Official Census results show Philly's population now over 1.6 million (Philadelphia: real estate, renters)

[AshbyQuin]

Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly

If the city will try to fixed half its problems, it will only accelerate the growth rate and potentially make Philadelphia one of the fastest growing cities in the entire country. The city is already rivaling growth rates to when it was reaching 2 million in population.

so much vacant lots, so much room to build in the city... 2mill is doable

[KaM n.p.]

Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly

If the city will try to fixed half its problems, it will only accelerate the growth rate and potentially make Philadelphia one of the fastest growing cities in the entire country. The city is already rivaling growth rates to when it was reaching 2 million in population.

I could see the city reaching 2million before 2050. The city needs to get a handle on the shooting problem. If they fix the homeless problem that would be great. It may not effect white collar luxury living residents, but the rest of us inner city natives shouldn't have to see that crap. It's very "uninviting looking", and ruins people's businesses on Kensington Ave. Although, I don't live in Kensington, but I do pass through their sometimes, and it looks nasty.

There's more than enough room to build mega homeless shelters within Kensington itself. There's a bunch of useless junkyards that just catch fire all the time, vacant lots, and abandoned warehouses that would make a perfect fit for mega shelter low rises. The city just needs to come up with a better policy that would persuade the homeless to keep coming back. Better rehab programs too. And enhance the security inside them. These private investors need to think about that, eventhough it's the city's job.

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by ElijahAstin

It does and it doesn’t. Yes, Phoenix now has more people within its city limits than Philadelphia, but who cares? As you both seem to agree, it’s a completely different kind of city. I’m pleased that Philadelphia has re-broken 1.6M, which I didn’t necessarily expect.

I’m sure water will factor in at some point, but my understanding is that Arizona (and Nevada, for that matter) has plenty at its disposal.


Probably not. I would imagine that Census undercounts are more pronounced in the Southwest and West.

Coiorado River water is already oversubscribed, and if you haven't seen the photos recently, the great reservoirs that slake the Desert Southwest's thirst have shrunk significantly and are continuing to fall.

At least Phoenicians and Tucsonians have learned to love xeriscaping, but that probably won't be enough to keep the issue from either stunting Phoenix's growth or producing a water crisis that would stretch affect three states sooner rather than later.

[cpomp]

Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly

If the city will try to fixed half its problems, it will only accelerate the growth rate and potentially make Philadelphia one of the fastest growing cities in the entire country. The city is already rivaling growth rates to when it was reaching 2 million in population.

The region had a 5.1% growth rate, which was higher than both Chicago and LA and not far off San Diego. (and higher than I expected).

Philadelphia has so much boom potential (more so than currently) if the cards are played well. Invest in Life Sciences, tech, logistics, growth of universities, decrease crime, create middle class jobs, invest in the airport, the re-birth of the refinery into warehousing, etc. It also helps that COL is still mostly much lower than the surrounding big cities.

My only fear is that leadership will increase its role as a hindrance on growth. You have the old school Clarkes and now the new school Brooks, I don't know which is worse. The mayoral race in 2023 will be a huge factor going forward. Until then the city will remain on its current mostly positive trajectory. State politics also play a role in the future of the city/region. Not every problem is the fault of Philadelphia leadership, but also the mess in Harrisburg.

I also hope the densification of the suburbs continues. The development in KoP, Conshohocken, Media, West Chester, Ardmore, Exton, etc. is amazing to see.

[KaM n.p.]

I just thought I'd be a geek, and write this down. Felt like it was worth noting more cities in the top brackets. As it stands, here's a list of the top 10 biggest cities that eclipsed a million.

New York City: 8,804,190(Wtf NY is almost 9M) lol
Los Angeles: 3,898,747
Chicago: 2,746,388
Houston: 2,304,580
Phoenix: 1,608,139<--‐---
Philly: 1,603,797
San Antonio: 1,434,625
San Diego: 1,386,982
Dallas: 1,304,179
San Jose: 1,013,240

1 Million Runner Ups
11th. Austin: 961,885
12th Jacksonville: 949,611
13th Columbus: 905,748
I was actually shocked Columbus had this many people. All other cities are toe to toe with population that ranges from 200k-800k between a vast majority of all cities under 800k.

