PHILADELPHIA | Lowrise/General Developments Thread - Page 141

cafeguy · #**2801** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 12:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philly Kid

Hmmm thought the city was growing by ~10K for the past few years. Is growth slowing or has this been the average rate we've seen since population started growing?

Philly's diverse corners of the city make a statistic like this harder to use to understand the state of our growth. Its like saying PA's population is hardly growing as a measure of Philly's core.

We are only in the first 10 years of the "turn around" in Philly's population, growth, renaissance, etc etc. NYC might be said to have started its major residential turn around in the early 90s...took another ten years to spread from manhattan out to other parts like brooklyn...then took another ten years to really see significant momentum in many other areas.

We need better statistics from the core of Philly to really determine if we are on the right path. If Philly's renaissance in CC started ten years ago and "greater center city" almost ten years ago... we probably have another ten or twenty years until we REALLY see a change across the entire city.

So that total population number will only grow slightly until the core is REALLY on fire.

Philly Kid · #**2802** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 3:11 PM**

I agree with you. I would like to see more detailed numbers in terms of who is leaving. In a separate census discussion I remember a few posters indicated that the population losses were in many of the blighted and poverty stricken neighborhoods in the city, while the core and surrounding CC neighborhoods continued to see growth.

If this is the case, it' still progress that we are adding net positive residents to the city. As the core and surrounding neighborhoods continue to revitalize, hopefully we will see those formerly blighted neighborhoods continue to increase the number of residents. I'm also hoping that the city can somehow retain more of the millennials who pack up once their first kid comes.

In order to really see accelerated growth, we need these families to stay in the city.

cafeguy · #**2803** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 6:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philly Kid

I agree with you. I would like to see more detailed numbers in terms of who is leaving. In a separate census discussion I remember a few posters indicated that the population losses were in many of the blighted and poverty stricken neighborhoods in the city, while the core and surrounding CC neighborhoods continued to see growth.

If this is the case, it' still progress that we are adding net positive residents to the city. As the core and surrounding neighborhoods continue to revitalize, hopefully we will see those formerly blighted neighborhoods continue to increase the number of residents. I'm also hoping that the city can somehow retain more of the millennials who pack up once their first kid comes.

In order to really see accelerated growth, we need these families to stay in the city.

Well... my wife and I are probably the first front of what might be considered the "millenial" generation who are REALLY coming into the city right now, representing a lot of that greater center city population growth. We are in our late twenties and probably will have kids in 2-3 years. We would end up doing paid preschool... but if we wanted to take advantage of non-city school systems that are known to be better, the earliest we would do that is when the kid would be 5 or 6 and entering the public system. So, if my age group is the "front" of the millenial migration and people have kids in their early thirties/late twenties as we are... then the city has 7-9 years to get their school situation in order before the "fear" of the school systems damaging this millenial migration.

Point is... a lot can happen in 7-9 years. If people my age want to make a life in the city... I can't imagine the school systems are STILL going to be SOOO bad in the city in 7-9 years, that I'd think that moving into the suburbs would be well worth the educational system. I mean... MAYBE high school where its not just education, but also safety... but still, that would be 17-19 years from now!!!

I have hope.

Larry King · #**2804** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 6:41 PM**

I for one will be staying in the city whether the schools are good or not.

1487 · #**2805** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 6:48 PM**

I think people need to remember that a school system that people can believe in will help retain people all over the city of various ages. What is lost in all this talk about the precious folks living from Girard to Washington Ave is that there are people all over the city who move out to find "better" schools. And they dont all move when their kids are in first grade. This has been happening for decades and its not a new crisis- its just being covered by local media as if it's new. Best case scenario is to retain middle and upper class parents no matter where they dwell or how old they are.

Baconboy007 · #**2806** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 7:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1487

I think people need to remember that a school system that people can believe in will help retain people all over the city of various ages. What is lost in all this talk about the precious folks living from Girard to Washington Ave is that there are people all over the city who move out to find "better" schools. And they dont all move when their kids are in first grade. This has been happening for decades and its not a new crisis- its just being covered by local media as if it's new. Best case scenario is to retain middle and upper class parents no matter where they dwell or how old they are.

