If idiot tourists don't like it here who cares

Since we are all arguing over which city is best, I thought I'd post this CNBC article on affordability and job availability for new grads in major metros:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/25/best-...ege-grads.html

Philly actually isn't looking too bad. Both Boston and Cambridge have fewer available jobs surprisingly enough.

I do take issue with a few things though, obviously they are taking into account every piece of property in the city...I mean, Newark NJ is showing up as less affordable than Philly. Sure, you can go buy a dilapidated rowhouse in N Philly for $25k, but no new grad is going to do that.

Also, check out Montgomery County PA making the chart! It seems to be the only county there, and it's very odd that it's even included here as a 'starter city' considering it is in fact, an entire county.

The whole thing is a little loopy but interesting nonetheless.

Now THAT sounds like classic Philadelphia inferiority complex. ;) Are you serious? Philly has some of the richest cultural and tourist assets in the country and, in some cases, in the world. It's precisely that kind of thinking--i.e., we don't need to market our assets or present ourselves well to the country and world--that has held Philly back compared to other cities. And you can't attract and keep high-tech and entrepreneurial businesses and workers in this day and age unless you have a city that's widely perceived as a great place to live and visit.

But maybe we should just agree to disagree on this one. :cheers:

well tourism numbers are increasing so obviously people like something about Philly.

That’s a great point. Let’s be honest, if you moved the entire State government and all the associated activities to Philadelphia, it would be a game changer for the City. As far as jobs and activities, it would be like adding a second CBD.

Listen, you can't worry about what ignorant people think. In the minds of people who don't know much I'm sure Philly is seen as a fading industrial city with no prospects. Who gives a damn? In the minds of investors, retailers, folks who book conventions and events, etc. Philly is not the same place it was in the 70s and 80s. I only care about perception in the minds of people who can make things happen and bring investment here. If you look at all the out of town purchases of buildings here and all the out of town money being invested here there should really be no more debate about whether or not our image has changed.

I agree except for the part about tourism. I'm not sure where this idea that Philly isn't really a major destination started but it seems to come from one comment about some place in Boston getting more visitors than Independence hall. Whatever, don't really care. All that matters are the overall numbers and visitation to Philly is up as is hotel occupancy. A lot of people are visiting this city on a yearly basis.

This is why we need more facts and less conjecture when discussing how well or poorly Philly is doing.

http://files.visitphilly.com/2015-vi...ual-report.pdf

Philly has higher saturday night hotel occupancy than any other east coast city not called NYC. Leisure travel to the city has increased 90% in the last 17 years.

You don’t think there is a considerable overlap between the people you may deem ignorant (who see Philadelphia as less than it is) and the “people who can make things happen and bring investment here”?

obviously you didn't read my post. People are posting anecdotal stories about tourists or folks living elsewhere in the US who may not think Philly is cool, but they can't tell us what ill effects are being felt due to these perceptions. There is NO city in the US that is universally loved or praised by all visitors or non-residents. So there will always be some people (likely folks who have never been here) who won't be impressed or interested in the city. When you look at the NUMBERS they show there is a ton of out of town interest in Philadelphia. This can be seen by the number of visitors and the billions being invested by outsiders. I'm not sure what else you would want from outsiders. They are buying up our office towers, investing in dozens of projects and in some cases setting up satellite offices here.

Not sure why all the shadow boxing is necessary. Did I say anything about hipsters? I was talking about the "mainstream". Hipsters by definition believe they eschew the mainstream. It would make sense then that hipsters prefer Philly. They are not the folks packing Faneuil Hall and stuffing their faces at Legal Seafoods.

And to your point, it is safe to say that those who disparage and think negatively about cities - a dominant but hopefully rapidly declining American population segment (possibly constituting the nebulous, enigmatic "mainstream") - would prefer pretty genteel Boston over relatively rough around the edges Philly.

