3 ms·

Philly is way better than it use to be, it just hasn't improved nearly as rapidly or dramatically as NYC has. The blight of urban decay is being pushed back, b

by jlgreco 13y ago

Philly is way better than it use to be, it just hasn't improved nearly as rapidly or dramatically as NYC has. The blight of urban decay is being pushed back, but that push isn't driven so much by the ultra-rich as it is by college kids and yuppies getting a tad more 'adventurous' in where they live. (I think the effect of universities and their students is most noticeably around Temple in north Philly, though I would still refuse to live there.) The result is that you don't get articles like this one complaining about rich people (since they basically just aren't there, compared to NYC) but renewal is taking much longer as well. No rich people means that a student can afford to live anywhere in that city that they want, but they are more likely to be killed as well. In other words, Philly is exactly what the author seems to want, but he doesn't really seem to understand what he is asking for.

a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
I think you're a bit delusional about crime in Philadelphia. It's intolerably bad by all reasonable accounts. It makes zero sense to put a business in Philadelphia as opposed to surrounding areas because of the tax and regulatory situation. The city of Philadelphia is a financial basket case, just like Chicago, LA, and Detroit. All these cities are getting closer and closer to the inevitable precipice. New York is not.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Chicago and LA perhaps, but there is no way in hell Philadelphia is in the same basket as Detroit. Philadelphia is improving (slowly), Detroit is rapidly decaying. I'm not accusing Philadelphia of being clean or safe, I am asserting that it is (slowly) improving. I think you are delusional about just how bad crime in Philadelphia use to be. (And to be clear, there are extremely livable portions of that city, but the presence of those areas are obscured in course metrics by north and west philly which, to be honest, do bear some resemblance to what you would expect of Detroit. However those boundaries are being pushed back every year, street by street.)
  - rayiner 13y ago
    My wife and I just walked from 10th street to 38th street along mostly Walnut/Chestnut/Market yesterday. It's great except for the portion of Market after 37th street. It's a continuous strip of gentrification now, which wasn't the case 10 years ago. That said, I think gentrification is happening faster in Chicago. I haven't seen a construction crane yet in months of living here (I rarely leave Center City/University City, to be fair), but I can see half a dozen at any given time in River North/Loop. But Chicago's economy is still largely finance driven (and derivative industries: insurance, consulting, accounting, law). I guess my point is: you can either embrace the 1% and be New York or San Francisco, or reject the 1% and be Baltimore, Detroit, or any of the other American cities in decline.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      I agree entirely, embracing the 1% is the way to go. Without them you can only see progress measured in decades, not years.
    - a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
      Both Chicago and Philadelphia will go bankrupt and all bets are off. They are heavily corrupt municipalities. The pension obligations will not be met. New condos here and there don't really enter into it.
      - rayiner 13y ago
        What does that have to do with my point about gentrification? The finances of the local government are related to but not coextensive with the economic health of the surrounding region. At the end of the day, changes in the $500+ billion GDP of the Chicago metro area are going to have a much bigger impact on gentrification in Chicago than the deficits in the $3 billion Chicago city budget. The danger is, of course, that pension obligations cause a rise in taxes that push out wealthy people and businesses, hitting GDP. That's a concern, but I think at least Chicago will fight to reneg on pension obligations before raising taxes. Rahm may be corrupt, but he's corrupt in the right direction. He sounds like a republican these days. Controlled bankruptcies may be the smartest course of action for cities like Chicago, allowing them to avoid the choice between raising taxes and cutting crucial services. The key thing to watch is whether Detroit's bankruptcy results in significantly reduced pension liabilities. Which circles back to my point about embracing the 1%. The way to see continued improvement in your city is to keep your 1% where they are, and ideally attract new 1%. Those few condos here and there are upper middle class/rich people moving into Chicago and spending money and paying taxes. Since major U.S. cities have a dearth of middle class people (who mostly live in the suburbs), and poor people don't really pay much taxes, it's these folks that keep the show going. You can't afford to let writers like the OP push for policies that encourage these people to move out.

by jlgreco 13y ago

a8da6b0c91d 13y ago

I think you're a bit delusional about crime in Philadelphia. It's intolerably bad by all reasonable accounts. It makes zero sense to put a business in Philadelphia as opposed to surrounding areas because of the tax and regulatory situation. The city of Philadelphia is a financial basket case, just like Chicago, LA, and Detroit. All these cities are getting closer and closer to the inevitable precipice. New York is not.

jlgreco 13y ago
Chicago and LA perhaps, but there is no way in hell Philadelphia is in the same basket as Detroit. Philadelphia is improving (slowly), Detroit is rapidly decaying. I'm not accusing Philadelphia of being clean or safe, I am asserting that it is (slowly) improving. I think you are delusional about just how bad crime in Philadelphia use to be. (And to be clear, there are extremely livable portions of that city, but the presence of those areas are obscured in course metrics by north and west philly which, to be honest, do bear some resemblance to what you would expect of Detroit. However those boundaries are being pushed back every year, street by street.)
- rayiner 13y ago
  My wife and I just walked from 10th street to 38th street along mostly Walnut/Chestnut/Market yesterday. It's great except for the portion of Market after 37th street. It's a continuous strip of gentrification now, which wasn't the case 10 years ago. That said, I think gentrification is happening faster in Chicago. I haven't seen a construction crane yet in months of living here (I rarely leave Center City/University City, to be fair), but I can see half a dozen at any given time in River North/Loop. But Chicago's economy is still largely finance driven (and derivative industries: insurance, consulting, accounting, law). I guess my point is: you can either embrace the 1% and be New York or San Francisco, or reject the 1% and be Baltimore, Detroit, or any of the other American cities in decline.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    I agree entirely, embracing the 1% is the way to go. Without them you can only see progress measured in decades, not years.
  - a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
    Both Chicago and Philadelphia will go bankrupt and all bets are off. They are heavily corrupt municipalities. The pension obligations will not be met. New condos here and there don't really enter into it.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      What does that have to do with my point about gentrification? The finances of the local government are related to but not coextensive with the economic health of the surrounding region. At the end of the day, changes in the $500+ billion GDP of the Chicago metro area are going to have a much bigger impact on gentrification in Chicago than the deficits in the $3 billion Chicago city budget. The danger is, of course, that pension obligations cause a rise in taxes that push out wealthy people and businesses, hitting GDP. That's a concern, but I think at least Chicago will fight to reneg on pension obligations before raising taxes. Rahm may be corrupt, but he's corrupt in the right direction. He sounds like a republican these days. Controlled bankruptcies may be the smartest course of action for cities like Chicago, allowing them to avoid the choice between raising taxes and cutting crucial services. The key thing to watch is whether Detroit's bankruptcy results in significantly reduced pension liabilities. Which circles back to my point about embracing the 1%. The way to see continued improvement in your city is to keep your 1% where they are, and ideally attract new 1%. Those few condos here and there are upper middle class/rich people moving into Chicago and spending money and paying taxes. Since major U.S. cities have a dearth of middle class people (who mostly live in the suburbs), and poor people don't really pay much taxes, it's these folks that keep the show going. You can't afford to let writers like the OP push for policies that encourage these people to move out.