Northeast Philly and the northwest neighborhoods: Should they still be part of city? (Philadelphia: houses, school district)

[Flyers Girl]

Becca's Manayunk link in another thread made me think of this. I'm sure it's been discussed before, but maybe not here (or if it has been, before my time on CD).


In looking at this map of Philadelphia (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ph...f514d88c3e58c1), I have to wonder if it makes sense anymore for the northeast, or at the very least the far northeast, neighborhoods to be part of Philadelphia. Likewise, places like Manayunk and Roxborough, both of which abut Lower Merion township and could easily fold into it and therefore not be subject to the city wage tax anymore, don't make much sense to me as being part of Philadelphia.


I'm not trying to get bulldozed by the board here, I'm just genuinely curious if anyone has ever thought about this. To be sure, the loss of revenue to the city would be significant, and that is why it will likely never happen. But does it then follow that it's a bad idea, simply because the city would lose revenue?


I'll use Manayunk as an example. It's a great little historic town. Note that I said town, not neighborhood, because in my mind, it's expansive enough to qualify as its own town rather than as a neighborhood in Philadelphia. Fairmount is a neighborhood, East Passyunk is a neighborhood. If you're comparing apples to apples, Manayunk is not.


Is there a fear that if Manayunk became part of the 'burbs that all of a sudden the city-like density of the housing would be demolished in favor of tree-lined streets and McMansions? I don't think that could ever happen, simply because of the geography of the area.


I can't imagine that no one has ever contemplated this, but search terms are hard to figure out to find anything online. What do you all think?

[2e1m5a]

Far Northeast floated this idea around in the early '90s I believe, but IMO it doesn't make sense today-especially for Manayunk and other neighborhoods part of NW Philly, which are very much connected to the rest of the city. Manayunk flows into East Falls which flows into North Philly-Lower Merion, I'm sure, is fine with these neighborhoods being part of Philly.

[1ondoner]

For this to happen, they would have to be part of Montgomery or Bucks county. I would think they derive some of their services from Philly.

[Becca8377]

You gotta remember that Philadelphia is also its own county so having such a far reach makes sense when you think of it as a county. That being said, the first time I ever drove through NE Philly, I was shocked that I was still going and was *still* technically in Philly.

To me, Manayunk is definitely a neighborhood and not a town. It's actually pretty small and condense. But it has also established itself with its own sort of identity. Given that, if Manayunk were to ever separate from Philadelphia, I highly doubt there would be any substantial changes like demolishing row homes and adding tree lined streets. There's some fancy row homes currently being built right around the corner from my house. Residents like Manayunk for what it is... if they didn't, they'd move on elsewhere. Manayunk's history is pretty interesting and I don't think they would ever let its blue collar beginnings fall to the wayside.

I don't know much about NE Philly except for just driving through, but I would think neighborhood areas without a high demand or areas with more sprawl would be more likely to separate than any neighborhood that already has a solid foundation. With desirable neighborhoods, the City would never give them up just for the fact of the city wage tax alone.

My two cents

[rotodome]

Is, say, Conshohocken a collection of mcmansions and tree-lined streets due to it not being located within the present-day borders of Philadelphia? Why would anyone fear that happening?

In any case, it would be mostly bad for the city to lose big chunks of its population and tax base.
Though it could make Philly a lot more like Boston, which never annexed all of its surrounding townships the way Philly did. I'm sure some residents might like to be severed from the Phila School District.

[ElijahAstin]

Originally Posted by Flyers Girl

Becca's Manayunk link in another thread made me think of this. I'm sure it's been discussed before, but maybe not here (or if it has been, before my time on CD).

IIRC, it has, but in broader "what if the consolidation act had never happened?" terms.

Originally Posted by Flyers Girl

In looking at this map of Philadelphia (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ph...f514d88c3e58c1), I have to wonder if it makes sense anymore for the northeast, or at the very least the far northeast, neighborhoods to be part of Philadelphia.

Okay.

Originally Posted by Flyers Girl

Likewise, places like Manayunk and Roxborough, both of which abut Lower Merion township and could easily fold into it and therefore not be subject to the city wage tax anymore, don't make much sense to me as being part of Philadelphia.

