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.
Whatever John. By the sassy, snippy and generally unpleasant tone of all your posts, you don't seem to be living a "happy, productive life." In fact you come across as desperate, trying to convince yourself and everyone else that Atlanta has anything positive going for it.
I kow you like to try and ignore me.You give all kinds of colorful descriptions as to why you feel I'm not worthy.However I dont scare so easily.So why cant you answer the question I asked earlier?You do this alot.I mucst reallly get you tongue tied mentally.
SO again my repost:
Quote:
Lets talk about this further since this is obviously and issue that you feel needs to be addressed.You live in D.C. so there is no state lwas,BUT there are federal laws.Federal law in the U.S. does not recognize marriage between the same sex and offers no protection from state to state.Wow that does ound pretty archaic.
Why is living in this country under the laws that dont protect you at the highest level of government if you cannot recognize it as the same thing as what you are vehemently against living anywhere in Georgia or other states where these laws or lack there of are on the books?
You sound very much like this is very personal.Your premise sounds very phony.
It's not asking about the Northeast though...it's just talking about New England, which--with the exception of Southwestern CT--Boston does dominate.
The only city that really "towers" over Boston is New York City. Washington DC is considerably more important than Boston, but I'd give Boston a pretty decent edge over Philadelphia.
Vermont and the majority of new hampshire dont shadow under boston, obviously boston is the largest city in new england, but it doesnt run new england. just part of it. And i would not give boston an edge over philadelphia at all.
Vermont and the majority of new hampshire dont shadow under boston, obviously boston is the largest city in new england, but it doesnt run new england. just part of it. And i would not give boston an edge over philadelphia at all.
You really get a feather in your @ss when Boston is mentioned more than Philly.I personally prefer Philly but realistically,Boston commands more respect in this country due to its thriving sectors in education, finance and even tourism.Not many cities pack that much of a powerful of a punch that are similarly sized.
Philly os like a second home to me and it has gotten only better after many years decline and even stagnation but its still got some ways to go before it is completely back on track.
You really get a feather in your @ss when Boston is mentioned more than Philly.I personally prefer Philly but realistically,Boston commands more respect in this country due to its thriving sectors in education, finance and even tourism.Not many cities pack that much of a powerful of a punch that are similarly sized.
Philly os like a second home to me and it has gotten only better after many years decline and even stagnation but its still got some ways to go before it is completely back on track.
While I agree in premis and also agree that the response you responded was likely short-sighted. My question is then if Philly isnt on track than honestly only maybe 4 or 5 cities are. The Philly economy blows Atlanta out of the water on any normalized production or income metric, and moreso on absolutes for similar sized metros. This is not to at all make an attack at Atlanta more the example as you have ties to both. The Philly economy is a monster and truly only bested by a handful even when per cap petrics are employed. To say it needs to get back on track to me is actually laughable. Yes it has issues but a ways to go to get back on track. Then please tell me what is on track if Philly is not; because obvously Atlanta has further to go so I am tad confused by that last statement. Atlanta has lower economic output both in total and per cap, way lowerincome even when adjusted for COL and also a higher unemployement rate. So my question to you is then which areas have made it then?
I agree Philly stagnated, but that was 30-40 years ago - that part confuses me because I could spend hours documenting the strength of Philly vs Atlanta and my point is more your get back on track comment because if it aint there are VERY few places that are and Atlanta AINT one of them then.
I will repeat this is not an attack on Atlanta more a misunderstnading of your last point which to me is ill-stated and informed and actually perpetuating an untrue myth of Philly that somehow lingers when the FACTS prove otherwise
While I agree in premis and also agree that the response you responded was likely short-sighted. My question is then if Philly isnt on track than honestly only maybe 4 or 5 cities are. The Philly economy blows Atlanta out of the water on any normalized production or income metric, and moreso on absolutes for similar sized metros. This is not to at all make an attack at Atlanta more the example as you have ties to both. The Philly economy is a monster and truly only bested by a handful even when per cap petrics are employed. To say it needs to get back on track to me is actually laughable. Yes it has issues but a ways to go to get back on track. Then please tell me what is on track if Philly is not; because obvously Atlanta has further to go so I am tad confused by that last statement. Atlanta has lower economic output both in total and per cap, way lowerincome even when adjusted for COL and also a higher unemployement rate. So my question to you is then which areas have made it then?
I agree Philly stagnated, but that was 30-40 years ago - that part confuses me because I could spend hours documenting the strength of Philly vs Atlanta and my point is more your get back on track comment because if it aint there are VERY few places that are and Atlanta AINT one of them then.
I will repeat this is not an attack on Atlanta more a misunderstnading of your last point which to me is ill-stated and informed and actually perpetuating an untrue myth of Philly that somehow lingers when the FACTS prove otherwise
LOL..You say this is not an attack on Atlanta but yet Atlanta was not in the conversation.Boston was.If you believe Philly BLOWS Atlanta out of the water ,then you are entitled to your OPINION.Im not gonna get involved in this thread with Philly vs.Atlanta.If you want to address why I said its behind Boston,I will.If you want to create another Philly vs Atlanta thread then go on but not here and now.Nice try but not this time.
