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 thought you were the Crown Prince of Germantown?!
Ba-DOOM!
And har-dee-har-har.
I happen to like Media a lot, but I doubt I'll be moving out there anytime soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1ondoner
I know of colleagues who are moving out of the city to the burbs even though their jobs have been designated as WFH for the foreseeable future. This 'rona thing has made people realize the importance of having your own space. The more space the better. Plus all the amenities the cities had to offer doesn't look so appealing now that we are going to change the way we do stuff.
That will be a trend, but if you look at history, it won't be permanent or irreversible.
As cities grow, land consumption increases at a faster rate than the population does, but the denser urban cores remain in place and hold their own. And those cities have proven resilient through all sorts of calamities.
I think one thing you seem to undervalue based on the general tone of your posts over time is the degree to which humans are social animals. Things such as innovation usually don't take place in isolation but in settings where there is close, face-to-face collaboration. Cities facilitate that sort of thing in a way less dense settlements do not.
And I've noticed from watching the "from home" episodes of talk shows that the character of the interaction really does change when the participants are sitting in their own isolated spheres than if they are all in the same space together. The flow is a little less casual, intermixing takes place less often. Zoom is a lifesaver, but it doesn't completely replace the everybody-in-one-room type of interaction.
Also: I think that this trend may actually also be a sign of the growing gap between rich and poor. Most of those seeking space and refuge in the suburbs and hinterlands come from the top tier of the income distribution, while most of the rest of us are staying put. Similarly, the rest of us have been opening our wallets as the economy reopens while the rich have been keeping them shut. That last part bodes ill for a good chunk of the service sector, which can't work from home (as I've already noted) and depend on those free spenders (at any income level) for their livelihood.
Ba-DOOM!
Also: I think that this trend may actually also be a sign of the growing gap between rich and poor. Most of those seeking space and refuge in the suburbs and hinterlands come from the top tier of the income distribution, while most of the rest of us are staying put. Similarly, the rest of us have been opening our wallets as the economy reopens while the rich have been keeping them shut. That last part bodes ill for a good chunk of the service sector, which can't work from home (as I've already noted) and depend on those free spenders (at any income level) for their livelihood.
I think that's an incredibly important point to make. Cities have historically been the epicenters of opportunity for folks from all walks of life in the way that rural ares and suburbs cannot or never will be. The suburbs and rural areas are either devoid of economic opportunity or have been built largely on the practices of socioeconomic exclusion to keep out "those people." Our economy would undoubtedly decline if based on suburban and rural commerce alone.
I get the sense that folks with long-held antipathy toward cities are pouncing on this opportunity to say "I told you so!" but the fact of the matter is that, whether acknowledged or not, we're going to be a much less interesting, innovative, and even more economically strained society if we succumb to anti-urban sentiments.
It's a very short-sighted mindset, because as you imply, we will inevitably adapt to and eventually conquer the current pandemic. But the "ABANDON THE CITIES!!" sentiments that have been quick to arise are both disconcerting and seem to be very clearly steeped in irrational fear, as though we still live in the Dark Ages with the Plague.
I think that's an incredibly important point to make. Cities have historically been the epicenters of opportunity for folks from all walks of life in the way that rural ares and suburbs cannot or never will be. The suburbs and rural areas are either devoid of economic opportunity or have been built largely on the practices of socioeconomic exclusion to keep out "those people." Our economy would undoubtedly decline if based on suburban and rural commerce alone.
I get the sense that folks with long-held antipathy toward cities are pouncing on this opportunity to say "I told you so!" but the fact of the matter is that, whether acknowledged or not, we're going to be a much less interesting, innovative, and even more economically strained society if we succumb to anti-urban sentiments.
It's a very short-sighted mindset, because as you imply, we will inevitably adapt to and eventually conquer the current pandemic. But the "ABANDON THE CITIES!!" sentiments that have been quick to arise are both disconcerting and seem to be very clearly steeped in irrational fear, as though we still live in the Dark Ages with the Plague.
