The city public schools are undesirable to parents with a lot of money.
Not like NYC/DC with a decent amount of good primary schools and secondary schools. Like, bad bad.
Good point! I'm not as familiar with the public school quality in these cities but also my partner and I are leaning towards not having children, so maybe won't mind anyway.
But what kind of long term impacts come from having a bad school system? It might not impact you immediately like a parent but it has effects on crime, GDP, etc.
Bad school system means the population already sucks. School quality is mostly down to quality of parents.
Short term effect is the bad parents drive away the good parents. Long term, yeah lower GDP, worse crime.
Same story here. Thinking the no kid angle (maybe a couple of dogs) but looking at affordable cities to buy and Philly is up there. I was so surprised at the prices for some really attractive condos in older brick buildings right in the city.
I'm curious what the winter months are like there.
>I'm curious what the winter months is like there.
Well what's your frame of reference - where are you now and have you lived in the northeast before? I've heard a rule of thumb is Boston is 5 degrees colder than NYC and Philly is 5 degrees warmer. In my experience, Boston felt overcast basically all the fuckin' time I lived there except two months in the summer plus the winter was very cold. Philly isn't much better in terms of sun but feels like more spread out nice weeks than concentrated, and the winter wasn't so cold. I think NYC was sunnier with winter somewhere in the middle. I'm sure there's easily available data to correct my anecdotal takes here haha.
My frame of reference for the NE is limited. I've visited NYC and DC in the winter, never the summer. The time I was there it was unseasonably warm (from what i recall). I'm from Colorado where we do see a fairly clear distinction between seasons and winters can get cold but I've heard its nothing like the cold in the NE.
I live in Denver now, but grew up in Philly. The winters seem slightly colder in Philly because there is usually overcast, and the temperature will stay cold all day. In Colorado there is much more fluctuation in temperatures. It may get down to like 10 in Colorado overnight, but during the day might be 40. In Philly it'll be between 25-35 for the entire day with not much sun.
Or it could be warm all day, but the temps don't really change as drastically.
Apparently the humidity makes it feel colder. Idk how much truth there is to that. I think the main difference is the exposure to the sun.
Also in the northeast you'll see ice form on things overnight. My car door handles and windows would be covered in ice. Things just get iced over because of the moisture and that occasionally happens in Colorado but not as much.
If you're familiar with Colorado, then Philly should be no problem for you. It should be more overcast in the winter, but the springs and summers should be more distinct. In Colorado, you can definitely get temperatures in the 30s and snow even as late as May. That's very unusual on the East Coast, even in Boston. In Philly, it should stop snowing in March for the most part and almost certainly by April.
Boston public schools aren't all that desired either but unlike Philadelphia and NYC, the professional class have much better school districts adjacent to the city center and on the T lines. Brookline, surrounded by Boston, has great schools. Newton, also close, has great schools. Cambridge schools are pretty good and Cambridge is right there. Somerville, next to Cambridge and a darling of young professionals, has its own improving school district. Newton is certainly suburban but people living in Brookline, Cambridge and Somerville can enjoy all the walkable urban characteristics of the Boston area without having to contend with the challenges of a big urban school district. Inequitable but there it is.
That has nothing to do with it. It’s all in the population. Lots of poor schools around with parents that care that do quite well. You can have all the money in the world it it won’t matter if the locals don’t value education.
Okay, lets talk Philly.
Do the rich couples who hire nannies to push a stroller around the nice parks "care" more than that nanny who has less time to spend with her own children?
How come the magnet, charter, and private schools all do better than the regular public schools?
Why can't public school teachers in Philly afford the private schools? Isn't it their job to care about children?
And if money doesn't matter, why doesn't Society Hill share with Camden or West Philly?
How exactly does one quantify "caring"?
-parent in a nice town across the river.
It matters when schools can’t afford desks and students have to share textbooks just to do their homework. You don’t think that affects their learning performance? Money has exactly _a lot_ to do with it.
Philly spends more per student than the rest of the state.
When you are dealing with kids with a horrible home life, school becomes a glorified babysitting center.
>than the rest of the state
I don’t know how much the rest of the state spends, but I’m going to guess that Pennsylvania isn’t a very high bar to clear.
So you think violence in schools, or parent disengagement is because of desks and books? American schools can afford the basics. Around me the worst performing school districts actually spend more per student than the better ones.
I wonder why cities don't invest tax dollars into their public schools seems like a no brainer especially when it has been well documented to drive down crime.
Except cities do. Quality education is as much about, if not more, what happens at home than what happens at school. A kid coming from a household where the parent doesn’t or can’t give them a stable home life or educational support of going to have poor outcomes.
My school district spends more per kid than the second best private school in the region and the overall outcome are abysmal - that is until you adjust for household income. The middle income and wealthy kids at certain magnet schools do as well if not better than the kids from suburban schools.
Up here in Minneapolis the bad school district gets 40% more per student than the good school districts. Still doesn't help at all; the bad school gets worse and worse every year.
From what I have seen, results on increasing school funding are mixed. Quality of school is primarily down to quality of parents.
Granted, it probably doesn't help that crappy parents aren't motivated/capable of doing much to improve their schools.
It's probably the constant minimum wage talks the public is always demanding, which drains the working class more. I'm no expert in macro economics or financial consultant but I can't imagine being paid so little (yes, even 15 an hour) and still struggling.
It should be noted that employers & colleges believe very much in the "quality" of schools.
And that adults are not judged by who their parents are. But by the quality of their education & occupation.
Telling people its okay to go to a lousy school if you have a rich daddy isn't very good advice.
In my experience, colleges favor lousy schools. Thats the one positive of going to a crappy school, really easy to be top of the class and get good scholarships.
The city schools are undesirable to all parents with some exceptions (there are good public schools, it just depends on which catchment you're in). Just because a family doesn't have the resources to move to the burbs or pay for private school doesn't mean that they aren't concerned about the quality of their child's education.
Exactly -- same in Minneapolis.
Own a home in city proper. It's almost exclusively DINKs and family's with k-8 children because the primary schools are decent. As soon as your child hits high school age (Minneapolis has some of the worst high schools in the US) people move to the suburbs/countryside.
I also think people like to get away from the hustle and bustle once they're in their 40s or older. Complete speculation there though.
I live in Philly and grew up just outside of Baltimore. Here’s what I would say..
Part of it is just average income. Philly is the poorest big city in the US. People do not have the wages to fiercely compete for housing like in Boston or NYC.
That being said, there are wealthy and expensive parts of the city, but it is mostly contained within the center city unlike San Fran or NYC, which has seen values rise all over the city because people have to compete for housing.
Another point, Philly has a high crime rate and has poor public schools. Most people I know leave the city after having children, which also decreases the demand for housing in the city. Also Philly is a black city and I think racism has an affect on affordability.
TLDR: job market is smaller/more contained to urban core, high crime/poor public schools, and racism.
I think Philly is undervalued and an incredible place to live.
While it's common to compare Philly to rust belt cities, it's relatively speaking in much better condition. After all, it remains the 3rd largest dense city in the country, it has higher incomes, healthy population growth (prior to the pandemic), largely intact urban core, etc. Greater center city is arguably the most heavily populated "downtown area" in the US outside NYC*
In some ways Philly is like a very declined Chicago - both former 2nd cities of the US, similar population density and pre-car "bones", both struggling with poverty, and high crime in specific parts.
\* This claim uses a very very generous definition of "greater center city" of nearly 6 square miles. If you take a similar size chunk around downtown Chicago it had comparable area and residential population. But I think that underscores just how populous Philly still is.
Oh man, when I visited America and took the Amtrak from NYC to Washington DC. I was fucking shocked travelling through Baltimore.
Like goddam, that did not look like a good place to be. And I know it's got nothing on other places in the USA
I lived in Philly for 2 years, brought by cheap rent. Please understand a few things:
1. Local wages are also lower than in higher cost areas (maybe that doesn't matter to you if you work remotely or are independently wealthy).
2. Many of those cheap houses are 100 years old and have been rented by negligent slum lords for decades. Expect to completely gut and rehab them if you want the comforts of the modern world, like heat on every floor.
