PHILADELPHIA | Lowrise/General Developments Thread

[1487]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

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/16000US2507000-boston-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.

I think everyone already knows Philly poverty stats- poorest of the largest 10 cities- not news. With a 22% poverty rate Boston isn't exactly Seattle or San Fran- they aren't doing much better in that regard. Boston is much smaller and when you have pricey real estate your poor are priced out. Philadelphia has nearly lost as much population as Boston has today. It's a MUCH larger city and in spite of losing 25% of its population from 1950 it still has more than double Boston's population. I'm not sure people research poverty stats before deciding to visit this city, or any other. In MOST cities the tourism focused areas are not the areas where poor people live. EVERY city tries its best to present only it's desirable aspects to visitors.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by 1487

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.

I mean, given the popularity of the Big Chief Waxahatchee Casino and Redneck Resort shed a few miles down Grand Ol' Podunk Pike, just past Jethro's Go Go Jamboree 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 Palace, the hamlet of Lower West Frittersville, AR has a 95% occupancy rate on its inventory of 27 motel rooms that go for $22/night ($9/hour). Would that gaudy occupancy rate therefore launch Lower West Frittersville into the elite tier of tourist cities?

The obvious point being that Boston has a very healthy occupancy rate with higher prices and a larger number of rooms filled up. Occupancy rate is certainly relevant, but occupancy times total number of rooms times revenue per room is the correct metric to value the desirability of city as a visitor destination. Can't just cherry pick the single stat that suits your worldview.

Originally Posted by 1487

With boston being a borderline Utopia they should have no problem . . . .

It's hilarious how you personalize everything. It's as if you resent Boston's success. Listen, I wish Philly measured up better against Boston in terms of its appeal to the average tourist and investor too. But I can accept the very clear reality that it doesn't. Is Philly a more interesting city? Of course, in my opinion. Does it have more character, authenticity, hipster appeal? Sure. But to mainstream tourists and business class people, Boston has the clear advantage. Rather than fight the reality, it would make more sense to look at what Boston does right that we don't do as well - like, say, keeping clean - and emulate that. No point in pretending that there is nothing we can learn from Boston's success. We can learn a lot and we should try to. The status quo in Philly that you seem ever to be attempting to make excuses for will not cut it over the long run if Philly is to remain an upper tier city.

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

I mean, given the popularity of the Big Chief Waxahatchee Casino and Redneck Resort shed a few miles down Grand Ol' Podunk Pike

Come on, admit it: you regularly get comped there.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

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/16000US2507000-boston-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 is relevant to the overall health of the city and people who live here. I don't think it's very relevant to explaining differences in tourism. Isn't that what this conversation was about? People don't vacation in the slums. Not in Philly. Not in Boston. Not anywhere. If poverty outside Center City is still impacting tourism, it is as a reputational and perception issue.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

That is relevant to the overall health of the city and people who live here. I don't think it's very relevant to explaining differences in tourism. Isn't that what this conversation was about? People don't vacation in the slums. Not in Philly. Not in Boston. Not anywhere. If poverty outside Center City is still impacting tourism, it is as a reputational and perception issue.

It's relevant to the comment I was responding to, about Boston's hidden away poverty. Philly has more poverty and it is clearly more evident in the tourist areas and Center City in general than in downtown Boston.

Have you people been to downtown Boston? It is a very wealthy-feeling place. By comparison, pretty large portions of Center City are pretty rough. I'm not making this up. It's so obvious.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by Philly Fan

Come on, admit it: you regularly get comped there.

Shhhhhh!

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

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

http://www.ocfrealty.com/sites/www.ocfrealty.com/files/images/514%20south%20elev.png

Wow, Cro, nice find - that's pretty awesome for South Street, what the co-working space being done up across the street (just a self-referential bump to change the topic now that I had my last word on the Philly v. Boston thing).

And for anyone who really wants to have a good time, I highly recommend Lower West Frittersville, AR. Talk about an underrated town.

[UrbanRevival]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

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.

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.

I don't mean to take this further down the rabbit hole, but if we're going to cite economic data, we need to consider the context.

An extremely important caveat to the "official" poverty numbers reported by the Census is that they do not take into account cost-of-living differences. And, in a similar vein, per capita income values in Boston are simply measured on a very different scale from that of Philadelphia--it's not an apples-to-apples comparison.

