Beyond Demographics: A New Way of Looking at Cities
Who will you meet?
Cities are innovating, companies are pivoting, and start-ups are growing. Like you, every urban practitioner has a remarkable story of insight and challenge from the past year.
Meet these peers and discuss the future of cities in the new Meeting of the Minds Executive Cohort Program. Replace boring virtual summits with facilitated, online, small-group discussions where you can make real connections with extraordinary, like-minded people.
An innovative set of polling questions about Philadelphia offers a different perspective for crafting urban policy.
For all communities, but especially for post-industrial cities such as Philadelphia, increasing the number of residents is necessary to expand the local economy, broaden the tax base to support infrastructure, and draw new employers seeking a skilled workforce.
But to keep cities growing, it’s crucial not only to attract new people but to retain current citizens as well. So the development of urban policy depends on understanding a city’s residents—their hopes and desires their concerns and complaints.
The Pew Charitable Trusts’ Philadelphia research initiative has developed a new way of looking at our hometown’s citizens that goes beyond the usual parameters that pollsters use: age, race, income, political affiliation, education level, etc.
With a series of specially designed questions and a technique known as cluster analysis, we created four categories of Philadelphians based on their attitudes toward the city. Here’s who they are and what they represent:
Dissatisfied Citizens: These people tend to be unhappy with their neighborhoods, disenchanted with Philadelphia’s government, and not terribly optimistic about the city’s future. They represent about 30 percent of the population and are disproportionately low-income; most have lived in Philadelphia their whole lives but would move out if they could.
Uncommitted Skeptics: This group doubts the effectiveness—and questions the goals of—local institutions, such as the business community, police department, and city government. These skeptics make up 25 percent of Philadelphia’s population and feel little attachment to the city.
Die-Hard Loyalists: These are the people who see a bright future for the city and want to be part of it. They feel connected to their neighbors and think more should be done to preserve city neighborhoods and support longtime residents. They account for 25 percent of the city’s population, and many are lifelong Philadelphians.
Enthusiastic Urbanists: This group, excited about Philadelphia and its future, is made up of people who view Center City as vital to the city’s well-being and believe that Philadelphia must attract new residents to thrive. Making up 19 percent of residents, many are newcomers to the city.
New Labels for Philadelphia Residents Give New Perspective
It’s troubling that almost a third of the city’s residents are “dissatisfied.” But it may not be surprising: Of the country’s 10 largest cities, Philadelphia has the highest percentage of people living in deep poverty (defined as an income at 50 percent or less of the level used to define poverty). Many Dissatisfied Citizens lack the wherewithal to pick up and move to a new place and understandably could feel trapped—a situation that only heightens the need to create new, sustainable jobs.
But despite Philadelphia’s persistent poverty, we also know that in recent years, the city has made great strides, developing a world-class reputation for arts and culture and becoming an alluring tourist destination. The city’s strong tradition of excellent universities continues, notably in medical education, and it remains a relatively affordable place to live especially compared with other large cities on the East Coast. The city’s population—which peaked at 2.1 million people in 1950 before dropping by more than 550,000 over the next 50 years—has now begun to slowly grow again.
We learned from our research that a quarter of the city is made up of Die-Hard Loyalists, nearly all of whom say they hope to spend the rest of their lives in Philadelphia. And, in another sign of how far the city has come recently, about a fifth of its population consists of Enthusiastic Urbanists—the wealthiest and best-educated of the four groups, consisting of people who like what they see happening in Philadelphia and want to stay.
That’s why it’s so intriguing that a quarter of the city’s residents are Uncommitted Skeptics. Although 6 in 10 of them call Philadelphia an excellent or good place to live, they’re still the people least connected to the city—with nearly all of them telling us they would leave if the right circumstances came along, and more than 40 percent saying they don’t expect to be living in Philadelphia in five or 10 years. Most of them are young, well-educated, and in decent financial shape, so they could go easily.