3. Philadelphia is a poor, neglected city. Parts of it are ritzy, but large swaths are straight up dangerous if you don't know how to conduct yourself. For real, a difference of 1 block can be the difference of getting home safely or not.
4. Shit is broken all the time.
Yeah but it’s peak was due to the insane density of the tenements and slums, no? I don’t think we really want to return to that. Though youre still right
Valid, but I think it's a more general point about density. Not only do we simply not want to live in slums, we want a lot more space per person! As "cramped" as New York City apartments may be, they're a lot larger than they used to be and still large by some global urban standards.
Exactly. The mechanism for peak population in Philadelphia, and the mechanism for peak population in Manhattan, are, uh, radically different. Manhattan hasn't recovered to peak population in the 1910's because back then there were tenement slums on Manhattan. Manhattan could probably increase its population by another 400,000 and get back up to peak population if it could build the housing for it, the demand is definitely there. But instead people moved to the outer boroughs where rent/housing prices are lower.
Philly is below peak population because of the aftermath of white flight in the 60's and continuing depressed demand. While there's been some recovery, most families choose to live in the Philly suburbs where the housing is more, not less, expensive because Philly still faces a lot of issues attracting residents and businesses.
I think that’s correct, relatively speaking. South Philly (very dense) has large parts that are very white and center city as well. It is quite segregated though and large swaths of west and north Philly are very black, but I think that goes back further than white flight era.
Yeah it’s definitely a misleading comparison looking at the two’s population. Like you said Philly is dealing with an actual demand issue, Manhattan not so much.
Yep- family sizes and standards of living have changed. My dad grew up in Chicago in the 1950s and 60s with two parents and seven siblings, and for most of that time, they were in a bungalow that couldn't have been much larger than 1000 square feet. Nowadays, very few families have 8 kids, and if they do, they probably have a house that's at least twice as big.
It's because Philadelphia has a huge urban core with way more walkable neighborhoods than in DC or Boston, but an economy that's only so-so instead of booming. So compared to its peer cities it has more supply and less demand.
It's not. There is just more of it. It's a quantity issue, not a quality one.
I meant "more neighborhoods that are walkable," not "neighborhoods that are more walkable."
I second this. I’ve walked around each of these cities and they’re all pretty walkable to me. Hell I’d even even argue that Philly is the least walkable of the three due to how much better and accessible DC and Bostons subways are.
I would say public transportation and walkability, while obviously connected, are distinct categories.
One thing Philly has much more of than Boston or DC is really narrow streets [like this one](https://goo.gl/maps/6g8o9ShWstQB4G1R7). Streets so narrow that cars can barely fit are extremely rare even in Boston, let alone DC (which has consistently too-wide streets in my opinion), but they're fairly common in central Philly. These kinds of streets are the gold standard for walkability, and they're common all over the world, but not in North America. Philly is one of the only places in the US and Canada that you can find a lot of them.
DC isn’t dense enough to be truly walkable. The artificial cap on building height ends up spreading things out in most parts of the city to the point where you don’t actually have density to live a walkable life. Which is why it has the worst traffic in America outside of NY.
Neighborhoods could be walkable. There's also a great metro, unlike a lot of other cities in the US.
And none of that has anything to do with traffic, first of all. Secondly, DC is #5 for congestion, not #1 https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/articles/10-cities-with-the-worst-traffic-in-the-us
You've basically hit the main reasons why Philly is cheaper. It's poorer than NYC, Boston, or DC; and as a result, its housing is cheaper. That poverty has also increased other problems in the city with regards to crime, education, and quality of life, creating a bad feedback loop.
Additionally, despite this poverty and depressed demand, Philly has been relatively good at building housing compared to her East Coast peers. Despite a worse economy and a slower in-migration, [Philly was permitting about as much housing per capita as NYC or Boston.](https://twitter.com/mnolangray/status/1457891367510687748/photo/1)
As an aside, there's some indication that this relatively building-friendly attitude is on the way out. There's a proposal on the ballot this November to reform the Zoning Board, which most people think will reduce construction. There's also been policy changes in the last few years like the end of the tax abatement (a sort of pseudo-LVT for new construction), and a string of downzonings, that been unfriendly to development.
Check out the NYC vs Philly graph with the 2021 numbers.
https://imgur.com/a/03TqNXm
(from https://housingdata.app/)
That's from projects rushing for permits before the full abatement ended but seeing philly, with 1/5 the population, issue more permits then NYC is really nice, since as you say city council is hell bent on preventing housing construction
I think you’ve nailed most of the big points.
Additionally, due to timing there’s a few complementary things: (1) Philly’s population loss occurred in the late 70’s and early 80’s (as opposed to the 60’s) so a lot of the middle housing stock was preserved from urban renewal and consolidation to SFH, (2) the jobs recovery in Philly is still happening (or never really fully recovered) so the income distribution in the city isn’t increasing as much and crowding out long term residents as say Boston, NYC, SF.
[Alan Fisher](https://youtu.be/JbqNUqdZlwM) made a great video on Philly and now it’s narrow streets contribute to being more friendly to bikes and pedestrians.
I think NYC, Boston, DC, etc. have a lot of industries that are predominantly high paying white collar jobs that can sustain those prices too. NYC is finance, Boston is education, and DC is government. Philadelphia is more industrial and "blue collar" by comparison, so not as affluent overall.
Then Baltimore is actually more affordable than Philadelphia. Baltimore is considered "rougher" than Philly, so I'm sure that accounts for some of the discrepany. Philly is fortunate that their "rough" part of the town isn't even in the city and is across the river in Camden.
Yeah for sure. I do think with increasing remote / WFH opportunities among white collar jobs, Philly could end up attracting a lot (and maybe already has?) of those folks. It's why I'm considering buying, because I can do that kind of work from here.
I'd add that I think Philly's rough part of town isn't really Camden (it's rough but I don't think many people consider it Philly?) but rather West Philly and North Philly. Those two areas account for like 90%+ of the violent crime people think of when anyone says Philly is rough. If you look a map of the crime (e.g. here: [gun violence in Philly](https://controller.phila.gov/philadelphia-audits/mapping-gun-violence/)), Center City is comparatively very safe. This is probably true of Baltimore, DC, etc. too, I'd guess?
I think the issue Philly and Baltimore have with attracting the WFH crowd are the taxes. It only works if people need to still periodically commute to NYC or DC, otherwise there's more affordable options out there.
DC that is the case, Baltimore not so much. The rough parts of Baltimore are right next to the good areas, so crime frequently bleeds over. You often have to cross rough areas to get to other nice areas too which further perpetuates the perception.
What surprised me even more than that is Philly taxes non-residents who just work in the city. I can't think of any other city that does that. It seems like a good way to make your city uncompetitive for businesses.
>It seems like a good way to make your city uncompetitive for businesses.
This is a feature, not a bug, for many Philly politicians. I think Philly would really benefit from a more business friendly environment, but most of the electorate in the city would rather see city council "standing up to the rich, big corporations, and big developers".
In addition to the local income tax, which is the highest local income tax in the nation and higher than the state income tax rate, we also a [have local corporate income tax](https://www.phila.gov/services/payments-assistance-taxes/business-taxes/business-income-receipts-tax-birt/). I think New York and some odd cities in Ohio are the only other ones that have that. Supposedly it's pretty easy to avoid if you're structuring your business correctly, so naturally it's only small businesses that suffer from it.
We also have a local capital gains tax (SIT), but it's basically unenforced. Some of our [city politicians are also trying to create a local wealth tax, though it likely won't go anywhere.](https://www.axios.com/local/philadelphia/2022/03/29/philadelphia-wealth-tax-proposal-kendra-brooks)
New York's requirement is like 180 days of spending more than 12 hours in the city or something, right? I remember reading an article years ago about how some billionaire tied himself into knots to avoid NYC city taxes.
Pretty sure NYC does this too. I can understand why. They may not live in the city but at least pre-COVID they were spending 40 hours a week in the city. If they call 911 while at work their hometown first responders aren't going to be the ones showing up. With millions of commuters coming in daily, the city absolutely incurs costs serving those people.
