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 would say when measuring populations, 6% is a sizable difference. I also do not think Philadelphia is that comparable to St Louis in almost every metric due to the size and economic differences.
Of course they both have a colorful industrial past, but that isn't enough to warrant a realistic comparison. If you are comparing Philadelphia to St. Louis, then we might as well compare your beloved Chicago to St Louis too.
The reference was made that Philly and St Louis were not comparable since Philly had 42% African-Americans vs St Louis 48%. Then that person added St Louis % being more comparable to Camden and Gary.
I thought that was ridicules as theses smaller cities are suburbs next to more major cities. I still also do not see 42% vs 48% one ethnic group is a difference to say St Louis and Philly are not comparable or similar enough demographics?
Nothing to do with the thread topic really. But heck .... Philly forum regulars were all gung ho in boasting much larger Philly in a Philly vs Pittsburgh thread in the PA forums .... and Pittsburgh is much less African-American then Philly. Plus a big size difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwduvall
If the racial makeup of the population is the sum total of city demographics, you are absolutely right. I tend to take a broader view that includes incomes, education, job classifications, age of housing stock, etc. I guess you can say that all majority black places are the same - therefore Camden, Baltimore, Detroit, Gary, East St. Louis, etc. are all the same. St. Louis itself is only 48% black, and therefore a different kind of place. And it goes without saying that, at only 42% black, Philadelphia isn't even relatable.
The above post was the one I replied to. My point was African-American % in the lower 40s vs upper 40s makes very little difference (to me). Size of the cities is much more a factor if a fairer comparison.
The above quoted reply ..... had to do with demographics making Baltimore more comparable to a Memphis and not Philly. But clearly there is still more to cities similarities then African American %'s .... like similar housing types in high row-housing % more like Philly's and makes it to compare to Baltimore's higher % also.
Chicago and St Louis can be compared .... yes. But size begins to play a roll. But their housing similarities are closer then Chicago's to Eastern cities for sure. Chicago has more a Latino % as it also has vs Philly. But St Louis to Gary comparable because of some demographics ..... would be ridicules and to say they are more alike or comparable .... given the vast size differences.
I've said this it in other threads when someone said Chicago and Philly were very alike?
Things tat came to mind as a NOT ALIKE:
- Philly is 60+% attached clear-cut row-houses .... Chicago is 60+% (I'm just using it as a point) not attached housing.
- Philly still has a good % without alleys behind regular streets..... Chicago is 90% WITH full-alleyways.
- Philly has one of the tightest street-grids in the Nation .... Chicago's simply isn't seen as tight and alley-sized regular streets are not really found there. Heck, its alleys could be streets in Philly (no exaggeration)
Philly has a good portion of the city with no green-space frontage between homes, then sidewalk, curb, then street ..... Chicago has a standard setback through a very high % of the city and through most its eras that mainly date post 1871 - Great Fire. No 1700 housing in Chicago's core even if the fire did not happen.
I'm not trying to interject Chicago here as YOU MENTIONED .... it's my beloved Chicago ... But I could clearly discus its perceptions vs Philly's and where they differ, changed over time and why they may differ. Also how one seemed to overcome more (subjective) then the other despite its issues too.
It had a little more than 2 million inhabitants at its population peak in 1950.
Go back through the Census figures and you might note that most of the "Rust Belt" metropolises posted their peak populations in that same decennial Census.
Philadelphia had over 2 million people for 15 years from 1945 to 1960. It's the only US city that has reached a population of 2 million that doesn't have at least 2 million today.
Philadelphia had over 2 million people for 15 years from 1945 to 1960. It's the only US city that has reached a population of 2 million that doesn't have at least 2 million today.
Does Philadelphia's perception problem really stem from it not having enough people?
Philly's population was 1.469 million in 2009 and is 1.580 now. Considering the city limits aren't that large, that's a pretty good increase in density by modern standards. The population in the city is just not going to grow that fast for tons of reasons like labor costs, public opposition, taxes, pollution, regulations, etc.
I don't think most people realize how much improved Philadelphia's economy has been over the last decade (especially the city) vs. previous decades. The metro is going to cross 3 million jobs this month and has been on a solid streak for a while.
As someone who in the past few years has traveled to several cities which have bad perceptions and have found each and every one of them fascinating and great places to visit I now ignore those perceptions- coming mostly from people who have never been to them or who just don’t like cities.
We were in Philadelphia for a wedding last October and absolutely loved it, easily one of the best cities in the country. I hope to visit it again often and felt it is one of just a handful of cities in the country that I would greatly desire to live in.
I feel most cities conform to what I call the 20/80 rule, that there is generally about 20% of a city that encompasses its best parts and attributes, that which is great to visit and/or live in (if you like cities) and the other 80% is meh (suburbs) to awful or even dangerous. If a city has a great 20 and I can easily avoid the 80 then I am gonna like that city.
