PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread IX

[nimshady]

I am not denying the fact that there are massive problems of poverty and inequality when I say this. However I find the "poorest big city in the US" sort of misleading as it usually only counts the top 10 largest cities. Many of them are prohibitively expensive to the poor as gentrification is much further along in those cities and has pushed the poor beyond city limits.

[McBane]

^ But the top 10 cities are our peers. You want to compare Philadelphia's poverty to Detroit or Stockton, CA? That doesn't make much sense. But even if you did, what would that achieve?

[Milksteak]

Funny, I just logged onto CNBC and saw this article:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/06/10-once-...where-people-may-soon-be-priced-out.html

Check out that headline picture.

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by McBane

^ But the top 10 cities are our peers. You want to compare Philadelphia's poverty to Detroit or Stockton, CA? That doesn't make much sense. But even if you did, what would that achieve?

I agree with this, but there's also the notion that city boundaries - especially in places like Houston and Dallas are somewhat arbitrary. Houston is 550square miles, annexing random suburban towns left and right - meanwhile Philly is 135 - so a lot of these stats are simply byproducts of map lines. So in a sense that poster is a bit right.

Still, our overall Metro is probably one of the poorest as well.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by Londonee

I agree with this, but there's also the notion that city boundaries - especially in places like Houston and Dallas are somewhat arbitrary. Houston is 550square miles, annexing random suburban towns left and right - meanwhile Philly is 135 - so a lot of these stats are simply byproducts of map lines. So in a sense that poster is a bit right.

Still, our overall Metro is probably one of the poorest as well.

That's a really interesting point. It doesn't change the poverty problem in the city but it might help to have a more accurate grasp of the situation.

I'm honestly not sure if going by metro wouldn't at least bring us toward the middle of the pack. Whenever you see those lists of America's wealthiest towns or zip codes, there always seems to be a lot of philly area towns.

[el don]

Originally Posted by Londonee

I agree with this, but there's also the notion that city boundaries - especially in places like Houston and Dallas are somewhat arbitrary. Houston is 550square miles, annexing random suburban towns left and right - meanwhile Philly is 135 - so a lot of these stats are simply byproducts of map lines. So in a sense that poster is a bit right.

Still, our overall Metro is probably one of the poorest as well.

Not even close.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_metropolitan_areas_by_per_capita_income

[McBane]

Really? I feel like those "wealthiest" lists are dominated by NYC and towns in NJ, CT, and CA (especially when based on RE prices b/c PA is relatively cheap compared to our northeastern peers; a $5m mansion in Gladwyn could easily fetch 3 or 4 times that amount in North Jersey or CT for example.) And if you look at that metro list a little closer, many (but not all) of the metros below Philly are way smaller and less significant, i.e., Omaha, Reno, Sheboygan, etc.

Either way, does manipulating the way the data is collected or compared really change anything on the ground? There's no denying that huge amounts of Philly are mired in poverty and that the city has relatively few neighborhoods that are majority middle class families.

Going back to my original post that was recently re-quoted, it's troubling that all the gentrification and uptick in wealth in the city's core didn't offset declines in outlying middle class neighborhoods. That's where the state of the city's schools and crushing taxes hurt the most.

[UrbanRevival]

Originally Posted by nimshady

I am not denying the fact that there are massive problems of poverty and inequality when I say this. However I find the "poorest big city in the US" sort of misleading as it usually only counts the top 10 largest cities. Many of them are prohibitively expensive to the poor as gentrification is much further along in those cities and has pushed the poor beyond city limits.

Exactly. I've said it plenty of times before, but I'll say it again. The methodology the Census uses to compute poverty is outdated and inaccurate. Full stop.

That's certainly not to say that Philly doesn't have a major issue with poverty (and in particular, what's referred to as "deep" poverty), but what the topline numbers do not account for whatsoever is localized differences in cost-of-living.

To accept that Philly has the "highest" poverty rate amongst even the largest cities is to believe that the income thresholds for being "poor" is the same in every city. That means there's no apparent differences in housing, transportation, food, utilities, etc. etc. expenses in Philly versus New York or San Jose? Really? That'd be huge news to literally everyone in America.


Census has developed a measure called the "Supplemental Poverty Measure" to account for major (and increasing) COL differences between cities, but to my knowledge they don't release it at the municipal level and it's certainly not cited almost anywhere in the media.

Here's an article with more background for those interested:

It's worth dwelling on this for a second. The way we measure poverty is based on a 51-year-old analysis of 59-year-old data on food consumption, with no changes other than inflation adjustment. That's bananas.

...

The Census Bureau is well aware of all these shortcomings — in particular the absurdity of using 1955 data — and to address them developed the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM). The SPM differs from the official numbers both in its poverty thresholds and in what it includes in income. Its thresholds are set at "the 33rd percentile of expenditures on food, clothing, shelter, and utilities (FCSU) of consumer units with exactly two children multiplied by 1.2"; the multiplier is there to account for non-FCSU spending needs. The thresholds are adjusted based on both family size and differences in regions' housing costs.

https://www.vox.com/2015/9/16/9337041/supplemental-poverty-measure

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by el don

Not even close.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_metropolitan_areas_by_per_capita_income

Not even close about what? The discussion was about the Top-10 Cities/Size.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by Londonee

I agree with this, but there's also the notion that city boundaries - especially in places like Houston and Dallas are somewhat arbitrary. Houston is 550square miles, annexing random suburban towns left and right - meanwhile Philly is 135 - so a lot of these stats are simply byproducts of map lines. So in a sense that poster is a bit right.

Still, our overall Metro is probably one of the poorest as well.

No way dude. Philly Metro is top 50 for sure for wealth. There's 150+ metros poorer than Philadelphia.

[UrbanRevival]

Originally Posted by Londonee

I agree with this, but there's also the notion that city boundaries - especially in places like Houston and Dallas are somewhat arbitrary. Houston is 550square miles, annexing random suburban towns left and right - meanwhile Philly is 135 - so a lot of these stats are simply byproducts of map lines. So in a sense that poster is a bit right.

Still, our overall Metro is probably one of the poorest as well.

The thing is, the Philadelphia region is in fact one of the most affluent the US.

The constant discussion and hand-wringing about poverty/urban blight in the most challenged parts of places like Philly, Camden and Chester overshadow this fact. But it's true. Any measure you look at (median household income, per capita income, millionaires per capita) actually puts the Philly area in a very solid place.

In fact, if you're a Census data nerd like me and looked at earnings data (which is a much clearer measure of the money people actually make from a standard job), the median individual earnings for folks working full-time, year round in the Philly area (as of 2017) is $55,419. This data can be found on the American Community Survey, although it's very tedious to find.

That doesn't sound like a ton of money, but it places Philly in 21st place amongst over 500 Metropolitan and Micropolitan areas across the US. I'd say that's pretty comparatively high-earning.

[McBane]

Yea but the majority of those 150 metros that are poorer than Philly are insignificant MSAs, like Billings, Green Bay, Reading, etc. There are a couple peers that Philly beats out - Houston, South FL, and Phoenix.

But again, this has little impact on the city's poverty problem and you can manipulate the data all you want, it doesn't change the fact that Philly has few neighborhoods for middle class families.

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by UrbanRevival

The thing is, the Philadelphia region is in fact one of the most affluent the US.

The constant discussion and hand-wringing of poverty/urban blight in the most challenged parts of places like Philly, Camden and Chester overshadow this fact. But it's true. Any measure you look at (median household income, per capita income, millionaires per capita) actually puts the Philly area in a very solid place.

In fact, if you're a Census data nerd like me and looked at earnings data (which is a much clearer measure of the money people actually make from a standard job), the median individual earnings for folks working full-time, year round in the Philly area (as of 2017) is $55,419. This data can be found on the American Community Survey, although it's very tedious to find.

That doesn't sound like a ton of money, but it places Philly in 21st place amongst over 500 Metropolitan and Micropolitan areas across the US. I'd say that's pretty comparatively high-earning.

The discussion was about the Top-10 cities, and Philly's place as the "Poorest Big City" in the country and whether or not that's a misnomer (an arbitrary designation) or fair. To McBane's point - these are our peers - these are who we need to compare ourselves to. Not sure what comparing us to Tulsa has to do with anything. Folks need to follow the discussion instead of hopping on individual posts.

[UrbanRevival]

Originally Posted by Londonee

The discussion was about the Top-10 cities, and Philly's place as the "Poorest Big City" in the country and whether or not that's a misnomer (an arbitrary designation) or fair. To McBane's point - these are our peers - these are who we need to compare ourselves to. Not sure what comparing us to Tulsa has to do with anything. Folks need to follow the discussion instead of hopping on individual posts.

My prior post very much addressed the broader point of why the discussion of poverty in Philly overall is misguided. Can't think of anything more relevant.

Also, the "Top 10" discussion is arbitrary. You're effectively excluding some very critical "peer" cities like Boston, San Francisco, DC, Atlanta and Seattle by strictly look at the "Top 10". I mean, really, is San Antonio a "peer" to Philadelphia? Phoenix?

That's why the rank of metro regions is instructive, because it helps to normalize municipal boundaries/population sizes of the truly most significant US cities.

[mcgrath618]

It's discussions like this and like the one currently underway in the Lowrises thread that makes me wish we had a politics thread. Though I worry that might be a hassle for the mods to moderate.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by McBane

Yea but the majority of those 150 metros that are poorer than Philly are insignificant MSAs, like Billings, Green Bay, Reading, etc. There are a couple peers that Philly beats out - Houston, South FL, and Phoenix.

But again, this has little impact on the city's poverty problem and you can manipulate the data all you want, it doesn't change the fact that Philly has few neighborhoods for middle class families.

I would say we're pretty middle of the pack for Top 25 metros. We rank higher than quite a few including Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Miami, etc.

The ones that rank higher make sense mostly. Seattle = large tech industry. San Francisco = Silicon Valley. Washington DC = Government capital. Boston = large tech industry. NYC = Finance Capital.

We rank on par with Chicago and Los Angeles.

The only ones ahead of us that really sting are Minneapolis, Baltimore, Denver, Portland and San Diego.

If you think of it though, Minneapolis is really the only city in Minnesota. Baltimore is overflow from DC. Portland is the only city in Oregon. Denver the only city in Colorado.

Philly has to split Harrisburg's attention with Pittsburgh. We're also in Pennsylvania, which is an 🞵🞵🞵-backwards state in general towards business growth. Another portion of our metro is in South Jersey, which is the portion of the state that NJ Government care LEAST about. Delaware does a pretty good job of pulling it's own, but is basically entirely the Philadelphia metro area, and doesn't really have an identity of it's own.

I think Philadelphia is doing fine. PA needs to do a better job of attracting job growth, which will increase incomes across the board, but it's still a pretty wealthy region. Definitely more-so than you guys are making it out to be.

TOP 25 US Metro Areas in Population - Ranked by Median Household Income

San Francisco - $98,710
Washington DC - $97,836
Boston - $84,170
Seattle - $80,257
Baltimore - $78,132
Minneapolis - $74,700
New York - $73,108
Denver - $73,107
San Diego - $71,804
Portland - $70,103
Chicago - $67,143
Philadelphia - $67,107
Los Angeles - $67,014
Dallas - $65,000
Atlanta - $63,831
Houston - $62,552
St. Louis - $60,759
Charlotte - $60,708
Riverside - $59,538
Phoenix - $59,199
San Antonio - $57,191
Detroit - $57,180
Orlando - $53,565
Miami - $52,054
Tampa - $51,907

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2018/acs/acsbr17-01.pdf

[Capsule F]

Originally Posted by McBane

Yea but the majority of those 150 metros that are poorer than Philly are insignificant MSAs, like Billings, Green Bay, Reading, etc. There are a couple peers that Philly beats out - Houston, South FL, and Phoenix.

But again, this has little impact on the city's poverty problem and you can manipulate the data all you want, it doesn't change the fact that Philly has few neighborhoods for middle class families.

Phoenix, Houston, LA, Detroit, Miami, San Antonio, Tied with San Diego.

You are wrong. You can try to spin it but its not accurate saying its the "poorest" of the 10 largest cities, metro especially not.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by Capsule F

Phoenix, Houston, LA, Detroit, Miami, San Antonio, Tied with San Diego.

You are wrong. You can try to spin it but its not accurate saying its the "poorest" of the 10 largest cities, metro especially not.

Well it's not my statistic or research that shows Philly has the highest poverty rate of the 10 biggest cities in the US. Are you saying the US census data is wrong? Or that it is wrong to interpret this statistic as meaning that Philadelphia is the poorest big city? Please clarify how I am wrong.

As far as being the poorest metro area - I never said that the Philadelphia region was. What I said is that beating 240 metro areas, most of which are small and insignificant (no offense to Billings, Yuma, etc.), doesn't make our region wealthy. Measure this region's wealth against that of our peers and we're about average, depending on how you look at it.

Spin it how you like, but there's no denying that Philly has huge swaths of extremely impoverished neighborhoods and a dwindling number of middle class neighborhoods outside of Center City and its surrounding gentrified neighborhoods. The fact this all this gentrification occurred and it wasn't enough to increase the city's overall economic health is concerning.

[Milksteak]

Yeah I'm not sure what the argument here is, poverty has a definition...Philly has a 26% poverty rate, and of the largest 10 cities by population in America, Philly has the highest poverty rate.

We can talk about the region, but that's a different story with a million things affecting it. People on the Main Line don't live in Philadelphia, they have a different local government and a different school system...in fact, I'm sure a majority of them don't live in Philly BECAUSE of those two things. Nobody here is shitting on the city, it's just a problem that needs to be addressed.

I would be very interested to see the calculations in the article UrbanRevival posted applied across the US to see what kind of numbers we would get back.

[Gonzo the Great]

Originally Posted by Milksteak

Yeah I'm not sure what the argument here is, poverty has a definition...Philly has a 26% poverty rate, and of the largest 10 cities by population in America, Philly has the highest poverty rate.

We can talk about the region, but that's a different story with a million things affecting it. People on the Main Line don't live in Philadelphia, they have a different local government and a different school system...in fact, I'm sure a majority of them don't live in Philly BECAUSE of those two things. Nobody here is shitting on the city, it's just a problem that needs to be addressed.

I would be very interested to see the calculations in the article UrbanRevival posted applied across the US to see what kind of numbers we would get back.