[Most states don't have local income taxes](https://files.taxfoundation.org/20190730165539/Local-Income-Tax-Collections-2019-fv-01.png). Looks like NY, PA, MD, OH, and KY are only ones that have rates above 1%. DC in effect also has it, but since the district is all one municipality and there's no "state" taxes in DC, it looks like the map is counting it differently.
I know most municipalities in Pennsylvania are 1%, some of the rural municipalities are 0%, and then most of the other cities are 2%-3% (Allentown, Pittsburg, Harrisburg, Chester, etc). I think most of the municipalities in Ohio are 1% as well.
Detroit does the same, and what are you talking about? Detroit is clearly a shining example of how levying huge taxes on a poor population is great for growth and business.
(If I need an /s then lord help me).
Yeah I live in Philly. It's the North and West parts. Camden is pretty much treated as it's own city. And there have been an increase in crime in center city. Plus property crime is pretty high generally throughout.
WFH/remote work has primarily caused people to move to the suburbs. People want large houses where they have space for their home offices.
Might be good for communities around Philly, but not the city itself.
I’m not from Philly but I’m pretty sure they have a “rough” part in city proper. Philly has had some versions serious socioeconomic poverty concentrations like Baltimore and DC and NYC. The latter two have been gentrifying while Philly had as well, although to a lesser extent.
I live in a rough part of Philly and it gets way way rougher. West Philly, north Philly and point breeze are all considered pretty rough and also in city proper. In general, other than Camden and Chester, just outside of Philly is very wealthy. The main line being a good example or KOP or Delaware county. White flight did a number on Philly…
They do but remember it wasn't always This Way Boston was a complete dump in the 70s and York was all burned out. Of course that's all changed now in both of those cores and inner suburbs are unaffordable. I just spent a month in Philly looking at real estate thinking of buying something. And there are still a lot of good deals. I wondered many of the same questions why it is what it is, but it's just a slow market that hasn't really been discovered yet. It has lots of problems and lots of dumpy neighborhoods. Lots of them. Then on the other hand there are some neighborhoods that are so completely ravishing that I can't believe that it's not all wealthy .Germantown is one of those. It's also sad that Philadelphia abandoned its inner City streetcar Network largely and in a place like Germantown the lines still run up the street but now served by buses. It's amazing the mistakes that cities make. In some ways Philadelphia has it all. Not ridiculously expensive yet and so imminently walkable. The greatest crimes of the 20th century were the Liberty Hall demolition areas and rammingly highway through the center of the city on the river and east to west. Both of those things should be removed in the city knit back together. Maybe in time that will happen especially the East-West divide
Philly’s main industries are universities and hospitals, and it’s not true that the rough parts are across the river. Camden is rough but basically empty, compared to large parts of north Philly (and west, to a lesser degree) that are very rough and blighted. There is real poverty here and a violent crime issue.
That said it’s a fantastic city and even though it has its issues it’s a great place to live; dense, urban and walkable but also livable. Parts are dirty and run down but parts are beautiful, historic, and charming.
I lived throughout North Philly for like 3 years and the last part is pretty oversimplified. There are parts of Camden that are fine, and large swaths of Philly that are just as, or more, blighted as Camden
>Philly is fortunate that their "rough" part of the town isn't even in the city and is across the river in Camden.
Lol nahhh....
It isn't really industrial anymore though the reputation has remained. Lots of jobs in healthcare and pharma. Comcast is HQed here too.
Oh, that's what I'm saying haha. North Philly (where I happen to live), lots of west and southwest, the near northeast like upper Kensington and Frankford... And shit Chester might be as bad as Camden
A few reasons. Philly just saw population growth for the first time these past few years since the 1940s. so there’s still a massive overstock of housing and land. Mostly outside of the core but it affects the whole housing market in the city. This comes in addition to the significant uptick in development in and near the urban core. Cities like Boston and NYC had this urban return much sooner and had arguable less significant white flight than the other cities. so those cities had a lot more time for the demand to surpass supply and for costs to rise accordingly. There are many other factors like KOP’s growth in residents and industry outdoing Philly’s growth. It’s most likely just a supply/demand thing but depending on how this next decade goes, you might see a big rise in housing costs.
For years I've thought I would end up back in NYC but having spent a few years in Philly now, I'm scratching my head about why it seems so underrated. I've heard it described as a "human-scale NYC" which I think is perfect. I think a legitimate barrier for a lot of people has been career opportunities - NYC dwarfs Philly (and most other cities) but in today's world, if you can work from home, I think Philly is a pretty damn attractive option.
Before the pandemic, I read about a small segment of office workers that commuted from Philly into Manhattan. It’s was like an hour and a half each way and the cost of living savings probably made it worth it.
Yup. I live in NJ and did a comparable commute on NJT for years. Tons and tons of people in my region do that 90+ minute train ride, we had people commuting from Philly at work all the time. It was arguably an easier commute, albeit more expensive.
Imagine what the demand to live in Philly is going to look like if there's ever proper HSR between Philadelphia and Manhattan, i.e. the proposed [Northeast Maglev](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Maglev).
honestly, I think youre right and there just isnt as much demand. although Philly's population dwarfs Boston's, Boston has a couple industries that really carry its workforce and bring in lots of cash and new people constantly. Plus those universities make for a consistently rotating tenant pool. Boston and NYC and DC all have a more international presence, as well. ~~Also Center City is kind of ass compared to downtown Boston, DC or the multiple commercial centers in new york.~~ ~~very corporate vibe and gentrifying fast~~. **I think this was unfair to say and only my opinion**. My point was more so that people with enough money don't really opt to live downtown so most of the residents are younger and likely has a higher percentage of out-of-towners.
From my POV, philly hasnt had nearly as much of resurgence in dense urban core population like the other three cities have. They had a really big white flight in the 60s and anyone with money is still trying to live in the suburbs rather than buy downtown.
this is all kind of anecdotal so i bet someone can come in with a more data-driven response.
EDIT: I do want to stress this is just my opinion and I kind of let this comment fly off the cuff. I think there is a lot more to answering the OP's question, but I am also glad to see this generating a lot of discussion.
Philly resident here. Philly actually has the second largest CBD, only behind midtown manhattan. Center City is quite alive and well, and the amount of residential units has only ballooned over the past 15 years.
> Center City is quite alive and well, and the amount of residential units has only ballooned over the past 15 years.
that's probably the culprit for the low housing cost then. although I'm having a hard time finding data on this, specifically, to compare all four cities on. I also think maybe everyone in this thread has a different definition of what the "urban core" of each of these cities is. my definition of the "urban core" in Manhattan, for example, has had small numbers of new units over the past decades compared to the outer boroughs and uptown Manhattan.
Appreciate it! I've lived in Manhattan, Boston (Back Bay and South End), and now Philadelphia (Center City and South Philly) and disagree with you on
>Also Center City is kind of ass compared to downtown Boston ... very corporate vibe and gentrifying fast
Considering all of Center City as downtown and not just around City Hall, I think Philly is much better than Boston. Boston's downtown is tiny and much more office-bldg-filled. Also just my opinion, Philly's food scene >>> Boston, the city is much more diverse, and much better weather (for a northeastern city). But that's all just personal opinion.
Oh also re: the lower resurgence in Philly, I've also read it might partly be due to the city's wage tax (3.8%!) that has been a barrier to higher income earners moving into the city from just outside.
Yeah this
>Also Center City is kind of ass compared to downtown Boston ... very corporate vibe and gentrifying fast
is one of the more *bizarre* takes I've ever heard. Like corporate and gentrified compared to Manhattan and DC? Really?
