Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Philly has to compete with New York, DC, and Boston for talent and economic drive. And by most indications hasn't done as well as those cities and regions. The other cities of the northeast still outpace Philly in most accounts. Boston and DC for example have among the highest diverified economies in the nation, and never really experienced the recession 'til middle of last year, and every indication is they are well out of it now.
I think you have to take NYC and DC out of the equation though. No city is going to fare-well being situated between arguably the Global economic capital of the world and the Global political Capital of planet earth. Phillys in a tough spot here no doubt.
1. Boston is a coastal city meaning 1/2 of its potential real estate is under water, plays a huge part in real estate values, spiked cost of living and per capita stastistics. Philly is landlocked, real estate cheaper, cost of living easier, economic stats lower. IMO Bostons economy isnt more diversified than Phillys rather its location is better suited for higher economic per capita statistics.
Also keep in mind that the city of Boston is 3x smaller than the city of Philadlephia with 3x less problems, skews regional statistics enormously. Larger cities notoriously have a negative effect on economic indicators.
Washington Dc? Economy?Diversified? Interesting. Is being the countrys economic vacuum cleaner and handing out local multi-billion dollar government contracts diversified? I'm not so sure about that.
Its disgusting the hoarding and privilege that is going on in DC. Regions like the midwest ,cities like Detroit who helped build this country have gone into ruin while the gluttonous pigs in Washington continue building their ivory tower with your and my federal income tax.Washington DC repulses me.Thomas Jefferson and George Washington fleeced the capital from its rightful location(Philadlephia). Washington DC was neglected swampland most of the purposeful deciding history in this country happened in and around Philadlephia- this is the befitting home of the capital. DC is nothing ore than stage prop for the history that happened in Philly,Ny,Boston. Dont even get me started with DC.
One, I'm not from Boston. And nothing pisses a new englander off more than a dumbass assumption we're all from Boston. There are 15 million New Englanders and 4 million Bostonians, there's a 1/4 chance you're right. Do you like those odds?
Secondly, kidphilly, every post I've ever read of your's has been to glorify Philly, which the last time I check was just about the worse place to live on the eastern seaboaord. So I think your actual problem was that I didn't glorify Philly. Something this New Englander will never do. B/c I'm not convinced of any ounce of it's supremacy. So go ahead and tell me it's per capita income is higher...so? I think people from Philly don't cross the Delaware, excpet to vaca in Atlantic City-excuse me, I just threw up a little. Ahh the Pine Barrens in summer-really God's country.
When Philly can draw on 20,000,000 residents, it's cultural weight, it's international status, is the nation's second city, and one of the largest trading centers in the world, than maybe Philly will surpass Los Angeles. But even then, Philly, has that awkward postion of being in the shadow of New York, and the rest stop on the way to DC.
Fourthly, being a native megalopolitan, you'd think, just think, I would "defend" a fellow city. Of course that city is Philly.
So Philly v Los Angeles, please. It's absolutely LA.
Obviously LA is bigger, that wasnt the point. You provided zero justification on how DC and Boston are more diverse as an economy when compared to philly. And on being overshawdowed, yes in some ways but dispite the city has and continues to flourish
And on being the worst place to live, nah, only second worst, New England continues to excel in this category even without pine barrens
I think people from Philly don't cross the Delaware, excpet to vaca in Atlantic City-excuse me, I just threw up a little. Ahh the Pine Barrens in summer-really God's country.
Atlantic City is sort of the NY/Philly beach battle ground. Due N is dominated by NY'ers. S of Atlantic City is Philadlephia/South Jersey. Not boasting but the South Jersey beaches (Ocean City,Margate,Sea Isle,Avalon,Stone Harbor,Wildwoods,Cape May) rate as the best beaches in NJ. I think you are barking up the wrong tree here.
As nice as New England is I'm not sure its that much superior than the Delaware Valley in particular Eastern Pa and the beaches of South Jersey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lmkcin
When Philly can draw on 20,000,000 residents, it's cultural weight, it's international status, is the nation's second city, and one of the largest trading centers in the world, than maybe Philly will surpass Los Angeles. But even then, Philly, has that awkward postion of being in the shadow of New York, and the rest stop on the way to DC.
