PHILADELPHIA-CAMDEN-WILMINGTON-ATLANTIC CITY-READING | Metro Development Thread

[UrbanRevival]

Originally Posted by Urbanthusiat

Interesting. I wonder what is accounting for the declines, as it doesn't seem to match up with the fact that the majority of these suburban counties are increasing in population overall, particularly in PA. What could explain that? It suggests that our population pyramid is top heavy and that younger people are leaving the suburbs for the city, I suppose, but I'm still unsure how such drastic losses, in say Montgomery and Bucks counties, can be reconciled with relatively moderate population gains. I'd be curious to see employment data for each county.

You're suggestion is exactly right. Overall population is certainly increasing in the rest of the metro area, but it's very disproportionately in the "non-prime working age" population (as referenced in the source that I posted). That's what makes these numbers so intriguing.

Employment has also been increasing in suburban counties, particularly in the Montco and Chesco hubs, but eventually, as these numbers indicate, there will be a complete reversal of the trend during the recession of young talent growth outpacing job growth. In the future, suburban companies are definitely on a path for labor shortages, particularly for filling skilled jobs.

Definitely something for business leaders to consider in promoting the city as a place to do business.

[Milksteak]

Originally Posted by UrbanRevival

You're suggestion is exactly right. Overall population is certainly increasing in the rest of the metro area, but it's very disproportionately in the "non-prime working age" population (as referenced in the source that I posted). That's what makes these numbers so intriguing.

Employment has also been increasing in suburban counties, particularly in the Montco and Chesco hubs, but eventually, as these numbers indicate, there will be a complete reversal of the trend during the recession of young talent growth outpacing job growth. In the future, suburban companies are definitely on a path for labor shortages, particularly for filling skilled jobs.

Definitely something for business leaders to consider in promoting the city as a place to do business.

So if those stats are correct, it's safe to say that most of the population growth is being fueled by babies and retirees. I don't see too many people screaming "Let's retire in Delco!"...which leaves us with people having children. If the city wants to retain this new talent it's gaining, it will need to do something to keep families around...given the usually well functioning mass transit system, it's not unheard of for people to be commuting into the city from the burbs.

[1487]

Originally Posted by Milksteak

So if those stats are correct, it's safe to say that most of the population growth is being fueled by babies and retirees. I don't see too many people screaming "Let's retire in Delco!"...which leaves us with people having children. If the city wants to retain this new talent it's gaining, it will need to do something to keep families around...given the usually well functioning mass transit system, it's not unheard of for people to be commuting into the city from the burbs.

There are lots of families in Philadelphia and the idea that there is some future exodus that will be any different from anything that's been happening for decades is overblown. Somehow this generation of future parents is more special and more deserving than their predecessors according to some people (most like people who are within this demographic) but I don't buy it. People have been leaving this and other cities for "better schools" and/or single homes and suburban bliss since the 1950s. Nothing new there. There have been and will continue to be middle and upper class families in the city with kids. Finding a "good school" in the city has always taken more effort and willingness to compromise in the city than in the upper income suburbs. None of this is new so I don't understand all these ultimatums that essentially say if the city doesn't find a way to please this very specific group of people (the hell with everyone else apparently, they aren't deserving of concern)there will be mass exodus as these folks take their talents to car dependent suburbs or to other cities that have similar school issues. Many working parents have been and continue to navigate the educational landscape successfully, even if it takes more effort than they would prefer. Shockingly, there are people outside of the Millenial havens who could afford to live somewhere other than Philadelphia- this is probably news to many, but it's true. Often these discussions are framed by inferring the only people who matter are those living in Center City and gentrifying areas on it's borders because they are the only folks who have the education, income and level of parental concern that would push them to abandon Philadelphia and leave the lower classes in their wake.

