Philadelphia grew for first time in nearly 60 years

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Philadelphia never entirely lost its middle class, which helped..[[unlike Detroit). But the crime problem is intense, hence the nickname "Killadelphia"...

Philly is across the Delaware River from Camden, New Jersey isn't it?? There's part of the problem there.

[cman710]

Philly is across the Delaware River from Camden, New Jersey isn't it?? There's part of the problem there.

Yes, Camden, NJ is directly across the river. Camden has virtually no middle class, and has incredible problems that mirror those faced in the neighborhoods in many areas in Detroit.

Philadelphia, by the way, has virtually the same land area as Detroit. The experiences of the two cities are very different, however.

[iheartthed]

Philadelphia, by the way, has virtually the same land area as Detroit. The experiences of the two cities are very different, however.

Not really... I don't have the patience to dig through the stats again, but Philly has suffered from many of the same issues as Detroit. In fact, of cities in the "very large" category, I'd say that Philly comes closest to sharing the same problems as Detroit.

Also, being across the water from Camden, NJ has absolutely nothing to do with Philly's crime rate. That's like trying to blame Highland Park or Royal Oak Twp for Detroit's high crime rate.

[cman710]

Not really... I don't have the patience to dig through the stats again, but Philly has suffered from many of the same issues as Detroit. In fact, of cities in the "very large" category, I'd say that Philly comes closest to sharing the same problems as Detroit.

Also, being across the water from Camden, NJ has absolutely nothing to do with Philly's crime rate. That's like trying to blame Highland Park or Royal Oak Twp for Detroit's high crime rate.

While Philadelphia has suffered many of the same issues of Detroit, that does not mean that the cities do not have different histories and experiences. Simply because they are similar in land area and once were similar in population does not make the cities similar. Of course, the cities do have some similarities, but there are far more significant differences, some of which include:

1) Detroit grew later than Philadelphia, and on a different economic base. Philadelphia reached 500,000 people prior to 1860, whereas Detroit did not reach such heights until just after 1920. Likewise, Philadelphia reached 1 million people just prior to 1890, whereas Detroit did not pass the 1 million mark until shortly after 1920. Philadelphia had more gradual growth, whereas Detroit really rose on modern manufacturing.

2) Philadelphia has historically had a more diversified economy than Detroit.

3) As one poster has demonstrated, Philadelphia has had a larger set of "anchor institutions" [[hospitals, universities, etc.) than Detroit, helping the city weather downturns.

4) Philadelphia has been the destination of far more immigrants than Detroit.

5) Philadelphia is not as racially segregated as Detroit.

6) Philadelphia benefits from being located between Washington, D.C. and New York, the former of which has experienced incredibly dramatic growth during the past 40+ years, and the latter of which has been growing significantly for 20+ years. In contrast, Detroit forms the major city in its metro region, relatively unconnected to any other major city

I think those are enough reasons to support my point for now.

On a final note, a different poster made the comment regarding crime in Camden and Philadelphia being related. Of course they are not related.

[Detroitnerd]

Philly is racially segregated, but it's "block by block" -- not running along municipal boundaries as it does here.

[iheartthed]

While Philadelphia has suffered many of the same issues of Detroit, that does not mean that the cities do not have different histories and experiences. Simply because they are similar in land area and once were similar in population does not make the cities similar. Of course, the cities do have some similarities, but there are far more significant differences, some of which include:

1) Detroit grew later than Philadelphia, and on a different economic base. Philadelphia reached 500,000 people prior to 1860, whereas Detroit did not reach such heights until just after 1920. Likewise, Philadelphia reached 1 million people just prior to 1890, whereas Detroit did not pass the 1 million mark until shortly after 1920. Philadelphia had more gradual growth, whereas Detroit really rose on modern manufacturing.

I don't see how this is relevant to what I said, which was that Philly is the most similar very large city to Detroit today. Chicago was barely much over 100,000 residents when Philly broke the 500,000 resident barrier. Is it now unfair to compare Chicago to places like Baltimore or Philly, since they were roughly twice Chicago's size [[and greater) in 1860? [[And FYI, Philadelphia grew nearly 3 fold in the span of a decade [1850-1860] to break the 500,000 mark. It hasn't had a growth rate that high since. It has actually lagged well behind the other 4 former industrial powerhouses.)

2) Philadelphia has historically had a more diversified economy than Detroit.

This may be the case now, but I doubt that we can say this definitively for all points in Detroit and Philadelphia's history.

3) As one poster has demonstrated, Philadelphia has had a larger set of "anchor institutions" [[hospitals, universities, etc.) than Detroit, helping the city weather downturns.

Already addressed in my reply to that poster.

4) Philadelphia has been the destination of far more immigrants than Detroit.

Measured from when?

5) Philadelphia is not as racially segregated as Detroit.

Along municipal lines? No. Along neighborhood lines. Yes.

6) Philadelphia benefits from being located between Washington, D.C. and New York, the former of which has experienced incredibly dramatic growth during the past 40+ years, and the latter of which has been growing significantly for 20+ years. In contrast, Detroit forms the major city in its metro region, relatively unconnected to any other major city

I don't see how this is relevant to comparisons of Philadelphia proper to Detroit proper. And if anything, this distinction would hurt Philly and help Detroit.

[cman710]

Iheartthed, you are missing the point. I never stated that you could not compare Detroit and Philadelphia simply because they have many differences. Obviously there can be a comparison. My post was in response to your assertion that I was incorrect to state that Detroit and Philadelphia have had very different experiences. I think that the information I presented convincingly refutes that claim. Perhaps Philadelphia is the most similar big city to Detroit, but that only points up the fact that Detroit finds itself in a very unique situation, unlike any other big city.


Your other responses seek to brush aside my points without refuting them:

• Philadelphia has historically had a more diversified economy than Detroit. That is part of the reason the city did not decline as much as Detroit, which has had an economy principally based on manufacturing jobs. Clearly, at some point in history, Philadelphia also relied heavily on manufacturing jobs, but you could say that about every major city in existence prior to the last 50 years. You have not refuted this point.
• We do not need to get into the fine points of which city has greater anchor institutions, but you have shown that Boston has more than Philadelphia, not that Detroit has as many as Philadelphia.
• For immigration, our time period clearly is the last 40 years, the period of major decline. I challenge you to demonstrate that Detroit has received more immigrants in that period than Philadelphia. You will not be able to do so.
• As far as housing segregation, neighborhood racial segregation occurs in nearly every major city. There have been several measures, however, showing that the Detroit metro area is among the most segregated in the country, more than Philadelphia. See here, here, or here if you require proof.
• Your dismissal of the importance of Philadelphia as sitting between DC and New York is astonishing. The growth of DC and New York have not hurt Philadelphia. If anything, it has helped Philadelphia. Philadelphia has a great location between the political capital and the financial capital of the nation. You cannot credibly claim that such a location has not significantly helped Philadelphia's economic growth.