To address regional disparities in purchasing power, the Census has developed a Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) that is still relatively new and not necessarily imperfect, but definitely gets much closer to measuring true poverty. Unfortunately, I don't think they've released granular enough data to measure SPM for metro areas/cities, but at least the state level, Massachusetts, supposedly one of the wealthiest states in the US, has a higher SPM than Pennsylvania (13.8% versus 12.7%):https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/demo/p60-251.pdf

It stands to reason that, as both metro areas would likely be around those state averages, poverty in the Boston and Philly areas is in fact very comparable.

However, I think you're really getting at is "deep poverty," which the Philly area certainly does have more of than Boston, which manifests itself in the form of noticeably more chronic unemployment, crime and blight (or "slums") than anything in the Boston area.

But intractable as deep poverty is for Philly, it's definitely not insurmountable, and arguably it will lessen as future generations are brought more and more into the mainstream economy as the city reaches its deindustrial recovery.

It's not about a lack of resources, but using them more wisely. And with the amount of vision and young leadership currently in the city/region that far surpasses anything that the city had for the past half-century, Philly's regeneration into a much more stable and prosperous city can and will happen in due time.

[Baconboy007]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

Wow, Cro, nice find - that's pretty awesome for South Street, what the co-working space being done up across the street (just a self-referential bump to change the topic now that I had my last word on the Philly v. Boston thing).

And for anyone who really wants to have a good time, I highly recommend Lower West Frittersville, AR. Talk about an underrated town.

[Knight Hospitaller]

I had to spend ten minutes going through Boston 🞵🞵🞵🞵 to find two posts on Point Breeze and 5th and South that are actually relevant.

[iheartphilly]

For all the naysayers about Philly or comparison to this or that, Philly is still a "proper" major city. We have top notch institutions (both public and private-you name it we have at least one-cultural, arts, business, non-profit, education, healthcare, etc.), pretty damn good eats, historic sites, good transit system, all major sports teams, Chinatown, bike and boat races, marathons, music festivals, pretty awesome green space like Fairmount Park. Just about something for everyone. And, to boot, I think we are on the up trajectory of an influx of more young and old people-folks recognizing all the awesome attributes of the city. Hell, even wealthy people are giving Philly a shot with all the high end condos. The bottom line is that if you are happy living here, then comparing Philly to another city is moot.

[1487]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

I mean, given the popularity of the Big Chief Waxahatchee Casino and Redneck Resort shed a few miles down Grand Ol' Podunk Pike, just past Jethro's Go Go Jamboree 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 Palace, the hamlet of Lower West Frittersville, AR has a 95% occupancy rate on its inventory of 27 motel rooms that go for $22/night ($9/hour). Would that gaudy occupancy rate therefore launch Lower West Frittersville into the elite tier of tourist cities?

The obvious point being that Boston has a very healthy occupancy rate with higher prices and a larger number of rooms filled up. Occupancy rate is certainly relevant, but occupancy times total number of rooms times revenue per room is the correct metric to value the desirability of city as a visitor destination. Can't just cherry pick the single stat that suits your worldview.

It's hilarious how you personalize everything. It's as if you resent Boston's success. Listen, I wish Philly measured up better against Boston in terms of its appeal to the average tourist and investor too. But I can accept the very clear reality that it doesn't. Is Philly a more interesting city? Of course, in my opinion. Does it have more character, authenticity, hipster appeal? Sure. But to mainstream tourists and business class people, Boston has the clear advantage. Rather than fight the reality, it would make more sense to look at what Boston does right that we don't do as well - like, say, keeping clean - and emulate that. No point in pretending that there is nothing we can learn from Boston's success. We can learn a lot and we should try to. The status quo in Philly that you seem ever to be attempting to make excuses for will not cut it over the long run if Philly is to remain an upper tier city.

You've provided no metrics to support any of your assertions thus far, Not that I'm surprised. I provided some metrics for the state of Philly tourism and hotel occupancy and you said it doesn't count. If you can't compare occupancy rate you can't really compare much of anything city to city. Hotel prices can't be compared for obvious reasons, like the fact that real estate and wage rates vary widely city to city. It's the same thing with wages and per capita income. Because housing and other costs vary so much city to city it's difficult to simply compare per capita incomes and then say "people in city A are doing much better because they have higher income per capita". someone making $50k in Philly might be doing pretty well while someone making the same in San Fran is probably living in their mom's basement or sharing an apt with 2 roommates.

