Quote:
Originally Posted by PHLtoNYC
I agree with some of this. Yes, the state and city are to blame for a lot of Philadelphia's issues and general stagnant growth. It also confuses me why the state holds Philadelphia back, in reality, Philadelphia is by far the largest city (and region) in the state, therefore allowing it to excel will only benefit the entire state. I know its a conservative vs. liberal match, but I am looking at this from a simple common sense standpoint.
|
I think it's much more complex than just liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican. The fact of the matter that PA is held back by a lot of the autocrats and technocrats that occupy Harrisburg. And while many of those autocrats and technocrats may be mostly Republican, the fact that the Democrats in the city and the five-county region can't come with any solutions to help this region grow economically, financially, physically, and aesthetically is a testament to the lack of vision and urgency that has plagued the city, region, and state.
https://www.inquirer.com/news/philad...-20200326.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHLtoNYC
The second half of your post I don't agree with. Yes, Philadelphia is falling in the population ranks, but that is generally an irrelevant and highly circumstantial criteria of measuring a city's success. For example, you could fit 3 Philadelphia regions into 1 Phoenix region. And Phoenix (as far as I am concerned) is largely economically and culturally irrelevant when matched against Philadelphia.
|
Phoenix may be culturally and economically irrelevant than Philly, but one thing Phoenix has that Philly wished it currently has is population growth and give it 20 more years, and if Phoenix can sustain it's growth, and greatly improve it's infrastructure, as well as make improvements to it's cultural and educational offerings, and Phoenix may compete with the Chicagos and the Bostons and the SFs of the world.
I didn't say Phoenix will become this booming cosmopolitan metropolis, but it does have more human capital than Philadelphia at the moment, and although Philly does have more colleges, universities, hospitals, cultural offerings, museums, historical sites, and our transit system is slightly better than Phoenix, I won't doubt the Phoenixes, the San Antonios, the Fort Worths, the Austins, and the San Joses that they will be the "it cities" of the 21st century.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHLtoNYC
Second, Philadelphia and its suburbs to this day have remained extremely relevant economically, culturally, institutionally, and historically, that is not changing. The only difference is that other cities have caught up. But, I still cannot find an legitimate argument that would paint Philadelphia as somehow inferior to Phoenix, Miami, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, etc.
|
Nowadays, Houston and Dallas are eating Philly's lunch when it comes to economics (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global...h_Network#Beta) and business and Dallas practically took one of our storied companies (Sunoco) away from us after being here for over 100+ years. Atlanta and Miami aren't going to surpass us in the city population, but they will surpass Philadelphia in the MSA and the CSA. There's just not enough population growth nowadays to sustain Philadelphia as a Top 10 metro. (
MSA -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tistical_areas CSA -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combin...tistical_areas)
However, I do see similarities with other metros like NYC, Chicago, Detroit, and LA. Along with Philadelphia in 1950, those cities compromised the Top 5 American cities. The rest of the Top 10 cities in 1950 are Baltimore, Cleveland, St Louis, Washington, and Boston. (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950_U...#City_rankings) Baltimore was a port hub and major manufacturing center during it's heyday, and it's importance in comparison to DC was higher than DC, now those roles have reversed. Cleveland and St Louis also had huge manufacturing presences, and St Louis was renowned for it's aerospace industry. Washington DC was never a manufacturing center and Boston only had light manufacturing, and a seaport.
Once manufacturing went overseas, Baltimore, Cleveland, and St Louis fell the most, their local economies were never the same after that while Washington DC and Boston were able to rebound starting in the 2000s. It also helps that DC and Boston are the national and state capital, respectively, meaning that there are more people with college degrees in those cities than Baltimore, Cleveland, and St Louis.
Detroit at one point was the fourth largest city in 1940, and ended up being the fifth largest once LA surpassed it. Detroit had the largest amount of manufacturing than any American city, with automobiles being the largest sector, but there was also petroleum refining, steel plants, and warehousing. Detroit did also have a smaller banking industry, hosted a major pharmaceutical company (Parke-Davis), brewing (Stroh), and it even had it's own stock exchange.
LA later surpassed Philadelphia in 1960. But unlike Philly, Detroit suffered from a major riot in 1967, which accelerated the suburbanization of Detroit, as well as missing an opportunity to host the Olympics in 1968 to Mexico City, rampant deindustrialization in the 1970s and 1980s, the Japanese overtaking American automakers in the 1980s, and crime waves which plagued Detroit from the 1970s onward.
Also, Detroit never really had the prestigious hospitals and universities that Philadelphia has been blessed. The closest Detroit has as far as prestigious universities goes is Wayne State and I believe the best hospital in Detroit is Henry Ford Hospital. However, in 1950, both cities, along with St Louis, and believe it or not, Baltimore and Cleveland were regarded as world-class as well as Pittsburgh. But deindustrialization and suburbanization kicked the bottoms of all American cities from the 1970s onward. Nowadays those 1950 Top 10 American cities are what is called as "legacy cities".