[Milksteak]

Originally Posted by 1487

There are lots of families in Philadelphia and the idea that there is some future exodus that will be any different from anything that's been happening for decades is overblown. Somehow this generation of future parents is more special and more deserving than their predecessors according to some people (most like people who are within this demographic) but I don't buy it. People have been leaving this and other cities for "better schools" and/or single homes and suburban bliss since the 1950s. Nothing new there. There have been and will continue to be middle and upper class families in the city with kids. Finding a "good school" in the city has always taken more effort and willingness to compromise in the city than in the upper income suburbs. None of this is new so I don't understand all these ultimatums that essentially say if the city doesn't find a way to please this very specific group of people (the hell with everyone else apparently, they aren't deserving of concern)there will be mass exodus as these folks take their talents to car dependent suburbs or to other cities that have similar school issues. Many working parents have been and continue to navigate the educational landscape successfully, even if it takes more effort than they would prefer. Shockingly, there are people outside of the Millenial havens who could afford to live somewhere other than Philadelphia- this is probably news to many, but it's true. Often these discussions are framed by inferring the only people who matter are those living in Center City and gentrifying areas on it's borders because they are the only folks who have the education, income and level of parental concern that would push them to abandon Philadelphia and leave the lower classes in their wake.

I'm not saying it is impossible to get your child enrolled at a good school in Philadelphia, but as you said, it is difficult and can be expensive if you go the private school route. Stats show that the growth is mostly around center city and 'Millenial Havens' and the stats shown earlier infer that these middle class suburbanites are fleeing to the city - presumably to these fast growing areas...so I'm not referring to the family that has been in South Philly for 3 generations.

To each their own, I mean that 100%. Some people want the car, the yard, and the easier to deal with school system, which is also more difficult in the city. Some people want the culture and walkability, which is for the most part more difficult in the suburbs. I've done both, both have their advantages, and both have made me want to pull my hair out.

[1487]

Originally Posted by Milksteak

I'm not saying it is impossible to get your child enrolled at a good school in Philadelphia, but as you said, it is difficult and can be expensive if you go the private school route. Stats show that the growth is mostly around center city and 'Millenial Havens' and the stats shown earlier infer that these middle class suburbanites are fleeing to the city - presumably to these fast growing areas...so I'm not referring to the family that has been in South Philly for 3 generations.

To each their own, I mean that 100%. Some people want the car, the yard, and the easier to deal with school system, which is also more difficult in the city. Some people want the culture and walkability, which is for the most part more difficult in the suburbs. I've done both, both have their advantages, and both have made me want to pull my hair out.

I think we have to assume that people who are moving here and in many cases buying houses here are already thinking about how they would deal with schools. I do no believe these people are naive enough to think that a miraculous "cure" for the ills of underfunded urban public schools will manifest itself before their kids turn 7 years old. And while numbers show a lot of people moving out when they have families that isn't anything new nor do the numbers specify where those people moving from. People have been leaving areas like the NE and Mt Airy for suburban schools for many decades. The fact that the exodus continues really doesn't say anything new or noteworthy, nor does it mean droves of people are fleeing Fishtown or Fairmount for Chester County.

[Larry King]

I know many 'educated center city' families that send their kids to Philly public schools, the big school problem - at least at the elementary school level seems overblown. People that actually want to live here seem to figure it out.

[Insoluble]

Originally Posted by Larry King

I know many 'educated center city' families that send their kids to Philly public schools, the big school problem - at least at the elementary school level seems overblown. People that actually want to live here seem to figure it out.

Yeah, the thing of it all is that if you live in or around Center City or University City, the public elementary schools are actually decent. Big shock I know but the public elementary schools in neighborhoods with an overall high income level (for the city) are for the most either good or getting to be good. I fully expect the number of solid public elementary schools to continue growing as the range of neighborhoods considered to be fully gentrifies grows.

[mja]

I work at a "good" public high school and send my kids to a "good" public K-8 school. I really wish we would stop throwing around the words "good" or "bad" to describe schools. Schools with lots of kids from well-educated middle and upper middle class families do well no matter where they are, city or suburbs. Schools with lots of kids from impoverished and lesser-educated families generally don't do as well. It's not rocket science.

