Boston, not Philly, among biggest population losers - Page 5 - PhillyBlog

jammin2285 · #41 (**permalink**) 06-21-2006, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foodie

I think we're all making an assumption that may not be true: There is a tight correlation between population loss and urban decay. On the surface, it makes perfect sense. In fact, one post actually tried to translate the population loss to the number of newly abandoned homes in Philly. I don't think it's a simple or a 1-to-1 translation.

Philadelphia county has had the most housing starts of any county in PA over the last three years. Based upon this, it's entirely possible that the city is gaining households while losing population. When you think of demographical shifts in urban living, this statement makes perfect sense. Think of it on smaller scale. Most of the people moving into the city at this point are either single or double-income-no-kids. If a family of four sells their house to a young professional, the population of the household just dropped 75%. Multiply this over many thousand times and you will see quite a population loss. Neighborhoods like Bella Vista, Pennsport, and parts of West Philly near Penn used to be full of large families and are now mostly occupied by 1 or 2 person households. These neighborhoods are not decaying, rather they have seen quite an improvement over the past 15 years.

The whole point of this example is to show that population loss does not necessarily translate to urban decay and, in fact, can actually benefit the city under the right circumstances. Boston has been losing a significant number of people since 2000, but I doubt anyone considers the city to be "decaying".

You're right that population loss is not necessarily always bad. It is true that the household size is falling, primarily due to high divorce rates. But in Philly the population shift is not single, rich, undemanding people replacing families of eight on welfare. In fact, between 1989 and 1993 (sorry, the most recent figures I could find), the citywide percentage of people receiving foodstamps increased from 17% to 25%. That was in a period of population loss for Philadelphia. The increase is partially due to people that don't need food stamps leaving the City

It is indisputable that, if Philly had 2 million residents like it did in 1950, there would be far fewer abandoned houses. The reason abandoned houses exist is because there's no one to live there, because of population loss.

With more people, the City would have the revenue to support the poor. I agree that population figures don't determine stuff like quality of life and should not be the #1 factor in judging the city, but the deep population loss in some areas of the city (North, West, South Philly...East Philly too I guess that would be Camden) has had a bad affect, because it is usually the poor that stay. There is nothing wrong with poor people, as long as the city has the tax base to support them.

SPM · #42 (**permalink**) 06-21-2006, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bamhiest

What types of people are moving out of Phila? Middle class? Elderly? Young? White collar? From which neighborhoods?

Where are they going?

Is population loss really a bad thing?

To make a simplistic point, if population loss was happening because all Phila's drug dealers and arsonists were moving to Florida, this would be a good thing.

People migrated to Phila 100 years ago b/c there were manf. jobs here. Now better jobs may lie elsewhere. If people move out of the old row houses that were hastily built to house factory workers, and those houses are torn down, who is worse off because of it?

Population change for cities is made up of 3 components:

1. Natural rate (births-deaths)---this is influenced mainly by age and % hispanic population (not a normative judgement, just demographic fact)

2. Net domestic migration (moving ins less moving outs) ---this is the stuff we all think of
---------namely tax, crime, schools, changing jobs, empty nesters & later marriages, and a new wave of youngsters who aren't as suburban nerds as previous 2 generations. BUT---this is MOSTLY A NEGATIVE NUMBER, and surprisingly similar in % terms across all OLDER (and even some newer) US CITIES.....slowing a BIT due to the new city-dwellers, but not in danger of being reversed.