I think it's all a ploy by the surrounding burbs to get millenials to move back. I had no concerns about moving to a nicer neighborhood when I have kids that are school age until it became a hot topic.

1487 · #**2807** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 7:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baconboy007

I think it's all a ploy by the surrounding burbs to get millenials to move back. I had no concerns about moving to a nicer neighborhood when I have kids that are school age until it became a hot topic.

whats interesting about the way its being discussed these days is that it makes it sound like something is wrong with you if you AREN'T threatening to leave if and when you have kids. The reality is that education, like politics, is a very local thing. So saying people will move unless the entire PSD is fixed is a little simplistic and unreasonable. People (especially those in the millenial hotspots) are primarily concerned about free school options in their area. While a total school district transformation sounds great most realize thats a long term project under the rosiest of scenarios- folks are really looking at the elementary schools in their immediate area for hope.

summersm343 · #**2808** Posted **Mar 27, 2015, 1:53 AM**

The Study at University City - 33rd and Chestnut

Installing caissons already.

summersm343 · #**2809** Posted **Mar 27, 2015, 1:55 AM**

Penn New College House at Hill Square - 34th and Chestnut

summersm343 · #**2810** Posted **Mar 27, 2015, 2:00 AM**

Dalian on the Park - 22nd and Pennsylvania Ave

Update from Building Philly

http://www.ocfrealty.com/naked-phill...least-partways

summersm343 · #**2811** Posted **Mar 27, 2015, 2:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philly Kid

Hmmm thought the city was growing by ~10K for the past few years. Is growth slowing or has this been the average rate we've seen since population started growing?

If you look at the numbers, Philly realistically grew by ~7,000 last year.

The census estimated Philadelphia's 2013 population to be 1,553,165.

It estimates Philadelphia's 2014 population to be 1,560,297.

That's a total gain of 7,132.

No idea where the article is getting 1,556,052 from, but it looks like this was the "revised" population which means the census under-counted 2013. We can also then assume that they have under-counted 2014's populaiton. Either way, Philly has grown 34,291 in 4 short years. That's impressive growth for a city that was declining for 56 years.

Still, we all know Philadelphia is 100% being short changed by these "estimates" by the Census Bureau. The shortchanged Philadelphia every year. Come the 2020 census (the one that will be actual counts and not "estimates"), we'll truly see that Philly has been growing faster.

1487 · #**2812** Posted **Mar 27, 2015, 12:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by summersm343

If you look at the numbers, Philly realistically grew by ~7,000 last year.

The census estimated Philadelphia's 2013 population to be 1,553,165.

It estimates Philadelphia's 2014 population to be 1,560,297.

That's a total gain of 7,132.

No idea where the article is getting 1,556,052 from, but it looks like this was the "revised" population which means the census under-counted 2013. We can also then assume that they have under-counted 2014's populaiton. Either way, Philly has grown 34,291 in 4 short years. That's impressive growth for a city that was declining for 56 years.

Still, we all know Philadelphia is 100% being short changed by these "estimates" by the Census Bureau. The shortchanged Philadelphia every year. Come the 2020 census (the one that will be actual counts and not "estimates"), we'll truly see that Philly has been growing faster.

It does seem 1.6M is attainable by next census in 2020. That would be huge, especially when you consider many thought the population would be closer to 1.4M in 2020 if prior trends had continued. When you consider places like Pittsburgh and detroit lost half (or more) of their populations since 1950 or 1960 Philadelphia's overally position doesn't look nearly as bad. Amongst older cities Boston and NYC are exceptions, not the rule. Most older rust belt cities experienced huge population loss in the latter half of 20th century.

edit- Philly's population in 1990 was 1.585M so it seems by 2017 or 2018 we will get back to that point. I do wonder if we are still ahead of Phoenix.

hammersklavier · #**2813** Posted **Mar 27, 2015, 12:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1487

edit- Philly's population in 1990 was 1.585M so it seems by 2017 or 2018 we will get back to that point. I do wonder if we are still ahead of Phoenix.