I get the sense that folks with long-held antipathy toward suburbs are pouncing on this opportunity to shriek and defend themselves....
The suburbs are major employment markets. Metro Philadelphia is 6 million people, of which only 1.5 million live in the city proper. The population of the city is, on average, much poorer than most of the suburbs (although there are poor suburbanites and rich urban dwellers). Much of Philadelphia outside certain popular areas is effectively economically unproductive wastelands. The class divides and disparities are far worse within Philadelphia than it is in suburbia. $5M townhouses and apartments of Rittenhouse sit within walking distances of deeply deprived neighborhoods.
I have found in these types of discussions that the extreme elements of both sides (the most gung-ho urbanites and the most dedicated exurbanites) are just as bad and clueless and biased and uneducated as each other.
Right now the situation is that Philadelphia is facing particularly damaging challenges. These challenges may be temporary. Or they may be more long-lasting. The city is going to have to struggle to respond to the widely varying demands of its people, which will increasingly come into conflict with each other. The simple reality is that people with means, which includes ordinary middle class people, can vote with their feet and will do so if they feel compelled to, if they feel their concerns are no longer being addressed by the city. And I don't blame them for moving if they think it's best. Most people don't have the ideological commitment to specific types of land use environments nor associate it strongly with moral causes.
It's a very short-sighted mindset, because as you imply, we will inevitably adapt to and eventually conquer the current pandemic. But the "ABANDON THE CITIES!!" sentiments that have been quick to arise are both disconcerting and seem to be very clearly steeped in irrational fear, as though we still live in the Dark Ages with the Plague.
I see far more of the reverse, where dedicated urbanites, especially those in media, don't even bother to disguise their disgust and disdain for suburban/rural living. As someone who has always loved the suburbs, I don't feel vindicated by the recent events, but I do think it helped bring some balance back to the discussion. For example, this recent piece was a fair take on both sides: https://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...e-best/613300/
The reality is, we are a large (by land area), diverse, and in many areas, populous, country. We need a mix of all 3 environments to function well and to cater to differing opinions and lifestyles. We should all be very interested in maintaining a strong and healthy rural backbone; our food doesn't grow on concrete.
Riots, covid, and inept city gov't being exposed are the factors for folks who reside in these cities to say "Why bother?" KOP, Malvern, Fort Washington and I guess Horsham/Willow Grove have plenty of employment centers in much safer, less crowded areas so why deal with the garbage that is the city?
Honestly I get New Yorkers moving in but not really New Jerseyans, specifically white collar, solid-earning ones. No local income taxes, property taxes aren't that much different from PA when you go west of 287, and there's still space out that way. Housing costs aren't much different from the Main Line or Montgomery County either with a few exceptions.
I get the sense that folks with long-held antipathy toward suburbs are pouncing on this opportunity to shriek and defend themselves....
The suburbs are major employment markets. Metro Philadelphia is 6 million people, of which only 1.5 million live in the city proper. The population of the city is, on average, much poorer than most of the suburbs (although there are poor suburbanites and rich urban dwellers). Much of Philadelphia outside certain popular areas is effectively economically unproductive wastelands. The class divides and disparities are far worse within Philadelphia than it is in suburbia. $5M townhouses and apartments of Rittenhouse sit within walking distances of deeply deprived neighborhoods.
I have found in these types of discussions that the extreme elements of both sides (the most gung-ho urbanites and the most dedicated exurbanites) are just as bad and clueless and biased and uneducated as each other.
Right now the situation is that Philadelphia is facing particularly damaging challenges. These challenges may be temporary. Or they may be more long-lasting. The city is going to have to struggle to respond to the widely varying demands of its people, which will increasingly come into conflict with each other. The simple reality is that people with means, which includes ordinary middle class people, can vote with their feet and will do so if they feel compelled to, if they feel their concerns are no longer being addressed by the city. And I don't blame them for moving if they think it's best. Most people don't have the ideological commitment to specific types of land use environments nor associate it strongly with moral causes.
I want to be clear that I don't think there's a false dichotomy here. And it's not about a "moral cause;" it's practical reality.