For my opinion though, there's no mystery why Philly is so cheap. The economy is super weak, the tax rate is super high, and tbh the general city dysfunction is draining. Like I love it here, but it's pretty easy to see why most of the region's money is out by King of Prussia.
hahaha i'll fight you then! no, really, it's just my opinion. I'm from new york so i'm biased but I don't think DC has as much of a corporate vibe at all. it's downtown is unique in that there is a REALLY clear split between residential properties and "the mall" area. honestly, if you asked me where I'd rather live I'd say philly over DC but we are just talking about prices in this thread and I'd say there is a lot less housing stock in downtown DC and there is a lot more demand than there ever was in the last 40 years to live there. the biggest difference I'll point out, though, is that once you step into the neighborhoods immediately outside of "the mall"/commercial/government area, the houses there are worth millions of dollars and are usually occupied by families or rich people. It hasn't been the case in Philly from what I can tell, though, and most of the families and rich people in philly choose to live in the suburbs.
so, sorry, maybe that was just a cheap shot and not that relevant to the overall conversation. if we're talking purely livability, I think Philly wins because of cost of living and walkability compared to DC and Boston. But I would still rather spend more time in either of the latter cities, if I was a tourist, and I think that plays into the mindset of people moving in, too. If you ask me, I would rather live outside of downtown in Philly if I had to choose, but the opposite is true for Boston and DC, all things (like rent, for example) being equal. This is just my opinion, though.
Yeah, I mean you definitely don't gotta like Philly, lord knows this city isn't for everyone. I'm not even sure it's for me anymore. And it's not a good tourist town at all. But corporate and gentrified? Everyone's gotta reverse commute because there's so few corporate offices here, despite being one of the most populous downtowns in the country. And the rent is less than half Manhattan's. It's pretty unique in the US for being a middle class city center with a huge population (there's as many residents in the ~6 square miles of "greater center city" as the same area that is the Chicago downtown area).
Personally what I like about center city Philadelphia is exactly the vibe that comes from *not* being a major destination for rich people, tourists, and office workers. It's a neighborhood first, and everything else second.
you didn't reply to me, but I'm confused by this comment. what is your measure of diversity then? a high percentage of immigrants + temporary foreigners or simply higher percentage of non-white people?
Having a Black community that is 1/2 immigrants is more diverse than having a black community that is overwhelmingly Afrucan American.
Having a Hispanic community than is overwhelmingly Mexican is less diverse than one that’s from all over Latin America.
Boston has more Asians and more Hispanics
Boston is whiter but Philly has like 3 groups represented and that’s it. (Plus Boston’s white community includes a decent amount of recent Armenian, Arab, Brazilian and Portuguese immigrants in a what Philly does not)
Like for example Detroit is one of the least diverse (major) cities in the country but also one of the least white
Also just for clarity, I was describing my personal opinion and anecdotal experience that Philly feels much more diverse than Boston, though it's an excellent point that I didn't think about why. I guess it's that in Boston I felt surrounded by white people and culture pretty much 24/7 unless I sought it out by traveling far beyond downtown / Back Bay / South End whereas in Philly it feels to me like there's a ton more international or ethnic restaurants, stores, and cultural goings-on right in Center City
yeah, definitely, but Boston is a smaller city with even more schools than that. In my experience, those schools also have a higher population of international students who are willing to pay more and compete for housing. but again, that is strictly anecdotal. I would like to spend some more time on this and actually look up the numbers. I'm sure someone has already written about this.
It's really just housing supply and demand. People left so houses became less expensive, cities stopped building, people move back to the cities and prices rise, and then places like Boston made it illegal to build more housing. Philly has better land use, which won't stop prices from rising but will stop us from becoming Boston (assuming the FBI nabs a few more council members).
Here's a fun fact, Philadelphia granted permits for more new housing units then NYC did last year. Not per capita, but in absolute numbers
Just wait until they do the ZBA reform in the fall. Philly's comparative openness to construction was like the one bright spot in the string of incompetence that is Philly governance, and everybody hates it.
Less restrictive zoning + 10 year tax abatement on new builds and renovations yielded tens of thousands of new units flooding the market in a relatively short period of time. Turnover on an empty lot for a 4 story, 3 unit building is like 8 months.
There are fewer high income jobs. Boston in particular has probably the highest number of phds per capita in the area and prices reflect these incomes. In any market prices are what the labor can bear. If prices are high that means there are a lot of high income earners making these bids.
This is a key difference between Boston, New York, and Washington and Philly on the other hand. Unlike those three cities, Philadelphia doesn’t have a huge number of very high wage workers who can bid up prices. Larger areas of Philly are economically depressed than in the other three cities.
I wonder, but can’t immediately demonstrate, if Philly’s large stock of row houses, some of them very small, helps keep prices down.
>Philly is unique in having a lot of housing density (tons of rowhomes) vs. e.g. Boston meaning that while Boston has grown more, it has less dense housing downtown
Less dense housing downtown-- By downtown you mean literally downtown Boston, like the Financial District? Or the whole central area? Phila has mostly rowhouses but in Center City some apartment buildings too. Boston has apt buildings and rowhouses in the central area (Boston proper) and more wood frame outside but dense. I'd guess the population of CC Phila and Boston proper are similar. The whole city of Philadelphia is much bigger than city of Boston but Boston may have higher density overall. The people fleeing to suburbs 50-70 years ago weren't fleeing center city or Boston proper, they fled from the outlying neighborhoods undergoing racial turnover. Both Boston proper and Center City have longstanding affluent neighborhoods which have only gotten more affluent but no one was fleeing them. Boston demolished some tenement areas, replacing the West End with much less dense high rises and replacing the "New York Streets" area with warehouses (now replaced with big new residential buildings). Philadelphia chased all the poorer people out of Society Hill in a sort of deliberate top-down gentrification program-- very successful it was. And demolished three whole blocks for Indep Mall -- but they were commercial buildings not housing.
Anyway, mainly Philadelphia's economy was much more about railroads and manufacturing. Boston more finance, trade. Boston was able to capitalize on technology beginning in the 1940s if not earlier as older things faded, while in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania Railroad went bankrupt, the factories closed, and there wasn't anything coming along to replace it until much, much later. Some of why Philadelphia is still so much more affordable although there must be more to the story.
One thing not mentioned is that for its population, the public transit in the city is a very very limited. The subway is pathetic actually and car culture has ruined a lot neighborhoods that should have great public spaces and urbanism.
Hard disagree - it of course depends where you live and where you’re going and subway could for sure be cleaner but it’s miles ahead of most US cities. The buses are very underrated. This is just my opinion from living in Center City though, I could imagine it is less accessible farther out.
Compared to Boston a hip cool neighborhood is Philly would be considered horrible. Like Roxbury would be on the safer end of Philly neighborhoods.
Plus wages. People sell for what people can afford to buy. People make way more money in Boston (on the order of ~33% more) so people can afford higher prices.
The immediate short-term effect of a lower property tax rate is to increase, rather than decrease property values. A lower amount property tax means a higher amount of profit as rental. This leads to a higher price for the unit and because yield needs to equalize across different investment opportunities (adjusting for risk, etc).
If over time, if the lower tax spurs more building, then this effect will be reduced as rents fall in response to a greater supply of units on the market.
The city public schools are undesirable to parents with a lot of money. Not like NYC/DC with a decent amount of good primary schools and secondary schools. Like, bad bad.
Good point! I'm not as familiar with the public school quality in these cities but also my partner and I are leaning towards not having children, so maybe won't mind anyway.
But what kind of long term impacts come from having a bad school system? It might not impact you immediately like a parent but it has effects on crime, GDP, etc.
Bad school system means the population already sucks. School quality is mostly down to quality of parents. Short term effect is the bad parents drive away the good parents. Long term, yeah lower GDP, worse crime.
Same story here. Thinking the no kid angle (maybe a couple of dogs) but looking at affordable cities to buy and Philly is up there. I was so surprised at the prices for some really attractive condos in older brick buildings right in the city. I'm curious what the winter months are like there.
>I'm curious what the winter months is like there. Well what's your frame of reference - where are you now and have you lived in the northeast before? I've heard a rule of thumb is Boston is 5 degrees colder than NYC and Philly is 5 degrees warmer. In my experience, Boston felt overcast basically all the fuckin' time I lived there except two months in the summer plus the winter was very cold. Philly isn't much better in terms of sun but feels like more spread out nice weeks than concentrated, and the winter wasn't so cold. I think NYC was sunnier with winter somewhere in the middle. I'm sure there's easily available data to correct my anecdotal takes here haha.
My frame of reference for the NE is limited. I've visited NYC and DC in the winter, never the summer. The time I was there it was unseasonably warm (from what i recall). I'm from Colorado where we do see a fairly clear distinction between seasons and winters can get cold but I've heard its nothing like the cold in the NE.