For Philadelphia to thrive, it needs to build new bonds with these people—whose demographics (43 percent black, 39 percent white, and 10 percent Hispanic) pretty much match the city as a whole—and overcome their skepticism.
What Philadelphia Needs to Do Next
The good news is that even a majority of skeptics say they believe Philadelphia’s best days are still to come; among the four groups, only the Dissatisfied Citizens disagreed.
And the four groups agreed on the most important issues facing Philadelphia, with majorities in each group saying that improving K-12 education, creating jobs, and addressing concerns about public safety should be the top priorities for city leaders.
Fixing any of these long-standing problems, much less all of them, won’t be easy. But agreement on defining the problems should help us make progress toward finding solutions, especially if two-thirds of the city’s population is optimistic about the future.
One thing we’ve learned from this new way of looking at city residents is this: The future of Philadelphia, and cities like it, depends on attracting more Enthusiastic Urbanists, nurturing the Die-Hard Loyalists, convincing the Uncommitted Skeptics, and creating a thriving community to win over the Dissatisfied Citizens.
For more information and to read The Pew Charitable Trusts’ full report on this topic, click here.
This article was originally published by Meeting of the Minds on November 16, 2016.
Leave your comment below, or reply to others.
Please note that this comment section is for thoughtful, on-topic discussions. Admin approval is required for all comments. Your comment may be edited if it contains grammatical errors. Low effort, self-promotional, or impolite comments will be deleted.
Read more from MeetingoftheMinds.org
Spotlighting innovations in urban sustainability and connected technology
Why one city decays and another thrives can sometimes seem random. So, trying to foresee downrange why the future will happen in City A and not City B is hard. Moreover, to imagine that there is one formula that all 7.8 billion of us should adhere to, wherever it is we live, is clearly nonsensical.
In our work, we study, research, and rank places to determine what the best practices are to increase economic prosperity, social equity, and quality of life. Ultimately, the question we want to answer is: What is it that makes a city a place of the future? In our research, one thing has become clear to us: next-gen talent is the fuel for the future of place. And by extension, jobs of the future will happen in places of the future.
Digital twins and AI analysis would offer significant benefits to organizations across all sectors. By providing a comprehensive look at a geographical area and its infrastructure and assets, these technologies will enable smarter and more targeted field planning optimization. It could help digitize field surveys, offer new levels of remote engineering access, and enable contact tracing around COVID-19.
The focus will continue to shift away from the data itself and towards its relationships. The connections between data are where the most powerful insights lie. With enough data points, organizations can look to analytics to better understand the context and “see” the future.
AI at scale and emerging data technologies truly illustrate this connectivity and potential. Although it’s an emerging field, the benefits are limitless.
In my business, we’d rather not be right. What gets a climate change expert out of bed in the morning is the desire to provide decision-makers with the best available science, and at the end of the day we go to bed hoping things won’t actually get as bad as our science tells us. That’s true whether you’re a physical or a social scientist.
Well, I’m one of the latter and Meeting of the Minds thought it would be valuable to republish an article I penned in January 2020. In that ancient past, only the most studious of news observers had heard of a virus in Wuhan, China, that was causing a lethal disease. Two months later we were in lockdown, all over the world, and while things have improved a lot in the US since November 2020, in many cities and nations around the world this is not the case. India is living through a COVID nightmare of untold proportions as we speak, and many nations have gone through wave after wave of this pandemic. The end is not in sight. It is not over. Not by a longshot.
And while the pandemic is raging, sea level continues to rise, heatwaves are killing people in one hemisphere or the other, droughts have devastated farmers, floods sent people fleeing to disaster shelters that are not the save havens we once thought them to be, wildfires consumed forests and all too many homes, and emissions dipped temporarily only to shoot up again as we try to go “back to normal.”
So, I’ll say another one of those things I wish I’ll be wrong about, but probably won’t: there is no “back to normal.” Not with climate change in an interdependent world.