The relationship is symbiotic. Suburbs, cities and rural areas are important to each other to co-exist and to sustain our society. They all serve a critical purpose. And to your point about metropolitan areas, given this symbiotic relationship and the fact that an incredible amount of economic activity is generated in our cities, it is in everyone's best interest to find a way to sustain hubs of dense commerce and population in a public health-conscious fashion. Otherwise, many suburbs will be inundated with rising housing prices, traffic, and demand for services that they were never designed to handle.
I don't deny the fact that this period is particularly challenging for all cities to regain a sense of normalcy, or at least a "new normal" (and again, Philadelphia is by no means singled out here). But my bottom line point is that there's no place--regardless of an urban, suburban, or rural setting--that isn't or won't be exposed to the effects of this pandemic. It will hurt every municipality economically. It will strain company revenues, regardless of where its offices are located. It will cause social strain from small town churches to the suburban high school to the urban pub. With affluent populations co-locating in ever richer suburban towns, you will find, too, that income/racial inequality will skyrocket in the suburbs, which will make the suburbs the new target of social unrest.
In other words, it's a zero-sum game to pit any place against one another. The only way to restore our normalcy (and sanity) is to ensure that we sustain our urban, suburban, and rural communities.
The city is going to have to struggle to respond to the widely varying demands of its people, which will increasingly come into conflict with each other. The simple reality is that people with means, which includes ordinary middle class people, can vote with their feet and will do so if they feel compelled to, if they feel their concerns are no longer being addressed by the city.
I don't disagree with the above statement, but it isn't really related to Covid.
Philadelphia is among the best urban centers in the nation and has the potential to solidify itself as a premier American city, however, I am weary of the future because there is a wave of far left more radical progressives that do not have the slightest vision on how to actually improve Philadelphia's status as a national and international destination for business, leisure, living, etc.
I am in another group (Skyscraper page), and there was a great discussion regarding this article and the far left wave beginning to enter City Hall. Here are some of the best comments below.
"a city is a balancing act. Favor the poor too much and you end up like Detroit. Favor the wealthy too much and you end up like NYC or San Francisco. There has to be a good middle ground, but taxing the wealthy out of the city is clearly a dumb idea."
"The city politics have moved pretty leftward and I knew the election of Kendra Brooks would be troubling and her recent tax proposal is Exhibit A. The wealthy, gentrifiers, the business community, and Center City as a whole, all seem to be fair targets. Even if Ms. Brook's proposal seems far fetched today, think about the direction of the city's politics. In another election cycle or two, yeah, it could definitely happen. Much more so than the odds of the city becoming more business friendly, that's for sure."
I notice with leadership in Philadelphia, you have the old democratic machine - Kenyetta Johnson, Darrel Clarke, Bobby Henon, and others, and you have the new "progressives" who are mostly vastly under-qualified to run a city and basically want to tax the wealthy and businesses to the suburbs, alienate the middle class, and make sure everyone has affordable housing, but no jobs... Which is worse...?
There are a few decent leaders mixed in, and thankfully a lot of powerful business/industry leaders in healthcare, education, development, law, etc. that can balance out the circus that is City Hall.
Obviously I don't see Philadelphia becoming Detroit. Philadelphia is a much larger more well-off city/region with a much more diverse economy, but the city's leadership is the true (and really only) hindrance on Philadelphia's efforts to grow, develop, attract businesses, attract wealthy people, keep a stable middle class, lower crime, lower poverty, etc.
In summary of my long rant, Philadelphia is no worse off than NYC, Boston, Atlanta, Dallas, etc. when it comes to Covid recovery, however, Philadelphia could have a stellar decade going forward or trickle along with the chance of regressing if council does not open their eyes to reality.
P.S. I am very liberal myself, but also a realist and more moderate when it comes to fiscal policy, business environment and tax structures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
In other words, it's a zero-sum game to pit any place against one another. The only way to restore our normalcy (and sanity) is to ensure that we sustain our urban, suburban, and rural communities.