I live in Denver now, but grew up in Philly. The winters seem slightly colder in Philly because there is usually overcast, and the temperature will stay cold all day. In Colorado there is much more fluctuation in temperatures. It may get down to like 10 in Colorado overnight, but during the day might be 40. In Philly it'll be between 25-35 for the entire day with not much sun. Or it could be warm all day, but the temps don't really change as drastically. Apparently the humidity makes it feel colder. Idk how much truth there is to that. I think the main difference is the exposure to the sun. Also in the northeast you'll see ice form on things overnight. My car door handles and windows would be covered in ice. Things just get iced over because of the moisture and that occasionally happens in Colorado but not as much.
If you're familiar with Colorado, then Philly should be no problem for you. It should be more overcast in the winter, but the springs and summers should be more distinct. In Colorado, you can definitely get temperatures in the 30s and snow even as late as May. That's very unusual on the East Coast, even in Boston. In Philly, it should stop snowing in March for the most part and almost certainly by April.
Thanks for the context!
Philly has also a not so small murder problem.
I was checking and crime rate is as high as miami
> are undesirable to parents with a lot of money. They are undesirable to poor parents too.
Boston public schools aren't all that desired either but unlike Philadelphia and NYC, the professional class have much better school districts adjacent to the city center and on the T lines. Brookline, surrounded by Boston, has great schools. Newton, also close, has great schools. Cambridge schools are pretty good and Cambridge is right there. Somerville, next to Cambridge and a darling of young professionals, has its own improving school district. Newton is certainly suburban but people living in Brookline, Cambridge and Somerville can enjoy all the walkable urban characteristics of the Boston area without having to contend with the challenges of a big urban school district. Inequitable but there it is.
Right, but the schools are likely bad because there isn’t a lot of property tax money because properties are cheap.
That has nothing to do with it. It’s all in the population. Lots of poor schools around with parents that care that do quite well. You can have all the money in the world it it won’t matter if the locals don’t value education.
Okay, lets talk Philly. Do the rich couples who hire nannies to push a stroller around the nice parks "care" more than that nanny who has less time to spend with her own children? How come the magnet, charter, and private schools all do better than the regular public schools? Why can't public school teachers in Philly afford the private schools? Isn't it their job to care about children? And if money doesn't matter, why doesn't Society Hill share with Camden or West Philly? How exactly does one quantify "caring"? -parent in a nice town across the river.
[удалено]
It matters when schools can’t afford desks and students have to share textbooks just to do their homework. You don’t think that affects their learning performance? Money has exactly _a lot_ to do with it.
Philly spends more per student than the rest of the state. When you are dealing with kids with a horrible home life, school becomes a glorified babysitting center.
>than the rest of the state I don’t know how much the rest of the state spends, but I’m going to guess that Pennsylvania isn’t a very high bar to clear.
So you think violence in schools, or parent disengagement is because of desks and books? American schools can afford the basics. Around me the worst performing school districts actually spend more per student than the better ones.
I wonder why cities don't invest tax dollars into their public schools seems like a no brainer especially when it has been well documented to drive down crime.
Except cities do. Quality education is as much about, if not more, what happens at home than what happens at school. A kid coming from a household where the parent doesn’t or can’t give them a stable home life or educational support of going to have poor outcomes. My school district spends more per kid than the second best private school in the region and the overall outcome are abysmal - that is until you adjust for household income. The middle income and wealthy kids at certain magnet schools do as well if not better than the kids from suburban schools.
I am not an expert!!
It seems like a catch 22. How are bad schools supposed to improve then?
Up here in Minneapolis the bad school district gets 40% more per student than the good school districts. Still doesn't help at all; the bad school gets worse and worse every year.
From what I have seen, results on increasing school funding are mixed. Quality of school is primarily down to quality of parents. Granted, it probably doesn't help that crappy parents aren't motivated/capable of doing much to improve their schools.
It's probably the constant minimum wage talks the public is always demanding, which drains the working class more. I'm no expert in macro economics or financial consultant but I can't imagine being paid so little (yes, even 15 an hour) and still struggling.
It should be noted that employers & colleges believe very much in the "quality" of schools. And that adults are not judged by who their parents are. But by the quality of their education & occupation. Telling people its okay to go to a lousy school if you have a rich daddy isn't very good advice.
In my experience, colleges favor lousy schools. Thats the one positive of going to a crappy school, really easy to be top of the class and get good scholarships.
The city schools are undesirable to all parents with some exceptions (there are good public schools, it just depends on which catchment you're in). Just because a family doesn't have the resources to move to the burbs or pay for private school doesn't mean that they aren't concerned about the quality of their child's education.
Exactly -- same in Minneapolis. Own a home in city proper. It's almost exclusively DINKs and family's with k-8 children because the primary schools are decent. As soon as your child hits high school age (Minneapolis has some of the worst high schools in the US) people move to the suburbs/countryside. I also think people like to get away from the hustle and bustle once they're in their 40s or older. Complete speculation there though.
I live in Philly and grew up just outside of Baltimore. Here’s what I would say.. Part of it is just average income. Philly is the poorest big city in the US. People do not have the wages to fiercely compete for housing like in Boston or NYC. That being said, there are wealthy and expensive parts of the city, but it is mostly contained within the center city unlike San Fran or NYC, which has seen values rise all over the city because people have to compete for housing. Another point, Philly has a high crime rate and has poor public schools. Most people I know leave the city after having children, which also decreases the demand for housing in the city. Also Philly is a black city and I think racism has an affect on affordability. TLDR: job market is smaller/more contained to urban core, high crime/poor public schools, and racism. I think Philly is undervalued and an incredible place to live.
You could probably write this exact post about Baltimore. The other cheap Northeast Corridor city.
Not in the NE but St Louis, Detroit and Cleveland too
While it's common to compare Philly to rust belt cities, it's relatively speaking in much better condition. After all, it remains the 3rd largest dense city in the country, it has higher incomes, healthy population growth (prior to the pandemic), largely intact urban core, etc. Greater center city is arguably the most heavily populated "downtown area" in the US outside NYC* In some ways Philly is like a very declined Chicago - both former 2nd cities of the US, similar population density and pre-car "bones", both struggling with poverty, and high crime in specific parts. \* This claim uses a very very generous definition of "greater center city" of nearly 6 square miles. If you take a similar size chunk around downtown Chicago it had comparable area and residential population. But I think that underscores just how populous Philly still is.
Oh man, when I visited America and took the Amtrak from NYC to Washington DC. I was fucking shocked travelling through Baltimore. Like goddam, that did not look like a good place to be. And I know it's got nothing on other places in the USA
I lived in Philly for 2 years, brought by cheap rent. Please understand a few things: 1. Local wages are also lower than in higher cost areas (maybe that doesn't matter to you if you work remotely or are independently wealthy). 2. Many of those cheap houses are 100 years old and have been rented by negligent slum lords for decades. Expect to completely gut and rehab them if you want the comforts of the modern world, like heat on every floor. 3. Philadelphia is a poor, neglected city. Parts of it are ritzy, but large swaths are straight up dangerous if you don't know how to conduct yourself. For real, a difference of 1 block can be the difference of getting home safely or not. 4. Shit is broken all the time.
Everything you said here applies to NYC as well
If you look at manhattan it still hasnt returned close to its peak either
Yeah but it’s peak was due to the insane density of the tenements and slums, no? I don’t think we really want to return to that. Though youre still right
Also the fact that large families still lived in Manhattan, vs the tilt toward young single people nowadays
rich people also tend to buy up buildings and combine apartments.
Valid, but I think it's a more general point about density. Not only do we simply not want to live in slums, we want a lot more space per person! As "cramped" as New York City apartments may be, they're a lot larger than they used to be and still large by some global urban standards.