Townships don't like crossing rivers, so it's more likely that Manayunk and Roxborough would be their own distinct entities and revert to Manayunk Borough and Roxborough Township.

Originally Posted by Flyers Girl

I'm not trying to get bulldozed by the board here, I'm just genuinely curious if anyone has ever thought about this.

TBH, if you weren't familiar around these parts, I might suspect ulterior motives (and this would make perfect tyrannosaurus-roll bait).

Originally Posted by Flyers Girl

To be sure, the loss of revenue to the city would be significant, and that is why it will likely never happen. But does it then follow that it's a bad idea, simply because the city would lose revenue?

Absolutely, yes.

Originally Posted by Flyers Girl

I'll use Manayunk as an example. It's a great little historic town. Note that I said town, not neighborhood, because in my mind, it's expansive enough to qualify as its own town rather than as a neighborhood in Philadelphia. Fairmount is a neighborhood, East Passyunk is a neighborhood. If you're comparing apples to apples, Manayunk is not.

Fairmount was a District, and Passayunk was a Township. AFAIK, the Districts were, for the most part, developed much earlier than the Townships and therefore have a more cohesive infrastructural connection with Center City. Many Districts (Northern Liberties, Moyamensing, and Southwark immediately come to mind) were among the nation's largest "cities" pre-consolidation. On that note, I might agree with your analysis of Fairmount but probably disagree with your assessment of Passayunk. Regardless, I personally like the fact that there are significant variations in Philadelphia's built form (but of course, that's a normative question). If NYC can have five boroughs, why can't we have six Cardinal regions?

Originally Posted by Flyers Girl

Is there a fear that if Manayunk became part of the 'burbs that all of a sudden the city-like density of the housing would be demolished in favor of tree-lined streets and McMansions? I don't think that could ever happen, simply because of the geography of the area.

I highly doubt it; no offense, but that's a bizarre strawman.

Originally Posted by Flyers Girl

I can't imagine that no one has ever contemplated this, but search terms are hard to figure out to find anything online. What do you all think?

Again, I'm pretty sure we've had similar discussions. Your nomenclature's just a bit different, and your normative position is admittedly unique.

[Becca8377]

Originally Posted by rotodome

Is, say, Conshohocken a collection of mcmansions and tree-lined streets due to it not being located within the present-day borders of Philadelphia? Why would anyone fear that happening?

If you take the Manayunk example, it is physically impossible for it to have mcmansions and tree-lined streets in its current form. You would have to bulldoze houses and rebuild to turn it into that. I wouldn't fear a neighborhood turning into that if it was possible without rebuilding the entire thing.

[kyb01]

Originally Posted by Flyers Girl

I'm not trying to get bulldozed by the board here, I'm just genuinely curious if anyone has ever thought about this. To be sure, the loss of revenue to the city would be significant, and that is why it will likely never happen. But does it then follow that it's a bad idea, simply because the city would lose revenue?

Yes, it's come up before. I forget the state legislator, from the NE, who proposed it back in the 80s(90s?) He wanted the NE to secede from the rest of Philadelphia county and call it Liberty City. This was back before any degree of gentrification had begun in other parts of the city.

The thing that probably ended it(for then) was the fact that services like fire/emt and police would have to be duplicated or "taken" from the city. And property taxes would certainly be higher for people living in the new zone to pay for those services. What about the remaining public schools? How would those be dealt with? What about a new local government?

Would this new area be a new cirty? A borough still in Philadelphia County? A township in Philadelphia Co.? The state constitution might need amendment beforehand. How?

[Flyers Girl]

Interesting thoughts, thank you all. I have lived my whole life in the Philadelphia region and admittedly have never heard the term consolidation. I do know the history of the city insofar as when William Penn founded it, it was much much smaller (like, Old City), and has grown over time. So maybe that's the same thing, but I've not heard it referred to as consolidation before.

[kyb01]

Originally Posted by Flyers Girl

Interesting thoughts, thank you all. I have lived my whole life in the Philadelphia region and admittedly have never heard the term consolidation. I do know the history of the city insofar as when William Penn founded it, it was much much smaller (like, Old City), and has grown over time. So maybe that's the same thing, but I've not heard it referred to as consolidation before.

It was consolidated( the city and county) in 1854. And, I don't know much about why it was other than it seemed the sensible thing to do at the time.