Unquestionably LA will economically outperform Philadlephia and every other region except NYC. That being said the question has to be posed from a per capita standpoint and this is where Philadlephia outperforms LA in many categories.
Stop doing that. CSA Los Angeles is 17.8 million people not 20 million. Do not round up to the next tenth million.. that's 2.2 million people (Pittsburgh's Metro) size that you are leaving out.
And what do you expect, it has the largest metropolitan boundaries for CSA out of any city in the country. It is 32,000 square miles of land. What do you expect for it to have anything less than what it has would be a shame.
Inland Empire which is apart of Los Angeles's CSA is 28,000 square miles of land, Los Angeles MSA is 4,000 square miles of land. I am even under counting just to be nice, the actual number is near 33,000 square miles of land. It would take three states of Massachusetts and one state of Rhode Island together to equal that much land. (3 Massachusetts + 1 Rhode island = near 33,000 square miles of land = "Los Angeles CSA")
I have the same opinion as you for Los Angeles, (It is one of my most preferred cities in the country if not the world) but that is absolutely no reason to put down Philadelphia for something you found offensive on an internet forum, I don't mean to sound harsh, but please don't say such bad things about a respectable city like Philadelphia. And I'm saying that with all due respect too.
I think you have to take NYC and DC out of the equation though. No city is going to fare-well being situated between arguably the Global economic capital of the world and the Global political Capital of planet earth. Phillys in a tough spot here no doubt.
1. Boston is a coastal city meaning 1/2 of its potential real estate is under water, plays a huge part in real estate values, spiked cost of living and per capita stastistics. Philly is landlocked, real estate cheaper, cost of living easier, economic stats lower. IMO Bostons economy isnt more diversified than Phillys rather its location is better suited for higher economic per capita statistics.
Also keep in mind that the city of Boston is 3x smaller than the city of Philadlephia with 3x less problems, skews regional statistics enormously. Larger cities notoriously have a negative effect on economic indicators.
Washington Dc? Economy?Diversified? Interesting. Is being the countrys economic vacuum cleaner and handing out local multi-billion dollar government contracts diversified? I'm not so sure about that.
Its disgusting the hoarding and privilege that is going on in DC. Regions like the midwest ,cities like Detroit who helped build this country have gone into ruin while the gluttonous pigs in Washington continue building their ivory tower with your and my federal income tax.Washington DC repulses me.Thomas Jefferson and George Washington fleeced the capital from its rightful location(Philadlephia). Washington DC was neglected swampland most of the purposeful deciding history in this country happened in and around Philadlephia- this is the befitting home of the capital. DC is nothing ore than stage prop for the history that happened in Philly,Ny,Boston. Dont even get me started with DC.
Boston is just as dense [if not more so] than philly. It's geographically smaller, but the inner core [which is about 200sq mi] has about 2,000,000 people, much larger than philly. In Massachusetts, Boston is rarely, just Boston-it's usually those petty cities in the Inner Core, like Cambridge and Somerville.
Washington, along with Boston represent the most diverse conomies in the country. Boston leveraged its human capital back in the 70s to create the "Massachusetts Miracle" basically the cornerstone of the modern economy-replicated time and time again. As a stable alternative to manufacturing.
Haha, if course you would say Philly should have remained the capital-so then you guys would have recieved the trillions in federal spending-just as DC does today. Lest you forget NYC was the first OFFICAL capital-under the Constitution.
Philly's not really a horse anyone should want to be on....try getting off it sometime.
Obviously LA is bigger, that wasnt the point. You provided zero justification on how DC and Boston are more diverse as an economy when compared to philly. And on being overshawdowed, yes in some ways but dispite the city has and continues to flourish
And on being the worst place to live, nah, only second worst, New England continues to excel in this category even without pine barrens
It's not about Boston and DC, so I wasn't going to. It's about LA and Philly. I gave my reasoning for LA, and you got mad I someone didn't like Philly.
Well, statistically New England is the most advanced part of the country. Healthy,. wealthy and smart. We have more in common with western Europe than we do most of the rest of this continent.
Stop doing that. CSA Los Angeles is 17.8 million people not 20 million. Do not round up to the next tenth million.. that's 2.2 million people (Pittsburgh's Metro) size that you are leaving out.