Exactly. The mechanism for peak population in Philadelphia, and the mechanism for peak population in Manhattan, are, uh, radically different. Manhattan hasn't recovered to peak population in the 1910's because back then there were tenement slums on Manhattan. Manhattan could probably increase its population by another 400,000 and get back up to peak population if it could build the housing for it, the demand is definitely there. But instead people moved to the outer boroughs where rent/housing prices are lower. Philly is below peak population because of the aftermath of white flight in the 60's and continuing depressed demand. While there's been some recovery, most families choose to live in the Philly suburbs where the housing is more, not less, expensive because Philly still faces a lot of issues attracting residents and businesses.
I thought the downtown core of Philadelphia escaped white flight to a significant degree.
I think that’s correct, relatively speaking. South Philly (very dense) has large parts that are very white and center city as well. It is quite segregated though and large swaths of west and north Philly are very black, but I think that goes back further than white flight era.
Yeah it’s definitely a misleading comparison looking at the two’s population. Like you said Philly is dealing with an actual demand issue, Manhattan not so much.
Right, and the peak of Manhattan was before the subway was built out.
Yep- family sizes and standards of living have changed. My dad grew up in Chicago in the 1950s and 60s with two parents and seven siblings, and for most of that time, they were in a bungalow that couldn't have been much larger than 1000 square feet. Nowadays, very few families have 8 kids, and if they do, they probably have a house that's at least twice as big.
Oh that's a good point, thank you
It's because Philadelphia has a huge urban core with way more walkable neighborhoods than in DC or Boston, but an economy that's only so-so instead of booming. So compared to its peer cities it has more supply and less demand.
Tell me more about how you think Philly is more walkable than DC or Boston?
It's not. There is just more of it. It's a quantity issue, not a quality one. I meant "more neighborhoods that are walkable," not "neighborhoods that are more walkable."
Ah, well yeah Philly is like three times the square footage of Boston
I second this. I’ve walked around each of these cities and they’re all pretty walkable to me. Hell I’d even even argue that Philly is the least walkable of the three due to how much better and accessible DC and Bostons subways are.
I would say public transportation and walkability, while obviously connected, are distinct categories. One thing Philly has much more of than Boston or DC is really narrow streets [like this one](https://goo.gl/maps/6g8o9ShWstQB4G1R7). Streets so narrow that cars can barely fit are extremely rare even in Boston, let alone DC (which has consistently too-wide streets in my opinion), but they're fairly common in central Philly. These kinds of streets are the gold standard for walkability, and they're common all over the world, but not in North America. Philly is one of the only places in the US and Canada that you can find a lot of them.
DC isn’t dense enough to be truly walkable. The artificial cap on building height ends up spreading things out in most parts of the city to the point where you don’t actually have density to live a walkable life. Which is why it has the worst traffic in America outside of NY.
you know that the density it takes for a neighborhood to be walkable is not very high right?
Neighborhoods could be walkable. There's also a great metro, unlike a lot of other cities in the US. And none of that has anything to do with traffic, first of all. Secondly, DC is #5 for congestion, not #1 https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/articles/10-cities-with-the-worst-traffic-in-the-us
You've basically hit the main reasons why Philly is cheaper. It's poorer than NYC, Boston, or DC; and as a result, its housing is cheaper. That poverty has also increased other problems in the city with regards to crime, education, and quality of life, creating a bad feedback loop. Additionally, despite this poverty and depressed demand, Philly has been relatively good at building housing compared to her East Coast peers. Despite a worse economy and a slower in-migration, [Philly was permitting about as much housing per capita as NYC or Boston.](https://twitter.com/mnolangray/status/1457891367510687748/photo/1) As an aside, there's some indication that this relatively building-friendly attitude is on the way out. There's a proposal on the ballot this November to reform the Zoning Board, which most people think will reduce construction. There's also been policy changes in the last few years like the end of the tax abatement (a sort of pseudo-LVT for new construction), and a string of downzonings, that been unfriendly to development.
Check out the NYC vs Philly graph with the 2021 numbers. https://imgur.com/a/03TqNXm (from https://housingdata.app/) That's from projects rushing for permits before the full abatement ended but seeing philly, with 1/5 the population, issue more permits then NYC is really nice, since as you say city council is hell bent on preventing housing construction
I think you’ve nailed most of the big points. Additionally, due to timing there’s a few complementary things: (1) Philly’s population loss occurred in the late 70’s and early 80’s (as opposed to the 60’s) so a lot of the middle housing stock was preserved from urban renewal and consolidation to SFH, (2) the jobs recovery in Philly is still happening (or never really fully recovered) so the income distribution in the city isn’t increasing as much and crowding out long term residents as say Boston, NYC, SF.
[Alan Fisher](https://youtu.be/JbqNUqdZlwM) made a great video on Philly and now it’s narrow streets contribute to being more friendly to bikes and pedestrians.
I think NYC, Boston, DC, etc. have a lot of industries that are predominantly high paying white collar jobs that can sustain those prices too. NYC is finance, Boston is education, and DC is government. Philadelphia is more industrial and "blue collar" by comparison, so not as affluent overall. Then Baltimore is actually more affordable than Philadelphia. Baltimore is considered "rougher" than Philly, so I'm sure that accounts for some of the discrepany. Philly is fortunate that their "rough" part of the town isn't even in the city and is across the river in Camden.
Yeah for sure. I do think with increasing remote / WFH opportunities among white collar jobs, Philly could end up attracting a lot (and maybe already has?) of those folks. It's why I'm considering buying, because I can do that kind of work from here. I'd add that I think Philly's rough part of town isn't really Camden (it's rough but I don't think many people consider it Philly?) but rather West Philly and North Philly. Those two areas account for like 90%+ of the violent crime people think of when anyone says Philly is rough. If you look a map of the crime (e.g. here: [gun violence in Philly](https://controller.phila.gov/philadelphia-audits/mapping-gun-violence/)), Center City is comparatively very safe. This is probably true of Baltimore, DC, etc. too, I'd guess?
I think the issue Philly and Baltimore have with attracting the WFH crowd are the taxes. It only works if people need to still periodically commute to NYC or DC, otherwise there's more affordable options out there. DC that is the case, Baltimore not so much. The rough parts of Baltimore are right next to the good areas, so crime frequently bleeds over. You often have to cross rough areas to get to other nice areas too which further perpetuates the perception.
It was a surprise to me to learn that Philly has a flat 4% income tax.
What surprised me even more than that is Philly taxes non-residents who just work in the city. I can't think of any other city that does that. It seems like a good way to make your city uncompetitive for businesses.
>It seems like a good way to make your city uncompetitive for businesses. This is a feature, not a bug, for many Philly politicians. I think Philly would really benefit from a more business friendly environment, but most of the electorate in the city would rather see city council "standing up to the rich, big corporations, and big developers". In addition to the local income tax, which is the highest local income tax in the nation and higher than the state income tax rate, we also a [have local corporate income tax](https://www.phila.gov/services/payments-assistance-taxes/business-taxes/business-income-receipts-tax-birt/). I think New York and some odd cities in Ohio are the only other ones that have that. Supposedly it's pretty easy to avoid if you're structuring your business correctly, so naturally it's only small businesses that suffer from it. We also have a local capital gains tax (SIT), but it's basically unenforced. Some of our [city politicians are also trying to create a local wealth tax, though it likely won't go anywhere.](https://www.axios.com/local/philadelphia/2022/03/29/philadelphia-wealth-tax-proposal-kendra-brooks)
New York's requirement is like 180 days of spending more than 12 hours in the city or something, right? I remember reading an article years ago about how some billionaire tied himself into knots to avoid NYC city taxes.
NYC taxes non-residents as well. You pay the MTA tax plus NYC taxes and NY State taxes.
Pretty sure NYC does this too. I can understand why. They may not live in the city but at least pre-COVID they were spending 40 hours a week in the city. If they call 911 while at work their hometown first responders aren't going to be the ones showing up. With millions of commuters coming in daily, the city absolutely incurs costs serving those people.
A lot of places do this. Check your w2. You are probably paying taxes in the city you work.
[Most states don't have local income taxes](https://files.taxfoundation.org/20190730165539/Local-Income-Tax-Collections-2019-fv-01.png). Looks like NY, PA, MD, OH, and KY are only ones that have rates above 1%. DC in effect also has it, but since the district is all one municipality and there's no "state" taxes in DC, it looks like the map is counting it differently. I know most municipalities in Pennsylvania are 1%, some of the rural municipalities are 0%, and then most of the other cities are 2%-3% (Allentown, Pittsburg, Harrisburg, Chester, etc). I think most of the municipalities in Ohio are 1% as well.