The public elementary schools in Center City are becoming extremely popular options for Center City residents. My children's school used to be 50/50 neighborhood kids / kids from out of the neighborhood. It used to be extremely diverse. That's changed rapidly. The younger grades are more 90/10 neighborhood kids / out of neighborhood kids and the diversity is practically gone. The change happened in around 5 years.

That's already starting to bleed over into some of the schools on the fringes of CC. Schools that used to be "ok" are now quickly becoming "good" and in 5-10 years will be "excellent". The only thing that changes is that middle and upper middle class well-educated families decide that it's okay to send their kids there.

[1487]

Originally Posted by Insoluble

Yeah, the thing of it all is that if you live in or around Center City or University City, the public elementary schools are actually decent. Big shock I know but the public elementary schools in neighborhoods with an overall high income level (for the city) are for the most either good or getting to be good. I fully expect the number of solid public elementary schools to continue growing as the range of neighborhoods considered to be fully gentrifies grows.

Its a mistake to presume that the only "good" schools are in areas becoming wealthier and whiter. There are decent elementary schools in various parts of the city, in fact one of the highest rated is in a working class part of the NE. The real issue is that there is a lot of variation and the schools with weak leadership and lack of financial and parental support are too common. Most of the schools in and around CC were never really considered bad in the first place or at least not bad by city standards. Some of the best high schools are nowhere near center city and most of the students in those schools most certainly aren't coming from center city or it's surrounds.

[1487]

Originally Posted by mja

I work at a "good" public high school and send my kids to a "good" public K-8 school. I really wish we would stop throwing around the words "good" or "bad" to describe schools. Schools with lots of kids from well-educated middle and upper middle class families do well no matter where they are, city or suburbs. Schools with lots of kids from impoverished and lesser-educated families generally don't do as well. It's not rocket science.

The public elementary schools in Center City are becoming extremely popular options for Center City residents. My children's school used to be 50/50 neighborhood kids / kids from out of the neighborhood. It used to be extremely diverse. That's changed rapidly. The younger grades are more 90/10 neighborhood kids / out of neighborhood kids and the diversity is practically gone. The change happened in around 5 years.

That's already starting to bleed over into some of the schools on the fringes of CC. Schools that used to be "ok" are now quickly becoming "good" and in 5-10 years will be "excellent". The only thing that changes is that middle and upper middle class well-educated families decide that it's okay to send their kids there.

I read a lengthy article about this happening in Brooklyn. It's causing some friction on various levels. One issue is that some of the "good" (i.e. plurality or majority white) public schools are getting too crowded and kids are being diverted to other nearby Brooklyn schools and many parents are up in arms because they only want their kids to go to specific Brooklyn elementary schools where there kids are mostly surrounded by similar kids. And naturally as these areas become more expensive and homogenous the diversity of the schools in the gentrified areas plummets. What's unfortunate about this entire situation is the lack of a unified front. Most of the younger parents in the hot areas seem to only view the school issue as it relates to them, not as a systematic issue that needs to be addressed, particularly in regards to funding, charter expansion and governance. For many it boils down to only caring if they can get their kids into a particular school- the world beyond that isn't anything they are concerned about.

[Redddog]

Originally Posted by mja

I work at a "good" public high school and send my kids to a "good" public K-8 school. I really wish we would stop throwing around the words "good" or "bad" to describe schools. Schools with lots of kids from well-educated middle and upper middle class families do well no matter where they are, city or suburbs. Schools with lots of kids from impoverished and lesser-educated families generally don't do as well. It's not rocket science.

The public elementary schools in Center City are becoming extremely popular options for Center City residents. My children's school used to be 50/50 neighborhood kids / kids from out of the neighborhood. It used to be extremely diverse. That's changed rapidly. The younger grades are more 90/10 neighborhood kids / out of neighborhood kids and the diversity is practically gone. The change happened in around 5 years.

That's already starting to bleed over into some of the schools on the fringes of CC. Schools that used to be "ok" are now quickly becoming "good" and in 5-10 years will be "excellent". The only thing that changes is that middle and upper middle class well-educated families decide that it's okay to send their kids there.

