

i agree with frank, it's foolish to write off families just because you don't think they're important. Philly is a big city and many of its neighborhoods are otherwise attractive to families, not every place is point breeze. moreover, you HAVE families already but the kids aren't getting educated properly which contributes to the stubbornly high unemployment rate. there is no reason whatsoever why schools can't improve at the same time the city is lowering business taxes, the primary problem with the PSD is how its run.

[rotodome]

IMO, a healthy city should be a viable option for people of all ages, where they can live and thrive through all stages of their lives.
That's what a family is, and that's why cities need to be viable options for families.
You should be able to put down roots in a healthy city, not have to uproot to raise kids OR to find a good job. That should be the goal.

[Cnote11]

Originally Posted by rotodome

IMO, a healthy city should be a viable option for people of all ages, where they can live and thrive through all stages of their lives.
That's what a family is, and that's why cities need to be viable options for families.
You should be able to put down roots in a healthy city, not have to uproot to raise kids OR to find a good job. That should be the goal.

I think one of the strengths of Philadelphia is the sheer number of different accommodations. There should be an emphasis on preserving this and continuing to connect them all to the core.

[NJ Brazen_3133]

What is attracting these people here though?