Philly easily has a spectacular 20% and other cities that often have at least a partial bad perception that I still think have a great 20% (or more) after visiting them include St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and most recently, Chicago. These are fantastic cities because they each offer a unique culture, arts, architecture and setting that are all great to explore.
That these cities easily beat my expectations of them are a testament to ignoring those curmudgeons who have nothing but bad things to say about them. None were dangerous feeling, unfriendly or difficult to discover elements and people in them that made for a wonderful experience. Enough so that I now am more than curious about what Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati and other often disparaged cities are all about. I am determined and excited about finding out for myself.
Don’t believe the perceptions you hear, experience it for yourself!
Perception vs realty and the realty is Philly institutions of higher learning are at the epicenter of cancer, immunology ,epigenetics and AIDS research . World researchers in medicine are familiar with the very exciting research going on in the city of brotherly love .https://wistar.org/news/press-releas...earch-advances
Its all on preference. Boston is a bad perception from racism. NYC has a bad perception from filth and living conditions. Philly has a bad perception from urban decay/filth.
I love Philadelphia and think its a well rounded city, and people who make these perception claims obviously have never been/rarely explored Philly. Because Philly is a city with strong bones and great cuisine/culture. People are probably jealous their city lacks ample street traffic and vibrancy.
In general. The perceptions were visually. The OP even said others sex the term -filtadelphia. The Rocky movie did not help. Of course University City and students that attend Philly's higher learning institutions are a great asset to promote. But this has little to do with visual old stigmas. Philly's Core has progressed greatly. Visitors generally should have expectations surpassed. But if they leave CC in the wrong direction ....... well. It might get tarnished still.
But few use that demeaning term today. But outside of Center City. The stigma can still show its face. Sadly, Philly still can't bring back neighborhood street-sweepers on a regular basis as it can help again apt least on main streets. It never should have been halted in the level it once had. Fanatically, Philly never was so bad in finances as to cut this service. It certainly did not help the stigma the OP pointed out in that ugly word used.
But things should continue to improve .... including perceptions as visitors are more likely to see the improved Philly.
The O P also mentioned Chicago and winters warranted in stigma aspect. Well this past winter it did live up to it. The whole upper Midwest did.
But nothing the OP mentioned was about Philly vs another city? Surprised it reminded in CvC forum ..... Another thread on Philly alone basically. Was moved to the Philly forum.
Does Philadelphia's perception problem really stem from it not having enough people?
Haha, oh no. Definitely not. Look at the growth of Phoenix, which just took 5th place from Philly 2 years ago, or San Antonio, which will more than likely take 6th place from Philly within 3 years.
Also can't be because of skylines, because look at those 2 cities. There's cities with 300k population with better skylines. Even Hartford, Connecticut population 125,000 has a better skyline. 3 buildings over 500 ft. Both cities have no buildings of 500 ft, and are nearly 13 times the population of Hartford.
In general. The perceptions were visually. The OP even said others sex the term -filtadelphia. The Rocky movie did not help. Of course University City and students that attend Philly's higher learning institutions are a great asset to promote. But this has little to do with visual old stigmas. Philly's Core has progressed greatly. Visitors generally should have expectations surpassed. But if they leave CC in the wrong direction ....... well. It might get tarnished still.
But few use that demeaning term today. But outside of Center City. The stigma can still show its face. Sadly, Philly still can't bring back neighborhood street-sweepers on a regular basis as it can help again apt least on main streets. It never should have been halted in the level it once had. Fanatically, Philly never was so bad in finances as to cut this service. It certainly did not help the stigma the OP pointed out in that ugly word used.
But things should continue to improve .... including perceptions as visitors are more likely to see the improved Philly.
All the neighborhoods surrounding Center City are fine enough such that it would be hard to just walk into a rough one. The only real tourist attraction that I can foresee someone wandering into a sketchy neighborhood would be walking quite far north from Eastern State Penitentiary, but that would require passing through Girard College, which would be strange for a visitor to go beyond there.
Yes, the perception keeps improving. My cousin who visits from NYC loves Philly. Hopefully the street-sweepers start again soon. To that, I agree.
I don't think Philly has a perception problem. I think it has more of a "woe is me, why am I not as popular as the cities around me?" problem, or at least it does on City-Data. IRL I think any stigma Philly has is mostly limited to the rest of the country's perception of Philly sports fans. Overall, though, I think people think it's a cool city with lots to do, but just not on the level of NYC, DC, LA, SF.
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.
But I could clearly discus its perceptions vs Philly's and where they differ, changed over time and why they may differ. Also how one seemed to overcome more (subjective) then the other despite its issues too.