That's an excellent question. I find myself wondering as well. Phoenix is not by any stretch of the imagination a Millennial destination but despite Arizona's assbackwards immigration policies it is a natural destination for Latino families. I guess it all depends on how much of a blue-collar draw there is there. Not much news has come out of a place that has historically consistently trumpeted good news far and wide.

1487 · #**2814** Posted **Mar 27, 2015, 1:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

That's an excellent question. I find myself wondering as well. Phoenix is not by any stretch of the imagination a Millennial destination but despite Arizona's assbackwards immigration policies it is a natural destination for Latino families. I guess it all depends on how much of a blue-collar draw there is there. Not much news has come out of a place that has historically consistently trumpeted good news far and wide.

Based on the 2013 estimates Philadelphia is still ahead. I think Phoenix actually lost some population during the recession. The population figures themselves are largely irrelevant because cities in the south and midwest are far larger than the cities on the coasts. I think Houston is over 500 sq miles which makes it larger than NYC or Chicago. LA is similarly large which means Philly would have 4.5M+ people if it had LA's size but retained current density.

br323206 · #**2815** Posted **Mar 27, 2015, 3:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1487

Based on the 2013 estimates Philadelphia is still ahead. I think Phoenix actually lost some population during the recession. The population figures themselves are largely irrelevant because cities in the south and midwest are far larger than the cities on the coasts. I think Houston is over 500 sq miles which makes it larger than NYC or Chicago. LA is similarly large which means Philly would have 4.5M+ people if it had LA's size but retained current density.

This is a point I was just about to make, so I'm glad you beat me to the punch. Phoenix is 516 square miles. Houston is 600 square miles. Philly is 134 square miles. Many of our suburbs are denser than large parts of their "city." It's apples and oranges.

br323206 · #**2816** Posted **Mar 27, 2015, 3:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1487

whats interesting about the way its being discussed these days is that it makes it sound like something is wrong with you if you AREN'T threatening to leave if and when you have kids. The reality is that education, like politics, is a very local thing. So saying people will move unless the entire PSD is fixed is a little simplistic and unreasonable. People (especially those in the millenial hotspots) are primarily concerned about free school options in their area. While a total school district transformation sounds great most realize thats a long term project under the rosiest of scenarios- folks are really looking at the elementary schools in their immediate area for hope.

Yea, put me in the camp of not being really that concerned about my kid's school. As long as the school is not really horrible and is safe, I'm not worried. I have faith in my own parenting ability to pick up any slack. I went to horrible schools (both primary and secondary) myself and I have three degrees and a successful career.

I think most people in my generation realize that the problems at PSD stem from issues of poverty and class, and the struggles that come with that. Find ways to lift people out of poverty and make their neighborhoods safe and the schools will improve on their own. Kids don't do well because they're not safe in their neighborhoods, they don't see any hope for a better life when they look around them, and they don't have enough to eat.

cafeguy · #**2817** Posted **Mar 27, 2015, 5:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by br323206

Yea, put me in the camp of not being really that concerned about my kid's school. As long as the school is not really horrible and is safe, I'm not worried. I have faith in my own parenting ability to pick up any slack. I went to horrible schools (both primary and secondary) myself and I have three degrees and a successful career.

I think most people in my generation realize that the problems at PSD stem from issues of poverty and class, and the struggles that come with that. Find ways to lift people out of poverty and make their neighborhoods safe and the schools will improve on their own. Kids don't do well because they're not safe in their neighborhoods, they don't see any hope for a better life when they look around them, and they don't have enough to eat.

Unfortunately... you are correct about the poverty thing, but I don't think you are correct that most of us know that. The charterization movement is pushing the right just as much as the left and so many people I hear fully believe its the schools fault or the teacher's fault.

Regardless. I went to a very bad public school in small town jersey...one that didn't have really any college prep courses and had only the most basic science classes. I was raised in a poor family, but my parents really supported me and my education...and now...I'm about to finish my PhD in Neuroscience.

With that, I'm not afraid of public school systems because I'll be very vested in my child's education. As long as the school isn't falling apart, dangerous, or filled with teachers who don't care (most of which care very much)... public will be good enough for my child!