Bottom line is this, tourism and hotel occupancy is on the rise in Philly and the last year on record was a record in terms of visitation. I haven't seen visitation figures on Boston yet but 40m out of town visitors is a good sign for Philly.

[1487]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

It's relevant to the comment I was responding to, about Boston's hidden away poverty. Philly has more poverty and it is clearly more evident in the tourist areas and Center City in general than in downtown Boston.

Have you people been to downtown Boston? It is a very wealthy-feeling place. By comparison, pretty large portions of Center City are pretty rough. I'm not making this up. It's so obvious.

when I went to Boston years back the tourist area (I think it was Boston Commons) was full of homeless people. Perhaps that's been rectified by now, but it was an issue back then. As a city dweller it wasn't shocking or scary to me, but it likely could've been for the average sheltered small town American.

When you think of the most prominent tourist attractions in Philly it's hard to saw they are overrun with undesirable poor people. Which locales are you talking about. Liberty Bell? City Hall? Art Museum and Barnes Museum? The Zoo? I'm not seeing how these areas are fringe areas where tourists have to watch their back lest they encounter the too many poor people.

[1487]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

I had to spend ten minutes going through Boston 🞵🞵🞵🞵 to find two posts on Point Breeze and 5th and South that are actually relevant.

thats what we call first world problems. You will survive. I'm sure of it.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by 1487

when I went to Boston years back . . . . When you think of the most prominent tourist attractions in Philly it's hard to saw they . . . not seeing how these areas are fringe areas where tourists have to watch their back lest they encounter the too many poor people.

Hey guy, you win. I now see: clearly Philadelphia equals or surpasses Boston in terms of wealth, flourishing tourism industry, lack of evidence of poverty pervading the downtown urban environment, cleanliness, broad mainstream appeal, booming economy, job growth, & long-term prospects for economic well-being, effective tax regime, excellent city government and quality political leadership. Further, anyone who suggests that Boston has significant, or even any advantages over Philadelphia is just flat out wrong. That simply is not possible. And there is nothing to learn from Boston because in no way could it be considered a more successful city than Philadelphia. You, 1487, are right. I finally get it, and it is a wondrous feeling to suspend all connection to the fact-based world. Thank you!

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

I had to spend ten minutes going through Boston 🞵🞵🞵🞵 to find two posts on Point Breeze and 5th and South that are actually relevant.

Hey, it's more FUN that way.

And what else would you be doing--just racking up more billable hours?

[bawdycav]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

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/16000US2507000-boston-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.

My comment wasn't about Philadelphia. It was about over inflating boston. Boston is one of the top 10 most improverished cities and has been for a long time. Do they dress up their poverty better, maybe. But dressing up means nothing. DC does the same thing and it's long been a more crime ridden city than phildelphia. Boston it has deep poverty and income inequity issues.

http://www.cbsnews.com/media/americas-11-poorest-cities/

[Knight Hospitaller]

Originally Posted by 1487

thats what we call first world problems. You will survive. I'm sure of it.

I'm wondering why a "city vs. city" discussion has survived this long. Did Summers or Hammer go on vacation?

[bawdycav]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

It's relevant to the comment I was responding to, about Boston's hidden away poverty. Philly has more poverty and it is clearly more evident in the tourist areas and Center City in general than in downtown Boston.

Have you people been to downtown Boston? It is a very wealthy-feeling place. By comparison, pretty large portions of Center City are pretty rough. I'm not making this up. It's so obvious.

Your logical progressions are sort of ridiculous. Downtown Boston feels wealthy? One I don't believe that is true. Second who cares? You go to downtown San Francisco and it feels gritty. It is far wealthier than Boston but that doesn't deter tourists. That's called character.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by bawdycav

Downtown Boston feels wealthy? One I don't believe that is true.

I already conceded in my prior post, my friend. You are right: downtown Boston certainly does not feel wealthy, in any event by no means more so than Center City. Bit shabby actually. This is common knowledge. Any sane person would agree. A consensus has been arrived at, I think we can move on.

In other good South Street news, it appears that Blumenfeld is finally moving forward with his upgrades to Abbott's Sq, most significantly the addition of the Ahold food market to the long vacant space at 2nd & South. Been a long time coming. Blumenfelds side of that block looks like 🞵🞵🞵🞵.

http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/news/2016/05/26/abbotts-square-society-hill.html