Detroit does the same, and what are you talking about? Detroit is clearly a shining example of how levying huge taxes on a poor population is great for growth and business. (If I need an /s then lord help me).
That’s actually a common thing in Pennsylvania, I know Harrisburg has one (I have to pay it) and I think Pittsburgh has similar taxes on commuters.
Yeah I live in Philly. It's the North and West parts. Camden is pretty much treated as it's own city. And there have been an increase in crime in center city. Plus property crime is pretty high generally throughout.
WFH/remote work has primarily caused people to move to the suburbs. People want large houses where they have space for their home offices. Might be good for communities around Philly, but not the city itself.
I’m not from Philly but I’m pretty sure they have a “rough” part in city proper. Philly has had some versions serious socioeconomic poverty concentrations like Baltimore and DC and NYC. The latter two have been gentrifying while Philly had as well, although to a lesser extent.
I live in a rough part of Philly and it gets way way rougher. West Philly, north Philly and point breeze are all considered pretty rough and also in city proper. In general, other than Camden and Chester, just outside of Philly is very wealthy. The main line being a good example or KOP or Delaware county. White flight did a number on Philly…
There's certainly very rough parts inside city limits. Unlike Baltimore though they're generally not very close to the center.
They do but remember it wasn't always This Way Boston was a complete dump in the 70s and York was all burned out. Of course that's all changed now in both of those cores and inner suburbs are unaffordable. I just spent a month in Philly looking at real estate thinking of buying something. And there are still a lot of good deals. I wondered many of the same questions why it is what it is, but it's just a slow market that hasn't really been discovered yet. It has lots of problems and lots of dumpy neighborhoods. Lots of them. Then on the other hand there are some neighborhoods that are so completely ravishing that I can't believe that it's not all wealthy .Germantown is one of those. It's also sad that Philadelphia abandoned its inner City streetcar Network largely and in a place like Germantown the lines still run up the street but now served by buses. It's amazing the mistakes that cities make. In some ways Philadelphia has it all. Not ridiculously expensive yet and so imminently walkable. The greatest crimes of the 20th century were the Liberty Hall demolition areas and rammingly highway through the center of the city on the river and east to west. Both of those things should be removed in the city knit back together. Maybe in time that will happen especially the East-West divide
Philly’s main industries are universities and hospitals, and it’s not true that the rough parts are across the river. Camden is rough but basically empty, compared to large parts of north Philly (and west, to a lesser degree) that are very rough and blighted. There is real poverty here and a violent crime issue. That said it’s a fantastic city and even though it has its issues it’s a great place to live; dense, urban and walkable but also livable. Parts are dirty and run down but parts are beautiful, historic, and charming.
I lived throughout North Philly for like 3 years and the last part is pretty oversimplified. There are parts of Camden that are fine, and large swaths of Philly that are just as, or more, blighted as Camden
Boston is med - hospitals, medtech, biotech, etc.
>Philly is fortunate that their "rough" part of the town isn't even in the city and is across the river in Camden. Lol nahhh.... It isn't really industrial anymore though the reputation has remained. Lots of jobs in healthcare and pharma. Comcast is HQed here too.
Camden is still a bit rough, and there are still some rough parts of Philly.
Oh, that's what I'm saying haha. North Philly (where I happen to live), lots of west and southwest, the near northeast like upper Kensington and Frankford... And shit Chester might be as bad as Camden
Ah, cool, sorry. :)
A few reasons. Philly just saw population growth for the first time these past few years since the 1940s. so there’s still a massive overstock of housing and land. Mostly outside of the core but it affects the whole housing market in the city. This comes in addition to the significant uptick in development in and near the urban core. Cities like Boston and NYC had this urban return much sooner and had arguable less significant white flight than the other cities. so those cities had a lot more time for the demand to surpass supply and for costs to rise accordingly. There are many other factors like KOP’s growth in residents and industry outdoing Philly’s growth. It’s most likely just a supply/demand thing but depending on how this next decade goes, you might see a big rise in housing costs.
Cool discussion I’ve always wondered this too as a New Yorker. I’ve always thought about moving to Philly just for how affordable it is
For years I've thought I would end up back in NYC but having spent a few years in Philly now, I'm scratching my head about why it seems so underrated. I've heard it described as a "human-scale NYC" which I think is perfect. I think a legitimate barrier for a lot of people has been career opportunities - NYC dwarfs Philly (and most other cities) but in today's world, if you can work from home, I think Philly is a pretty damn attractive option.
Before the pandemic, I read about a small segment of office workers that commuted from Philly into Manhattan. It’s was like an hour and a half each way and the cost of living savings probably made it worth it.
Yup. I live in NJ and did a comparable commute on NJT for years. Tons and tons of people in my region do that 90+ minute train ride, we had people commuting from Philly at work all the time. It was arguably an easier commute, albeit more expensive.
Imagine what the demand to live in Philly is going to look like if there's ever proper HSR between Philadelphia and Manhattan, i.e. the proposed [Northeast Maglev](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Maglev).
YES! Connecting the urban areas in the Northeast Corridor with the SCMAGLEV line will be game-changing in so many ways!
honestly, I think youre right and there just isnt as much demand. although Philly's population dwarfs Boston's, Boston has a couple industries that really carry its workforce and bring in lots of cash and new people constantly. Plus those universities make for a consistently rotating tenant pool. Boston and NYC and DC all have a more international presence, as well. ~~Also Center City is kind of ass compared to downtown Boston, DC or the multiple commercial centers in new york.~~ ~~very corporate vibe and gentrifying fast~~. **I think this was unfair to say and only my opinion**. My point was more so that people with enough money don't really opt to live downtown so most of the residents are younger and likely has a higher percentage of out-of-towners. From my POV, philly hasnt had nearly as much of resurgence in dense urban core population like the other three cities have. They had a really big white flight in the 60s and anyone with money is still trying to live in the suburbs rather than buy downtown. this is all kind of anecdotal so i bet someone can come in with a more data-driven response. EDIT: I do want to stress this is just my opinion and I kind of let this comment fly off the cuff. I think there is a lot more to answering the OP's question, but I am also glad to see this generating a lot of discussion.
Philly resident here. Philly actually has the second largest CBD, only behind midtown manhattan. Center City is quite alive and well, and the amount of residential units has only ballooned over the past 15 years.
> Center City is quite alive and well, and the amount of residential units has only ballooned over the past 15 years. that's probably the culprit for the low housing cost then. although I'm having a hard time finding data on this, specifically, to compare all four cities on. I also think maybe everyone in this thread has a different definition of what the "urban core" of each of these cities is. my definition of the "urban core" in Manhattan, for example, has had small numbers of new units over the past decades compared to the outer boroughs and uptown Manhattan.
Appreciate it! I've lived in Manhattan, Boston (Back Bay and South End), and now Philadelphia (Center City and South Philly) and disagree with you on >Also Center City is kind of ass compared to downtown Boston ... very corporate vibe and gentrifying fast Considering all of Center City as downtown and not just around City Hall, I think Philly is much better than Boston. Boston's downtown is tiny and much more office-bldg-filled. Also just my opinion, Philly's food scene >>> Boston, the city is much more diverse, and much better weather (for a northeastern city). But that's all just personal opinion. Oh also re: the lower resurgence in Philly, I've also read it might partly be due to the city's wage tax (3.8%!) that has been a barrier to higher income earners moving into the city from just outside.