I started a thread in a different forum about schools in/around No Libs/Old City/Society hill and most of the reporting was that unless you go private, you're screwing your child. Not to take away from the lack of diversity discussion, but could you mention a couple of examples of the "good" elementary schools in that area?

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by Milksteak

So if those stats are correct, it's safe to say that most of the population growth is being fueled by babies and retirees. I don't see too many people screaming "Let's retire in Delco!"...which leaves us with people having children. If the city wants to retain this new talent it's gaining, it will need to do something to keep families around...given the usually well functioning mass transit system, it's not unheard of for people to be commuting into the city from the burbs.

Actually, a lot of it is retirees.

Virtually the only new construction allowed in many townships is 55+ housing due to the fact that it adds tax dollars without adding bodies to the schools.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by mja

I work at a "good" public high school and send my kids to a "good" public K-8 school. I really wish we would stop throwing around the words "good" or "bad" to describe schools. Schools with lots of kids from well-educated middle and upper middle class families do well no matter where they are, city or suburbs. Schools with lots of kids from impoverished and lesser-educated families generally don't do as well. It's not rocket science.

The public elementary schools in Center City are becoming extremely popular options for Center City residents. My children's school used to be 50/50 neighborhood kids / kids from out of the neighborhood. It used to be extremely diverse. That's changed rapidly. The younger grades are more 90/10 neighborhood kids / out of neighborhood kids and the diversity is practically gone. The change happened in around 5 years.

That's already starting to bleed over into some of the schools on the fringes of CC. Schools that used to be "ok" are now quickly becoming "good" and in 5-10 years will be "excellent". The only thing that changes is that middle and upper middle class well-educated families decide that it's okay to send their kids there.

It's not rocket science. I recently came across some demographic information on Kearny (Northern Liberties). I'm not saying it's "good" or "bad" because there have always been a core group of neighborhood residents who adored the school.

However, I did notice in what I saw that as recently as say, 5 years ago, the school was 0% white. It's now from what I saw about 15% white (and the stats I saw were 2 years old, I think). I'm not equating race with "good" or "bad" and I think it is a horrific barometer of a school's quality, but what it does say is that new residents in the neighborhood are not uniformly shunning the school. I assume that number is now around 30% based on the trajectory of the 5 years prior and all of the new construction in the neighborhood (most of it being firmly in Kearny's boundary).

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by Redddog

I started a thread in a different forum about schools in/around No Libs/Old City/Society hill and most of the reporting was that unless you go private, you're screwing your child. Not to take away from the lack of diversity discussion, but could you mention a couple of examples of the "good" elementary schools in that area?

McCall and Meredith.

[mja]

Originally Posted by Redddog

I started a thread in a different forum about schools in/around No Libs/Old City/Society hill and most of the reporting was that unless you go private, you're screwing your child. Not to take away from the lack of diversity discussion, but could you mention a couple of examples of the "good" elementary schools in that area?

Again with the word "good". Sigh.

Meredith, McCall, Greenfield, Powell, Penn-Alexander for district schools along with charters like Independence.

Jackson, Bache-Martin, etc. are starting to be gentrified, if you will.

My daughter has attended one of those schools for 7 years. She's a straight A student and has scored advanced on every PSSA she's ever taken, none of which is surprising given that her parents both have advanced degrees. Her class is highly diverse, and we've been thankful for that. We've loved most of her teachers and were only really let down by one, and even that teacher at least did no harm.

In the meantime my son just completed Kindergarten. His class is easily 80-90% white. He's already reading at an end-1st grade level.

I teach at a public high school that attracts a variety of families, including those who sent their kids to private schools previously. Despite that we are very diverse and every zipcode in the city is represented in the student body. Our last graduating class had multiple students accepted into MIT, Penn, Princeton, Yale, Cornell, etc. We have a college-going rate in the upper 90's, percentage-wise, and very nearly a 100% graduation rate.