And what do you expect, it has the largest metropolitan boundaries for CSA out of any city in the country. It is 32,000 square miles of land. What do you expect for it to have anything less than what it has would be a shame.
Inland Empire which is apart of Los Angeles's CSA is 28,000 square miles of land, Los Angeles MSA is 4,000 square miles of land. I am even under counting just to be nice, the actual number is near 33,000 square miles of land. It would take three states of Massachusetts and one state of Rhode Island together to equal that much land. (3 Massachusetts + 1 Rhode island = near 33,000 square miles of land = "Los Angeles CSA")
I have the same opinion as you for Los Angeles, (It is one of my most preferred cities in the country if not the world) but that is absolutely no reason to put down Philadelphia for something you found offensive on an internet forum, I don't mean to sound harsh, but please don't say such bad things about a respectable city like Philadelphia. And I'm saying that with all due respect too.
Look at it yourself:
So? I rounded up. Who cares? It's still massively larger than Philly-by one Chicago.
The Inland Empire is about 22,000sq mi of desert. I know I was just there a month ago. The Census Bureau uses counties to count, not developed land. One might argue all of New England [save Fairfield and New Haven counties] are under the direct influence of Boston-thats 65,000 sq miles and 15,000,000 people. The 17.8 million people all live within the same urbanized core. Totally interconnected string of development. Again of that 33,000 miles, what 28,000 of it is mountains and desert. Catalina Island must be counted as well-seeing as how it's part of LA County. This arguement makes no sense.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,043,145 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by lmkcin
The Inland Empire is about 22,000sq mi of desert. .
Quote:
Originally Posted by lmkcin
Washington, along with Boston represent the most diverse conomies in the country.
.[/i]
Quote:
Originally Posted by lmkcin
Boston is just as dense [if not more so] than philly. It's geographically smaller, but the inner core [which is about 200sq mi] has about 2,000,000 people, much larger than philly. In Massachusetts, Boston is rarely, just Boston-it's usually those petty cities in the Inner Core, like Cambridge and Somerville.
.[/i]
Show me the link to all the things in bold. I would like to see validation more than words. You argument makes sense logically but constructively it does not until I see the source of your information, or anything for that matter that can validate it. Please & Thank You.
I was just there not too long ago too, but I am not making any claims for it yet.
I know people can't live on the mountains, but people can most certainly live in the desert, I know Southern California pretty well have driven through it multiple times. The mountains aren't livable but the deserts are, flat land. Please show me the percentage of the entire CSA by land mass that compromises the mountains, and I do not want your insights, I want to see legitimate proof.
Also, I will tell you who cares about leaving 2.2 million out, for the Charlotte MSA that 2.2 million which it has produces a GDP of 110 billion. Population numbers of that mass have an affect on the entire metropolitan area.
Anyways, I would like to see sources or links to which I can firmly believe what you are saying.
That is if you don't mind. With all due respect not doubting what you are saying, but I like to have proof before I go on and believe every word of a stranger on the internet.
I voted for Los Angeles because it seemed to be the rather obvious answer.
Philadelphia certainly needs more economic growth, but its relative lack of growth so far actually makes it a more enjoyable and livable city than others. The lack of tremendous affluence in Philadelphia means there's room for teachers, cops, artists, doctors, boilermakers, plumbers, electricians, lawyers, bailbondsmen, porters, fast food workers, estimators, engineers, firefighters, and even bounty hunters all within the city limits. If the city witnessed a sudden infusion of Harvard, Stanford, and MIT grads, then most of those people would have to leave the city. It would in essence become San Francisco. If a middle class family wants to live in Philadelphia, they can afford it. They may ultimately choose not to because of other QOL issues. But I really like the fact that, among all the other East Coast cities, the cost-of-living does not bar regular people from the city.
"The lack of tremendous affluence in Philadelphia means there's room for teachers, cops, artists, doctors, boilermakers, plumbers, electricians, lawyers, bailbondsmen, porters, fast food workers, estimators, engineers, firefighters, and even bounty hunters all within the city limits. If the city witnessed a sudden infusion of Harvard, Stanford, and MIT grads, then most of those people would have to leave the city."
Explain to me how that would work?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