I wish PA would work better as a state. Sometimes I feel its Philadelphia vs. Harrisburg/rest of the state, and then the generally affluent Philadelphia suburbs are their own mini-state separate from Philadelphia and Pennsylvania.
At the very least Philadelphia and its suburban region need to work in unison when in comes to attracting businesses, conventions, tourists, etc. The relationships certainly have improved over the last 5-20 years, and resetting from Covid could be a blessing in disguise for the city and region to work closely together to improve and increase their profile nationally and internationally. (working with the state of PA is whole different battle).
Last edited by cpomp; 06-24-2020 at 12:19 PM..
Reason: edit
At the very least Philadelphia and its suburban region need to work in unison when in comes to attracting businesses, conventions, tourists, etc. The relationships certainly have improved over the last 5-20 years, and resetting from Covid could be a blessing in disguise for the city and region to work closely together to improve and increase their profile nationally and internationally. (working with the state of PA is whole different battle).
Totally disagree. It's interesting that you take issue with how PA (i.e. Harrisburg) seems far-removed from the Philly and Pittsburgh metros, but at the same time want to lump the counties surrounding Philly into one big grouping with the city.
The only way real change will occur is if bad ideas/policies are allowed to fail. After all, this whole thread is about the (perceived) migration from NYC/NJ to PA, ostensibly to escape bad tax policy and poor governance. If Philly City Hall turns ultra-progressive and taxes businesses out of their city, that's what the majority voted for. If it isn't obvious to elected officials that businesses will move to where they get the most beneficial tax treatment by now, they're beyond hope. Maybe their plan will actually improve the city, but it should do so without expecting a backstop from other areas with different policies.
The beauty of economic policy is that these types of experiments have clear outcomes, if allowed to run their natural course. Numbers are numbers, and they can't be painted over with what 'feels' right or wrong.
Totally disagree. It's interesting that you take issue with how PA (i.e. Harrisburg) seems far-removed from the Philly and Pittsburgh metros, but at the same time want to lump the counties surrounding Philly into one big grouping with the city.
The only way real change will occur is if bad ideas/policies are allowed to fail. After all, this whole thread is about the (perceived) migration from NYC/NJ to PA, ostensibly to escape bad tax policy and poor governance. If Philly City Hall turns ultra-progressive and taxes businesses out of their city, that's what the majority voted for. If it isn't obvious to elected officials that businesses will move to where they get the most beneficial tax treatment by now, they're beyond hope. Maybe their plan will actually improve the city, but it should do so without expecting a backstop from other areas with different policies.
The beauty of economic policy is that these types of experiments have clear outcomes, if allowed to run their natural course. Numbers are numbers, and they can't be painted over with what 'feels' right or wrong.
Why would it not make sense for Philadelphia and its suburban region to work together?? Its one metro region that is extremely interconnected on all levels. Suggesting Philadelphia to unify with Potter County, PA would be ridiculous, but suggesting it to unify with Montgomery County is 100% logical and would benefit both the city and burbs... I am confused as to how you think that is illogical...
And come on... politics in PA is a two way street. Harrisburg and the more rural conservative parts do not care for Philadelphia nor want to work with Philadelphia AND at the same time Philadelphia and its suburbs react the same from the opposite end.
And regardless of Philadelphia's new progressive leadership, the city and its suburban region are still 100% the economic powerhouses of the state and that is not going to change. From your post (and other posts) its seems you want Philadelphia to fail as some sort of consolation prize.
My previous post was pointing out the fact that Philadelphia is a premiere city that is hindered by bad leadership. Even with the City Hall mess, the city and metro region have been and will likely continue to perform well economically. My issue is the shortsightedness and bitterness of progressives toward businesses and wealthier people and how both are needed to grow a healthy city. The suburban region understands that point hence why its so economically powerful.
Finally, if you live in PA, you should want Philadelphia to do well even if you disagree with these silly policy proposals. If Philadelphia and its suburban region perform well then the state will be stable, if they don't the state regress.
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.