But what could've really saved Philadelphia was maintaining SEPTA's commuter rail system from Philly to Allentown, Reading, Lancaster, and West Chester, further expansion of our subway system like what other cities are currently doing, lower business taxed to compete with NYC, Chicago, and Boston, immigration, and keeping hi-tech jobs here in Philadelphia as opposed to see many of those hi-tech jobs go to Silicon Valley (any Philadelphia was actually the birthplace of the original computer, at that).
Also, losing companies like Sunoco and Sovereign/Santander doesn't help the economic reputation of a city. We did have up to 8 Fortune 500 companies in 2010, we're down to two today (Comcast and Aramark). And a lot of posters here piss on the Fortune 500 as if it's not relevant today as it was back then but it's an indicator as to how cities are doing economically as well as the economic health of companies and corporations, which is why I see proposals like Schuylkill Yards and 30th St Station District as really more pie-in-the-sky than a reality waiting to happen even though I like both projects but I won't be surprised if one of those projects never happen or it changes drastically like what's currently happening with SY.
Lastly, back to the 2020 Census estimates, Philadelphia will slip to San Antonio, at the very least not because SA is a better city or it has better food or people, but the economic potential in TX and the lower taxes in that state, as well as other cities like Austin and Fort Worth is currently outperforming cities like Chicago. Don't be surprised if Houston surpasses Chicago if not by 2020, definitely within this decade. I'm not saying all this to be the bearer of bad news for Philadelphia and PA, but the writing is already on the wall and the only people who were responsible is the city council, the mayor, the state reps and senators, all the way to the governor. And had the powers that be don't their job to offer better incentives and better quality of life for this city, the SY and 30th St proposals would've been a reality by now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHLtoNYC
And pre-Covid (2019), Philadelphia was kicking ass from an economic growth standpoint, GDP and job growth on par with some of the other large cities you mentioned, GDP per capita higher than many other major metros, venture capital was at record rates, tourism at record rates, investment very much picking up, poverty decreasing and was on track to inch below Houston, etc. Philadelphia was not a ho-hum dreary city that you paint it out to be. Yes the city has a lot of problems and Covid certainly pushed progress back, but I have no doubt the city will continue to grow and improve its reputation.
The only hindrance (which we can agree on) is crappy, shortsighted leadership. If Philadelphians could elect visionary leaders, then the sky is the limit for future potential. I always say Philadelphia is a world class city held back by crappy leadership.
|
I have never said the city was a ho-hum dreary city. I did say that Philly was a growing, vibrant city with many problems. Our school system is currently in shambles, corruption is still rampant here although not at the same level like Chicago, our mass transit system won't expand and grow, 25% of the population is below poverty levels, a mayor that seems to not really care about the profile and reputation of the city to domestic and foreign interests, and many others ad nauseam. We all want Philly to grow to it's former glory, but you can't place a city as "world-class" when to continue to ignore the problems that's holding you back.
The best athletes are the ones that are the most critical of themselves. Peyton Manning has always been critical of himself even when he wins which is the reason why he has so many passing records and Tom Brady is critical of himself when it matters the most, which is how he won so many Super Bowls. Bill Belichick is nowadays considered the best coach in football, and even when he wins, he still finds room to critique the little things his team does wrong. Even Michael Jordan pushed himself to be the best when he already was considered the best basketball player in the world and it went so far as pushing Pippen and Grant and many other of his teammates because Jordan wanted the Bulls, as well as himself to be the best at whatever he was doing.
It's no different when you're running cities. Even NYC, which is the biggest city in America and one of the most important cities in the world, still finds itself with problems (gentrification, high rents and taxes, a declining population nowadays, COVID-19, inept leadership for the mayor to the governor), but it remains number for a reason.
The only way Philadelphia remains at the top is that it has to start being critical at itself rather than just drinking the Kool-Aid and saying that "Philly is great because we have cheesesteaks, hoagies, Wawa, and the Mummers". You have to move past the cheesesteaks and hoagies and improve in other areas if you're going to compete.
Everybody nowadays wants to have the next South Beach or be the next Silicon Valley. Philadelphia needs to discover a niche and hoard it from the rest of America for now. Pharmaceuticals seemed to be a niche Philly could've had but GSK left town, so maybe bioengineering will be the final frontier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHLtoNYC
Also, luckily, Philadelphia has some very powerful and affluent suburbs, not many other suburban regions pack that level of punch. Not everyone will agree, but that is a huge asset that aids Philadelphia (and the state) in many ways. I would just like to see a more unified Philadelphia region team going forward.
|
We can only see what Philly has in store for the near future. The 2020 Census is coming soon and I can't wait to see what position this city is currently in.
Prev
Linear Mode