I never said it was not back on track.I said its not completely back on track.Philly s not what Philly was 40 years ago.Why is that so hard to ubderstand?
LOL..You say this is not an attack on Atlanta but yet Atlanta was not in the conversation.Boston was.If you believe Philly BLOWS Atlanta out of the water ,then you are entitled to your OPINION.Im not gonna get involved in this thread with Philly vs.Atlanta.If you want to address why I said its behind Boston,I will.If you want to create another Philly vs Atlanta thread then go on but not here and now.Nice try but not this time.
I never said it was not back on track.I said its not completely back on track.Philly s not what Philly was 40 years ago.Why is that so hard to ubderstand?
No I am disputing your last point and am saying if it (Philly) is not on track than VERY few are (maybe DC, Houston, DFW are clearly stronger than Phillys economy) and if it has a way to go to get back then wow most others are in far worse shape. I also inderstand the areas that need improvement very well but also know the city/metro is in better shape overall than it has been in many years and actually has weathered the recession better than most metros in the US.
I used Atlanta specifically because then I would assume you WOULD have to agree on stats and DT vitality that it has SO MUCH further to go. this I actually disagree with but found your statement wrong and qurestioned it.
As far as Boston, I do think an argument can be made for either/or. And on Education, strength in industries etc they are more similar than different. The Philly/Boston discussion would show Boston ahead on per cap measures and behind on overall measures. To me both very strong cities and metros these days.
So please explain the long ways that Philly has to go? And if so please parallel this to many other metros including your own with a paltry income and output for its size even with a low COL.
You really get a feather in your @ss when Boston is mentioned more than Philly.I personally prefer Philly but realistically,Boston commands more respect in this country due to its thriving sectors in education, finance and even tourism.Not many cities pack that much of a powerful of a punch that are similarly sized.
Philly os like a second home to me and it has gotten only better after many years decline and even stagnation but its still got some ways to go before it is completely back on track.
Finance? Please dont talk about it like you know, I work in finance and plenty of major firms operate in Philly from NYC as a secondary market to NYC in this region. Boston's sector in finance is more similar to SF, different division than NYC and Philly. Do you know anything about finance?
Skip, do you realize the level of interplay in this corridor? Atlanta isnt even close in any scale economically speaking... yours would be a work in progress. You continuously boost Atlanta for its importance and post a chart with rankings you have no understanding of. Your scared to explain how Atlanta bests Boston or Philly, explain...
Finance? Please dont talk about it like you know, I work in finance and plenty of major firms operate in Philly from NYC as a secondary market to NYC in this region. Boston's sector in finance is more similar to SF, different division than NYC and Philly. Do you know anything about finance?
Skip, do you realize the level of interplay in this corridor? Atlanta isnt even close in any scale economically speaking... yours would be a work in progress. You continuously boost Atlanta for its importance and post a chart with rankings you have no understanding of. Your scared to explain how Atlanta bests Boston or Philly, explain...
None of this makes any sense whatsoever.
And just why do you feel the need to be so damn insulting? Is it a trait you are actually proud of?
Chicago-Midwest (Most certainly without a doubt dominates the Midwest)
Boston-I guess would donminate the New England region( but what other cities would it have to compete with?again I say wise for the OP to not include the entire northeast of NYC AND Philly)
Miami-Southeast
First off, let me just say that I think you can make a reasonable argument for all 3 cities. They all have some good points. Of the three, Boston has an advantage simply because New England is a smaller area --- the Southeast and especially the Midwest are simply too large for one city to dominate.
Boston is clearly the Capital of its New England region and has been for hundreds of years. Boston even uses the New England capital thing as a bid to try to increase its area of influence much larger than a ordinary city its size would. Thus the need to keep outside influence, especially the large NEW YORK CITY to a minimum. Perhaps this is the source of some of the tensions between New York and Boston, whereas the much larger New York finds some of its natural area of influence artificially curtailed by the Boston "Capital".
Even so, New York still has a great deal influence over parts of New England, especially Connecticut, the Berkshires and much of Vermont. Montreal may also has some influence on a much smaller scale.
As for the others, Chicago clearly wins the logistical argument, although Atlanta and Boston, are still very important logistically to their areas. I do not live in the Midwest but I get the strong impression that people from a large portion of the central Midwest head to Chicago for tourism and business activites.
I heard Atlanta described as the "Capital of the South" way before I came to City-Data. Miami and the two Texas giants are simply too far away from most of the South, especially when talking about the Southeast. But Atlanta like Chicago is in a big region, there is no way that one city can dominate the way that Boston can dominate its region.
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.