[Hedonism]

Originally Posted by cpomp

I also hope the densification of the suburbs continues. The development in KoP, Conshohocken, Media, West Chester, Ardmore, Exton, etc. is amazing to see.

Great.


More people, more problems.

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by Hedonism

Great.


More people, more problems.

More people spread out over a larger territory, more problems of a different sort.

The difference is, we keep papering that problem over with debt. It will come back to bite us eventually, however, and it already has bitten some places.

I'll take my chances with getting stabbed and hoping there are lots of eyes on the street should that happen over building more infrastructure that we can't afford to maintain out of the tax revenues it generates. Building densely enough (and that doesn't mean we all live in apartment buildings) to pay for the infrastructure needed to support the building ultimately means we also have more money to spend on public safety as well as more people keeping watch and multiplying the effectiveness of police.

[MPK21]

Originally Posted by Lenses & Lights.

Funny thing is, Phoenix like Houston before it has annexed land of nearby populated towns that were already established.

That's probably a bit easier to do than rely on organic growth of people voluntarily moving into the city limits and starting fresh there.

Many of the old big cities did the land annexation and annexed already established towns. The issue is that it was well over 100-150 years ago; Northern Liberties and Southwark to name a couple were gobbled up by Philadelphia. New York consolidated into 5 boroughs in 1898. Chicago added lots of independent towns as well.

So, cities annexing adjacent land and towns is nothing new. Perhaps people forget about this point as they now claim the new big cities are cheating; Phoenix, Houston, and Columbus OH are a few recent examples of having done the same thing, only well into the 20th century.

I'm glad Philly saw nice growth is actually less than 5,000 residents behind Phoenix; the estimates had San Antonio on Philly's heels but according to this census that gap is much larger. Would have great if Philly was still ahead of Phoenix.

The population estimates are interesting in that many cities' estimates were too high prior to the 2010 census, especially Chicago. Now the 2020 Census is showing the opposite: estimated low, census high.

All urban cities will be interesting to study post-Covid.

[ElijahAstin]

Originally Posted by MPK21

So, cities annexing adjacent land and towns is nothing new. Perhaps people forget about this point as they now claim the new big cities are cheating; Phoenix, Houston, and Columbus OH are a few recent examples of having done the same thing, only well into the 20th century.

While the basic concept isn’t new, modern sunbelt cities take the practice to much greater extremes. It’s not a question of “cheating” or “not cheating.” Annexation rules, and corresponding city limits, are what they are. But they absolutely diminish the weight of Phoenix’s gains relative to Philadelphia’s.

[MPK21]

Originally Posted by ElijahAstin

While the basic concept isn’t new, modern sunbelt cities take the practice to much greater extremes. It’s not a question of “cheating” or “not cheating.” Annexation rules, and corresponding city limits, are what they are. But they absolutely diminish the weight of Phoenix’s gains relative to Philadelphia’s.

That's the way it rolls...

The old big cities should have done more annexations, which for them pretty much ended 100 years ago. Leadership, as usual, was short-sighted as cities in the east/midwest dominated at least until the Depression, the interstate highway system, and the rise of the Sunbelt to name a couple reasons.

Many of the Sunbelt cities and some smaller midwest cities were smart to annex lots of land to capture future growth coming their way.

This is a city population discussion so the posters here taking it to a discussion of metro size etc are only derailing the topic. Metro Phoenix went from about 1,000,000 in 1970 to about 5,000,000 today, so it's not just Phoenix capturing all the growth.

Philly has to attract population within the boundaries it created. It has to clean-up its act locally and get employers to relocate and get its current businesses to expand. Philly has the highest poverty rate among the top 10 cities so it has its work cut out for it and a high homicide body count. Isn't Philly heading for its all time high homicide count in 2021 after just missing that by like 1 homicide last year. Not a good sign at all.

Again, post-Covid cities will be interesting to watch.