Point Breeze townhouse plans get zoning approval
Updated: MAY 25, 2016 — 5:58 PM EDT
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/busines...kHpj58YgJ5v.99

Yes, as I said in my earlier post, things have definitely been improving over the last 15 or so years. But Philly has a LONG way to go to gain its rightful place on the list of most visited and popular tourist cities in the US, especially given the amazing historic and cultural assets and amenities it has compared to other cities. For example, Philly doesn't even rank among the top 25 most popular US travel destinations on this and other rankings and lists:

The 25 Most Popular Travel Destinations In The US

I think you and I are basically in agreement on Philly's merits and assets as a tourist and travel destination, but apparently unlike you, I think that Philly has a lot more catch-up to do in terms of its promotion as a tourist destination. As the list I linked--and lots of others--bear out, it's not uncommon for tourists to the east coast to visit DC, NYC, and Boston, but not Philly. And that is NOT anecdotal.

On an anecdotal level, Boston simply does not have anywhere close to the scale of run down slums that cover a very large portion of Philly. Our ring of slums is pretty mind blowing in its extent. Other than those among us who have been lobotomized, we can all see this fairly plainly. But here are some facts:

Philly city poverty rate is about 26%, metro about 13%.
Boston's city rate about 22%, metro rate about 10%.

Philly median per capita income is about $23K in the City, $33K in the metro.
Boston's about $36K in the City, $40K in the metro.

Pretty stark difference. The facts clearly bear out that Boston is a much richer city. I'm not making a value statement here. I don't think Boston is better because it is richer, but it is much richer.

http://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US4260000-philadelphia-pa/#income
http://censusreporter.org/profiles/1...ton-ma/#income

Not only is there a greater proportion of impoverished people in Philly, but though I am no demographer, I think the census data suggests that the impoverished of Philly are more deeply impoverished.

Again, no shock here. Why fight the facts? Accept the truth and it will set you free.

That stat is partially relevant, and great for Philly. But downtown Boston has quite a few more hotel rooms than we do. Not sure of the exact stats, but my sense is at least 5,000 more rooms in central Boston/Cambridge than in CC/UC. My understanding is that Boston wins in overnight hotel stays and average room rates. I'm sure someone can unearth the relevant stats.

Fascinating discussion, but I have to wonder, do we really want to be a major tourist destination? The tourist industries obviously want that, but they're a pretty small chunk of the economic pie. Ask New Yorkers and Washingtonians if they enjoy being tourist destinations. I think the whole train of thought it backwards. You make Philly awesome, and the tourists will come. Not vice versa. We're already seeing it. Philly has upgrades its downtown amenities tremendously over the past 10-15 years. Our food scene is world class. The history's always been there. The peripheral neighborhoods are buzzing with energy. Who cares if the perception is slow to catch up if the actual reality of living here is improving?

Also, I think the people who pointed out that we're not a regional capital have in the way Chicago and Boston are were spot on. Again, I'm not sure this is a bad thing. It keeps costs down, since the glory seekers will naturally be attracted to places like New York and DC, while we benefit from proximity to those two power centers without the insanity.

that list is hardly scientific or based on actual tourism numbers and it includes a ton of beach towns which I don't see as direct competitors to Philadelphia. 40 million visitors is a lot. And comparing Philly tourism to DC (tons of free federal musuems and monuments and the ONLY capital of the US) or NYC isn't really fair.

You are stating problem but no proposed solution. Philly already has a full time tourism agency that manages advertising and promotion. We've had a lot of films shot here. We have near record hotel occupancy. What exactly would you propose be done to promote the city that is supposedly not being done?

Going up at 5th & South, according to Naked Philly:

http://www.ocfrealty.com/sites/www.o...uth%20elev.png
http://www.ocfrealty.com/sites/www.o...uth%20elev.png

Obviously every city has a different number of hotel rooms. Not exactly earth shattering news there- hence why rates are compared as opposed to total rooms booked. The facts are what they are. With boston being a borderline Utopia they should have no problem exceeding Philly's occupancy. And Boston wasn't the only city we topped if you bothered to look at the document in the link.

Things along the lines of this, albeit 16 years old now:

Sell The City! Let's Get Ads That'll Do The Job

There HAS been some improvement of late in the Visit Philadelphia (formerly GPTMC) ad campaigns, but previous campaigns were pretty lame and uninformative, e.g., "The Place That Loves You Back," "Philly's more fun when you sleep over," etc. :rolleyes: