Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
Philadelphia and Detroit were/are fairly alike. Similar demographics, similar peak populations, similar densities, both socked by longterm post-industrial declines, both dealing with racial strife, both undermined by heavy flight/suburbanization. I guess you could say if Detroit had pneumonia, Philly had the flu.
|
Philadelphia was never going the down the same path as Detroit. It may have looked like it, and it got really bad for a good 20 years, but Philly had assets that were going to save it in the long run as long as smart people in charge didn't completely mess it up. In fact, one can say the seeds for the rebound were already being planted stating in the 1950's as the old industrial city was in it's rapid decline.
I can't say what has gone on or not gone on in Detroit since the 1950's..but Philadelphia was changing for the good and bad. First it started with ousting the hopelessly corrupt Republican machine that let the city slide backwards since the Depression. The city government was reformed and professionals were now put in city offices that were basically bastions of nepotism for years. Sure yeah, the Democrats wound up be somewhat corrupt to over the years but it has never come as close as the corruption of the old Republican machine. So..a new city charter and offices. Check. In the 1950's, new housing was still going up in the Far Northeast. This area would provide a pretty stable tax base for the city for many years while North and West Philly hollowed out. In Center City, the biggest change was tearing down the old Pennsylvania Railroad Viaduct (The Chinese Wall) that literally sucked the life out of the that part of town. Many of Philadelphia's West Market skyscrapers now sit on that footprint. We would not have the modern Center City with that still plopped in the middle of town. While the initial Penn Center was not Ed Bacon's finest hour, it was a start. Also, the makeover of Society Hill in the 1950's took a run down mess and made it one of the finest neighborhoods in the city. There would be no tourism in the historic district if that area was still a run down mess.
The 1960's sped up the industrial decline. People kept moving out, but the city wasn't knocked down yet.
The 70's were bad. Crime up. Taxes up. Bicentennial celebration blown. Biggest 10 year drop in population. An idiot for a mayor. However, he did one thing right that helped Philly in years to come, he bilked Nixon for the money to build the commuter rail tunnel under Center City and by 1984, the old Reading and PRR lines were now one unified system now run by SEPTA. The REading Terminal would go dark with the new Market East Station but that would be turned into a plus a decade later.
The 1980's. Really bad. Another idiot mayor. He blew up a whole neighborhood and the city went broke. Abandonment was everywhere. It was looking like we were following Detroit. However, the next major happening took place (another seed planted) that would spur Philadelphia back up in he coming years. The dreaded Gentleman's Agreement on height limits was broken. On the same day Mayor No Goode bombed Osage Ave, they had the ceremonial ground breaking for Liberty Place. That skyscraper was the one to put Center City back on track. Within a few years of it's completion in 1987..it's twin Liberty 2, Mellon Bank Center and what I still call the Bell Atlantic Tower...gave Philly a modern skyline. It was another small step forward even if the city still took two steps backwards with more industrial decline and people leaving the city.
The 1990's...Ed Rendell saves the city. Bankruptcy was averted. The Center City District was born...another seed planted for the future turn around. Center City had kept a decent residential population over the years but it had gotten kind of sketchy on some streets. Porn theaters were a plenty. Lots of surface lots. The Gallery opened in the 70's and it did okay for a while but a suburban mall in the city was not really the answer. But...the notion of investing in the Center City and hoping it's success would spread out in every direction was a pretty risky one to take. I think it has worked. Center City got cleaner, brighter and safer. The old Reading Terminal was part of the new convention center and the city's hospitality industry was able to start growing . Yes...the population in other parts of the city were going down, but by the end of the 90's, it was growing in Center City and it would spread out in every direction for the next two decades.
By the time the city started adding residents in the mid 2000's, the tax abatement for new housing was already 6-7 years old. It was initially for rehabs of old buildings for new housing purposes, but it was expanded for new construction. The downside of that was that it starved the schools of tax revenue and I understood why council wanted to end it recently. However, it did get people to move to the city. Also, the tax abatement did nothing to promote new affordable housing which was a minus.
So..these things are why I think Philly was never in danger of crashing like Detroit. Also it was mentioned that Philly always had a diversified economy while Detroit was more of a one industry town. What was part of Philly's diversity was the fact that it has major universities that help drive it's economy and Detroit does not. Philly has Ivy League Penn, Temple, Drexel, St. Joe's and Jefferson generating a lot of jobs and money. Penn was on the road to spending billion in University City/West Philly since the 90's and has completely transformed the area with all of those new towers and facilities. it's amazing. Drexel has not been a slouch and Temple breathed new life in the blocks around it in what seemed like a hopeless North Philly. Detroit has Wayne State. I'm sure it's a good school, but it's not Penn, Temple or Drexel and they aren't going to spend what Penn did. I can't even fathom a school spending so much but damn Penn is still doing it. Penn Medicine is a power house and we still have Jefferson.
Also, not every part of Philly saw decline and abandonment even during the worst years of population losses. There were always good sections. I don't know if that happened in Detroit or not where parts of town stayed intact. It seems like the narrative is most parts of town got hit. I don't know.
Other things like investment into PHL over the years to make the region more attactive. I mean PHL for all of it's flaws took the UScareways now American hub away from a much more modern airport in Pittsburgh. The airport was good enough for UPS to set up a shop there. 30th Street Station being one of the busiest rail stations in the US and right there on the cusp of Center City is anther major plus for Philly.
Also, the opening of the Blue Route in the suburbs in the 90's was major development for the region, making it more accessible and the connection of 95 onto the PA Turnpike to give a direct route between Philly and New York will pay dividends going forward. No more having to take back roads to get to the Jersey Turnpike from the city!
It is all of these things that the comparison of Philly and Detroit just never made sense to me. There was never any real chance that Philly was going to bleed so many people and see so many sections of the city be abandoned. I can't imagine most of South Philly ever being abandoned. Most of the Northeast as well. Chestnut Hill? Nope? Roxborough? Nope. Even Manayunk got cool again in the 90's and it's still a magnet for millennials.
Philadelphia's last major hurdle that it just can't seem to get over is reform of it's tax code. The business taxes as they are currently set up are stupid. They basically double dip on them. They hold back huge job growth that other cities see. The wage tax sucks too. It was the first city in the country to levy a wage tax in 1939 with a 1% tax on wages. (by Republicans no less) In the late 60's and 70's the city chose to raise the tax rate on things that could move away in order not to tax the things that can't be moved...like property. Mayor Crumb Bum (Rizzo) didn't want to raise property taxes so he raised the wage and business taxes in the 70's. Guess what happened, jobs and people left at it's highest 10 year rate. By the 8o's the city wage tax for residents was closing in on 5%. It's 3.8398% now. People who live outside the city but work in it has to pay the high wage tax too. That doesn't make working there that attractive. The city needs to find a tax code that allows it to compete with other cities while growing the tax base. Easier said than done but something has to give one of these days. You can't keep this tax code while Atlanta, Charlotte and Dallas take your lunch.
Threaded Mode