The idea that you have to go private or you are screwing your child is an extreme exaggeration at best and an outright myth at worst.

Do I sacrifice some things for my daughter? Sure, nice soccer fields, sushi chefs in the cafeteria, eurythmy lessons, and shit like that. But her school is safe, it's a tight-knit community, she loves going there, has done cool stuff like taking classes in Spanish & Chinese / run 2 5Ks / learned swing dancing & arabic drumming, and she was able to read novels like Jane Eyre and Emma when she was 10. All for well over $150K(!!!) less than what it would have cost to send her to private schools. And we live in walking distance of her school / my school / my wife's job.

I have regrets in life. Sending my children to a SDP school is not one of them. They have had great experiences.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by mja

Again with the word "good". Sigh.

Meredith, McCall, Greenfield, Powell, Penn-Alexander for district schools along with charters like Independence.

Jackson, Bache-Martin, etc. are starting to be gentrified, if you will.

My daughter has attended one of those schools for 7 years. She's a straight A student and has scored advanced on every PSSA she's ever taken, none of which is surprising given that her parents both have advanced degrees. Her class is highly diverse, and we've been thankful for that. We've loved most of her teachers and were only really let down by one, and even that teacher at least did no harm.

In the meantime my son just completed Kindergarten. His class is easily 80-90% white. He's already reading at an end-1st grade level.

I teach at a public high school that attracts a variety of families, including those who sent their kids to private schools previously. Despite that we are very diverse and every zipcode in the city is represented in the student body. Our last graduating class had multiple students accepted into MIT, Penn, Princeton, Yale, Cornell, etc. We have a college-going rate in the upper 90's, percentage-wise, and very nearly a 100% graduation rate.

The idea that you have to go private or you are screwing your child is an extreme exaggeration at best and an outright myth at worst.

Do I sacrifice some things for my daughter? Sure, nice soccer fields, sushi chefs in the cafeteria, eurythmy lessons, and shit like that. But her school is safe, it's a tight-knit community, she loves going there, has done cool stuff like taking classes in Spanish & Chinese / run 2 5Ks / learned swing dancing & arabic drumming, and she was able to read novels like Jane Eyre and Emma when she was 10. All for well over $150K(!!!) less than what it would have cost to send her to private schools. And we live in walking distance of her school / my school / my wife's job.

I have regrets in life. Sending my children to a SDP school is not one of them. They have had great experiences.

Well said. Bravo.

[1487]

Originally Posted by mja

Again with the word "good". Sigh.

Meredith, McCall, Greenfield, Powell, Penn-Alexander for district schools along with charters like Independence.

Jackson, Bache-Martin, etc. are starting to be gentrified, if you will.

My daughter has attended one of those schools for 7 years. She's a straight A student and has scored advanced on every PSSA she's ever taken, none of which is surprising given that her parents both have advanced degrees. Her class is highly diverse, and we've been thankful for that. We've loved most of her teachers and were only really let down by one, and even that teacher at least did no harm.

In the meantime my son just completed Kindergarten. His class is easily 80-90% white. He's already reading at an end-1st grade level.

I teach at a public high school that attracts a variety of families, including those who sent their kids to private schools previously. Despite that we are very diverse and every zipcode in the city is represented in the student body. Our last graduating class had multiple students accepted into MIT, Penn, Princeton, Yale, Cornell, etc. We have a college-going rate in the upper 90's, percentage-wise, and very nearly a 100% graduation rate.

The idea that you have to go private or you are screwing your child is an extreme exaggeration at best and an outright myth at worst.

Do I sacrifice some things for my daughter? Sure, nice soccer fields, sushi chefs in the cafeteria, eurythmy lessons, and shit like that. But her school is safe, it's a tight-knit community, she loves going there, has done cool stuff like taking classes in Spanish & Chinese / run 2 5Ks / learned swing dancing & arabic drumming, and she was able to read novels like Jane Eyre and Emma when she was 10. All for well over $150K(!!!) less than what it would have cost to send her to private schools. And we live in walking distance of her school / my school / my wife's job.