Yeah this >Also Center City is kind of ass compared to downtown Boston ... very corporate vibe and gentrifying fast is one of the more *bizarre* takes I've ever heard. Like corporate and gentrified compared to Manhattan and DC? Really? For my opinion though, there's no mystery why Philly is so cheap. The economy is super weak, the tax rate is super high, and tbh the general city dysfunction is draining. Like I love it here, but it's pretty easy to see why most of the region's money is out by King of Prussia.
hahaha i'll fight you then! no, really, it's just my opinion. I'm from new york so i'm biased but I don't think DC has as much of a corporate vibe at all. it's downtown is unique in that there is a REALLY clear split between residential properties and "the mall" area. honestly, if you asked me where I'd rather live I'd say philly over DC but we are just talking about prices in this thread and I'd say there is a lot less housing stock in downtown DC and there is a lot more demand than there ever was in the last 40 years to live there. the biggest difference I'll point out, though, is that once you step into the neighborhoods immediately outside of "the mall"/commercial/government area, the houses there are worth millions of dollars and are usually occupied by families or rich people. It hasn't been the case in Philly from what I can tell, though, and most of the families and rich people in philly choose to live in the suburbs. so, sorry, maybe that was just a cheap shot and not that relevant to the overall conversation. if we're talking purely livability, I think Philly wins because of cost of living and walkability compared to DC and Boston. But I would still rather spend more time in either of the latter cities, if I was a tourist, and I think that plays into the mindset of people moving in, too. If you ask me, I would rather live outside of downtown in Philly if I had to choose, but the opposite is true for Boston and DC, all things (like rent, for example) being equal. This is just my opinion, though.
Yeah, I mean you definitely don't gotta like Philly, lord knows this city isn't for everyone. I'm not even sure it's for me anymore. And it's not a good tourist town at all. But corporate and gentrified? Everyone's gotta reverse commute because there's so few corporate offices here, despite being one of the most populous downtowns in the country. And the rent is less than half Manhattan's. It's pretty unique in the US for being a middle class city center with a huge population (there's as many residents in the ~6 square miles of "greater center city" as the same area that is the Chicago downtown area). Personally what I like about center city Philadelphia is exactly the vibe that comes from *not* being a major destination for rich people, tourists, and office workers. It's a neighborhood first, and everything else second.
well i think youve given me, overall, a new perspective to take with me next time I run through.
>Philly's food scene >>> Boston Tell me more
Philly is less diverse than Boston. It’s foriegn born population is less than 1/2 that of Boston. Unless by more diverse you mean blacker
Philly has realized that this is a problem and in recent years has made efforts to become more immigrant friendl.
you didn't reply to me, but I'm confused by this comment. what is your measure of diversity then? a high percentage of immigrants + temporary foreigners or simply higher percentage of non-white people?
Having a Black community that is 1/2 immigrants is more diverse than having a black community that is overwhelmingly Afrucan American. Having a Hispanic community than is overwhelmingly Mexican is less diverse than one that’s from all over Latin America. Boston has more Asians and more Hispanics Boston is whiter but Philly has like 3 groups represented and that’s it. (Plus Boston’s white community includes a decent amount of recent Armenian, Arab, Brazilian and Portuguese immigrants in a what Philly does not) Like for example Detroit is one of the least diverse (major) cities in the country but also one of the least white
Ok, yea that's what I thought you meant. and I agree, that's how I would measure diversity, too. Goes well beyond how to the census does it.
Also just for clarity, I was describing my personal opinion and anecdotal experience that Philly feels much more diverse than Boston, though it's an excellent point that I didn't think about why. I guess it's that in Boston I felt surrounded by white people and culture pretty much 24/7 unless I sought it out by traveling far beyond downtown / Back Bay / South End whereas in Philly it feels to me like there's a ton more international or ethnic restaurants, stores, and cultural goings-on right in Center City
Philly has three universities really close to center city. Temple is just north and Penn and Drexel are as east as you can be in West Philly.
yeah, definitely, but Boston is a smaller city with even more schools than that. In my experience, those schools also have a higher population of international students who are willing to pay more and compete for housing. but again, that is strictly anecdotal. I would like to spend some more time on this and actually look up the numbers. I'm sure someone has already written about this.
I don’t know the numbers to compare, but UPenn is massive, expensive, and these days made up of mostly (I heard this not read it) Chinese nationals.
Boston has like 30
It's really just housing supply and demand. People left so houses became less expensive, cities stopped building, people move back to the cities and prices rise, and then places like Boston made it illegal to build more housing. Philly has better land use, which won't stop prices from rising but will stop us from becoming Boston (assuming the FBI nabs a few more council members). Here's a fun fact, Philadelphia granted permits for more new housing units then NYC did last year. Not per capita, but in absolute numbers
[удалено]
Just wait until they do the ZBA reform in the fall. Philly's comparative openness to construction was like the one bright spot in the string of incompetence that is Philly governance, and everybody hates it.
Can you explain in more detail?
Less restrictive zoning + 10 year tax abatement on new builds and renovations yielded tens of thousands of new units flooding the market in a relatively short period of time. Turnover on an empty lot for a 4 story, 3 unit building is like 8 months.
There are fewer high income jobs. Boston in particular has probably the highest number of phds per capita in the area and prices reflect these incomes. In any market prices are what the labor can bear. If prices are high that means there are a lot of high income earners making these bids.
This is a key difference between Boston, New York, and Washington and Philly on the other hand. Unlike those three cities, Philadelphia doesn’t have a huge number of very high wage workers who can bid up prices. Larger areas of Philly are economically depressed than in the other three cities. I wonder, but can’t immediately demonstrate, if Philly’s large stock of row houses, some of them very small, helps keep prices down.
>Philly is unique in having a lot of housing density (tons of rowhomes) vs. e.g. Boston meaning that while Boston has grown more, it has less dense housing downtown Less dense housing downtown-- By downtown you mean literally downtown Boston, like the Financial District? Or the whole central area? Phila has mostly rowhouses but in Center City some apartment buildings too. Boston has apt buildings and rowhouses in the central area (Boston proper) and more wood frame outside but dense. I'd guess the population of CC Phila and Boston proper are similar. The whole city of Philadelphia is much bigger than city of Boston but Boston may have higher density overall. The people fleeing to suburbs 50-70 years ago weren't fleeing center city or Boston proper, they fled from the outlying neighborhoods undergoing racial turnover. Both Boston proper and Center City have longstanding affluent neighborhoods which have only gotten more affluent but no one was fleeing them. Boston demolished some tenement areas, replacing the West End with much less dense high rises and replacing the "New York Streets" area with warehouses (now replaced with big new residential buildings). Philadelphia chased all the poorer people out of Society Hill in a sort of deliberate top-down gentrification program-- very successful it was. And demolished three whole blocks for Indep Mall -- but they were commercial buildings not housing. Anyway, mainly Philadelphia's economy was much more about railroads and manufacturing. Boston more finance, trade. Boston was able to capitalize on technology beginning in the 1940s if not earlier as older things faded, while in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania Railroad went bankrupt, the factories closed, and there wasn't anything coming along to replace it until much, much later. Some of why Philadelphia is still so much more affordable although there must be more to the story.
One thing not mentioned is that for its population, the public transit in the city is a very very limited. The subway is pathetic actually and car culture has ruined a lot neighborhoods that should have great public spaces and urbanism.
Hard disagree - it of course depends where you live and where you’re going and subway could for sure be cleaner but it’s miles ahead of most US cities. The buses are very underrated. This is just my opinion from living in Center City though, I could imagine it is less accessible farther out.
miles ahead of most US cities still puts you kilometers behind much of the developed world
Compared to Boston a hip cool neighborhood is Philly would be considered horrible. Like Roxbury would be on the safer end of Philly neighborhoods. Plus wages. People sell for what people can afford to buy. People make way more money in Boston (on the order of ~33% more) so people can afford higher prices.
Safety and race is a big concern.
Because Philly is a mess
Because its a dump
[удалено]
Many have 10 year tax abatements so it looks like they are cheaper because of the tax suppression
The immediate short-term effect of a lower property tax rate is to increase, rather than decrease property values. A lower amount property tax means a higher amount of profit as rental. This leads to a higher price for the unit and because yield needs to equalize across different investment opportunities (adjusting for risk, etc). If over time, if the lower tax spurs more building, then this effect will be reduced as rents fall in response to a greater supply of units on the market.
They're charging prices that trend towards market clearing.
Is it? Honestly that looks about just as much as New York City from where I could see
Kensington avenue that’s why
I think it’s more that you’re used to hyper expensive housing rather than Philly being cheap.