Quote:
Originally Posted by Philly Fan
Excellent point. 
Also, I think we're used to evaluating Philly construction and development in terms of the historic boom-bust cycles we've had here, but I think we're in the midst of achieving a critical mass and transitioning to a different and more sustainable type of city in terms of its national and international image, and its local and regional economy. Interesting how highly Boston and San Francisco-- which I see as Philly's closest analogs in terms of future image and growth--rank on this list. That may just be a bunch of wishful thinking, but a guy can dream, right?  |
Wishful thinking or not, I couldn't agree more. I wouldn't even put Boston too far ahead of us in terms of image. Some may disagree, but I think we're on par with Boston or even slightly ahead of its image. If we're not, it's all Matt Damon and Ben Affleck's fault for setting every one of their ******* movies there.
San Francisco definitely earned a lot of its image. It's a beautiful city and the suburbs are home to some wildly innovative business markets. But it also has a narcissistic reputation that I don't think any city can rival. They're a great city because the
Chronicle says so. When you consider the cost of living, I don't think it's really any better than any other successful big city.
But I think that's one thing that actually sets Philadelphia apart from other big cities, especially in terms of
potential. High priced cities like San Francisco have nowhere to grow but the suburbs, or vertically. The populations are growing (at least I think SF's still is), and in turn, so is the cost of living.
Meanwhile, Philadelphia has a stable business market coupled with a built environment the size of Baltimore still waiting to be redeveloped. We have land, abandoned apartment buildings, and shelled out row homes waiting to be revitalized and redeveloped for at least another fifty years. That is going to help us attract refugees out priced from NYC, D.C., and other pricy cities as new Center City development improves our image, both of which can attract new business.
When you consider all that, at least IMO, image isn't relevant to anyone who's looking at a city's potential. In fact, a "good" image like San Francisco or New York might even signal that a city's being maxed out. When the nearest affordable apartment is in Queens, that's a very long train ride to ponder the better quality of life you could have in Philadelphia, even Pittsburgh. There could very easily come a time when retail employees, waiters, and artists can no longer afford to live in cities known for shopping, restaurants, and art. When that day comes, Philadelphia is already the next best thing.
Forgive my rosy glasses
Prev
Having lived in Cambridge for four years I can confirm Boston's "image" or whatever is of a super charming quaint American city everyone loves. As much as I hate to admit it, Boston is basically the "greene country towne" Penn wanted Philadelphia to be. They keep the city clean, friendly, and aside from a few spots downtown, you never really experience block after block of downtrodden Market East-style stuff. So I dunno, as much as I wish it wasn't the case, I think we have a bit of an uphill battle in the image department.
Linear Mode
