Former New Yorkers Selling Philly

I take issue with the idea that Philadelphia was just a second rate "Fly-over" city until down-and-out Brooklynite hipsters brought their kitche caravan into town. It is great to hear that people are moving into the city, but the idea that an influx of semi-transients will be the salvation of this working class city is naive and obnoxious.

Also, what is with Philadelphia and our complete lack of centralized city planning? There's an influx of housing being built, but it's haphazard in both location and style. Why aren't we grabbing onto this boom, and funneling the energy into rebuilding the city infrastructure for long term sustainability.

Throwing up a few thirty-unit condo buildings in a semi-abondoned neighborhood may make sense today, but what are we going to be left with ten or fifteen years down the road? When the younger crowd starts having children and moving into suburban school districts, and when the empty nesters start to die off, will condo-nation still make sense?

The out of towners are coming here because they've been priced out of Brooklyn. Soon enough, they'll be priced out of here, along with all the middle and working class Philadelphians.

Good that people want to move here, but there is defintely an obnoxious undertone to the article, like we are being "saved."

Check out my take if you are interested.

Being a NY -> Philly transplant myself, I recieved several email forwards of this article. I came down here for a change of pace. I was laid off [with 20% of the company] a month before I graduated and bummed around for about 6 months doing shitty temp work. Me and my girlfriend pooled our money and rented a sublet for the summer to check things out. We fell in love with Philly and haven't looked back since. We've since settled into a comfy 2BR/2BA in a nice area of town, absolutely impossible to do for two people of our salary range in NYC. Amazing what a couple of hours make.

Interesting how the writer is PW's columnist Jessica Pressler.

Doesn't anyone else think it's a good thing that people from somewhere else can come here to visit and find it appealing enough to make the move themselves?

Albert, it was folks like you that popped into mind when I read this. And I can't speak for the tone of the article or whether or not it's written from a sufficiently Philly perspective, but it does say something about the appeal of the city.

As for planning and long-term urban renewal, I wouldn't lay that at the feet of these people -- they've only been here a couple years; Jeez, give 'em a break, they are doing something, after all.

I see your point. I do agree its good that people find appeal in this city. But who's feet do we lay responsibility at?

I see your point. I do agree its good that people find appeal in this city. But who's feet do we lay responsibility at?

While I would certainly agree with the idea that it's great for people come to Philly & want to stay, the article really makes it seem like Philly wasn't much to bother with before it's "Brooklynization." Also, the idea that Philly's blue collar, working-class, carnivorous culture is somehow kitschy is pretty insulting. It's like a strange, elitest co-opting -- I would dare liken it to the corporate commercialization of "thug life" or "heroine chic" -- at least in their treatment, although I dare say Philly ain't near as bad as either of those. I find myself wondering, once the kitcsh glitz fades or they can afford to go back to Brooklyn, what will Philly be to them then?

Granting that I may be wearing my Philadelphia cynicism on my sleeve, the bigger problem that Mozzer was getting at is not an indictment against those who are moving, but more at the City government, I think.

City planning needs to be just that -- planful. With an influx of residents, there certainly is a rising need for housing. However, for City to grow sustainably it needs to at once respect old & new. Knocking down buildings and throwing up quick-fix high-rises is not the answer. Nor is snatching up cheap real estate in cheap (often ethnic and minority) communities, and pushing out the residents who have been their for generations because of rising taxes. This is gentrification and it should be a dirty word.

Sustainable urban growth works with existing infrastructure, often favoring rehab over new construction, in order to maintain a neighborhood's existing architectural integrity and avoid waste and pollution. It also looks beyond the immediate city boundaries to engage the entire region in an equitable development scheme.

Sustainable urban growth promotes mixed-income development, enabling residents at all income-levels to live side by side. It includes targeted programs that help low-income people buy homes and start business in the communities they call home, rather than promoting an influx of outside business as the city's salvation. The difference is not dollars, it is commitment & wherewithal: many import business folks don't give a crap about Philly. They are most concerned with the almighty dollar. They will leave if the market goes south. When you promote economic growth and stability among those who are here, you see businesses that stay here, and flourish!

(FYI, NJ is one of the leaders in the smarth growth/regional equity movement. If you are interested in getting more information & understanding why this is a really important issue, I'd suggest
PolicyLink, The Racial Justice and Regional Equity Project, SmartGrowth.org, and Smart Growth America.

So, I don't think anyone is saying that people shouldn't stay in Philly, or talk about staying in Philly; but you can't treat a town like a commodity & that's really what I felt that article did, and what some -- but certainly not all -- of the people who are so excited about Philly's 'affordable cost of living' are doing.

Well said Autumn.

but whatever the perspective of the outsiders, part of real growth requires people to come here from somewhere else. If some of these people go back from whence they came ten years from now, well, that means the city hasn't done its job well enough to appeal to their long-term interest.

But as a former sales manager, I've always believed that the first necessary step is to get your foot in the door. If, after trying your product, the customer decides not to buy it anymore, then that means they just didn't find it substantively appealing, at least not to the point of longer term investment. Is that the fault of two people who just showed up two years ago? I'd rather note what this story means in terms of recruiting new voices to sing Philly's praises. Let the other long-term issues be taken up also, but don't lay them at the feet of newcomers.

It means something, at least from a marketing perspective, that people who are trying Philly are finding it worthwhile as more than just a weekend getaway. In reading this story, I guess I initially saw it as what the salesperson in me always used to seek: a foot in the door, which is a necessary first step to closing the sale. If you can't get a foot in the door, there's no hope of ever closing the deal.

Really I do, but the article is a bit condencending. Another tidbit posted over at Dan Rubin's is that the movetophilly is already getting over 3000 visits a day. That site is TERRIBLE. But because it got a press mention - it now has traction - over and above efforts - and bloggers - who were already here fighting.

Grrrrr, arrrrgggg!