3. Net Interantional migration (Immigrants less F. Scott Fitzgeralds)---virtually ALL big changes in numbers and ranking can be traced to this component....and it is NOT a function of local taxes---but it IS a function of the exisitng POPULATION MIX....Interestingly, most predominantly Black-White Cities (phila is still in this category, but yearning to break out) have VERY LOW immigration rates.\\\
Note----1.4 million of NYC's 700,000 pop gain in the 1990s were immigrants!

zur · #43 (**permalink**) 06-22-2006, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jammin2285

You're right that population loss is not necessarily always bad. It is true that the household size is falling, primarily due to high divorce rates. But in Philly the population shift is not single, rich, undemanding people replacing families of eight on welfare. In fact, between 1989 and 1993 (sorry, the most recent figures I could find), the citywide percentage of people receiving foodstamps increased from 17% to 25%. That was in a period of population loss for Philadelphia. The increase is partially due to people that don't need food stamps leaving the City

It is indisputable that, if Philly had 2 million residents like it did in 1950, there would be far fewer abandoned houses. The reason abandoned houses exist is because there's no one to live there, because of population loss.

With more people, the City would have the revenue to support the poor. I agree that population figures don't determine stuff like quality of life and should not be the #1 factor in judging the city, but the deep population loss in some areas of the city (North, West, South Philly...East Philly too I guess that would be Camden) has had a bad affect, because it is usually the poor that stay. There is nothing wrong with poor people, as long as the city has the tax base to support them.

Which was the NE...which isn't the tax base it used to be (flood of immigrant and now violent crime in the dense southenr section...)

Foodie · #44 (**permalink**) 06-22-2006, 01:51 PM

Can anyone find statistical trends on the number of households and average occupants per household in Philly over the past 5 years?

jammin2285 · #45 (**permalink**) 06-22-2006, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foodie

Can anyone find statistical trends on the number of households and average occupants per household in Philly over the past 5 years?

It's hard to get these numbers, but good thing I'm not too busy right now.
Number of households in Philadelphia:
1970-642,145
1980-619,781
1990-603,075
2000-590,071

Average household size in Center City:
1970-2.0
1980-1.8
1990-1.7
2000-1.6

(It's higher in the city as a whole, but has also been steadily dropping to a present rate of 2.5. There is a map of it on page 6 of this Notice that the 1963 map of CC on pg 4 shows the South St expressway). From the same report:

Quote:

The Art Museum area experienced a similar trend. Between 1970 and 2000, population declined by 14% with the biggest loss occurring between 1970 and 1980. The population stabilized in the 1980s and then rebounded by 5% from 1990 and 2000 (Table 1). Between 1970 and 2000, the number of households increased by 20% (Table 2), the average household size shrunk 27% (Table 3), from 2.3 to 1.7 persons, and housing values grew by 352% (Table 4). These trends are occurring in nearly all the communities adjacent to the core area of downtown. Put simply, smaller households with much greater disposable income are increasing the tax base of these neighborhoods, while requiring fewer municipal services than earlier residents.

Therefore, the Art Museum and other neighborhoods on the rise near Center City are simultaneously experiencing population growth, growth in the number of households, and drop in average household size.

Foodie · #46 (**permalink**) 06-22-2006, 09:53 PM

Quote:

The Art Museum area experienced a similar trend. Between 1970 and 2000, population declined by 14% with the biggest loss occurring between 1970 and 1980. The population stabilized in the 1980s and then rebounded by 5% from 1990 and 2000 (Table 1). Between 1970 and 2000, the number of households increased by 20% (Table 2), the average household size shrunk 27% (Table 3), from 2.3 to 1.7 persons, and housing values grew by 352% (Table 4). These trends are occurring in nearly all the communities adjacent to the core area of downtown. Put simply, smaller households with much greater disposable income are increasing the tax base of these neighborhoods, while requiring fewer municipal services than earlier residents.

Thanks for the numbers. As shown in the art museum example, trying to evaluate the effects of population loss mean little unless it's put in the context of demographical shifts. Nobody can dispute that, purely from a tax base perspective, the art museum district is more benficial to the city in 2000 than in 1970.

So the population from 1970-2000 in Philly dropped 22%, while the number of households only fell 8% during the same period. Therefore, most of the population loss was due to a decrease in the number of occupants per household (probably kids growing up, moving out, and taking jobs in sun belt cities or the suburbs). I wish we also had numbers for 2000-2005, since this period most likely has posted the most housing starts in Philly over the past 30 years.