I have regrets in life. Sending my children to a SDP school is not one of them. They have had great experiences.

I went to one of those schools and I agree. Granted, my school was an exception because it's so highly rated. But I know kids who have gone to Central, E&S, Girls High, Overbrook, GAMP, CAPA and others that graduated college (and have masters) and are fully employed and productive. There are actually MORE options now (especially HS) than there were 20 years ago when you factor in SLA and charters. A big part of the "we will be forced to move" argument comes from people who just can't admit they aren't comfortable sending their kids to a school where not everyone comes from a upper middle class white family- that's just the reality. But no one wants to come out and say that.

[Redddog]

Originally Posted by mja

Again with the word "good". Sigh.

Meredith, McCall, Greenfield, Powell, Penn-Alexander for district schools along with charters like Independence.

Jackson, Bache-Martin, etc. are starting to be gentrified, if you will.

My daughter has attended one of those schools for 7 years. She's a straight A student and has scored advanced on every PSSA she's ever taken, none of which is surprising given that her parents both have advanced degrees. Her class is highly diverse, and we've been thankful for that. We've loved most of her teachers and were only really let down by one, and even that teacher at least did no harm.

In the meantime my son just completed Kindergarten. His class is easily 80-90% white. He's already reading at an end-1st grade level.

I teach at a public high school that attracts a variety of families, including those who sent their kids to private schools previously. Despite that we are very diverse and every zipcode in the city is represented in the student body. Our last graduating class had multiple students accepted into MIT, Penn, Princeton, Yale, Cornell, etc. We have a college-going rate in the upper 90's, percentage-wise, and very nearly a 100% graduation rate.

The idea that you have to go private or you are screwing your child is an extreme exaggeration at best and an outright myth at worst.

Do I sacrifice some things for my daughter? Sure, nice soccer fields, sushi chefs in the cafeteria, eurythmy lessons, and shit like that. But her school is safe, it's a tight-knit community, she loves going there, has done cool stuff like taking classes in Spanish & Chinese / run 2 5Ks / learned swing dancing & arabic drumming, and she was able to read novels like Jane Eyre and Emma when she was 10. All for well over $150K(!!!) less than what it would have cost to send her to private schools. And we live in walking distance of her school / my school / my wife's job.

I have regrets in life. Sending my children to a SDP school is not one of them. They have had great experiences.

Thank you! I tried to qualify the word "good" by putting it in quotes. And for the record, one of the metrics I consider for a school to rate highly is a diversified student body.

[Urbanthusiat]

Time lapse of construction of Sixers practice facility in Camden https://app.oxblue.com/open/76ers/practicefacility

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by mja

I work at a "good" public high school and send my kids to a "good" public K-8 school. I really wish we would stop throwing around the words "good" or "bad" to describe schools. Schools with lots of kids from well-educated middle and upper middle class families do well no matter where they are, city or suburbs. Schools with lots of kids from impoverished and lesser-educated families generally don't do as well. It's not rocket science.

The public elementary schools in Center City are becoming extremely popular options for Center City residents. My children's school used to be 50/50 neighborhood kids / kids from out of the neighborhood. It used to be extremely diverse. That's changed rapidly. The younger grades are more 90/10 neighborhood kids / out of neighborhood kids and the diversity is practically gone. The change happened in around 5 years.

That's already starting to bleed over into some of the schools on the fringes of CC. Schools that used to be "ok" are now quickly becoming "good" and in 5-10 years will be "excellent". The only thing that changes is that middle and upper middle class well-educated families decide that it's okay to send their kids there.

I have said for years that school quality follows catchment wealth rather than the other way around. This is a good problem to have, for two excellent reasons:

1. A critical mass of "good" (i.e. high income catchment) elementary schools up-percolates to "good" middle and eventually even high schools.

2. As "good" schools in the core fill up, it encourages spillover and second-order gentrification, much as how zoning caps encourage spillover and redevelopment of the next neighborhood over. (A good example of this is how the Lea catchment has been catching Penn Alexander spillover.)