Bay Area VS Boston VS Philadelphia (live, best, better, compared)

[Slyman11]

Originally Posted by *Sweetkisses*

Not if Philly joins NY metro it they wont. LOL. You can keep your prestige ,your influence ,your money and whatever else supposedly makes those cities superior. Obviously millions of people chose to stay in Philadelphia and its good enough for them.
Then again I look at your location. It says DC. No wonder why those things are important to you. Land of superficial at its finest.

My location is unneeded within this thread, this gimmick to include DC into Philly convos is unwarranted. DC has surpassed Philly in importance, that is not debatable. SF and Boston have surpassed Philly in importance for the very reasons you dismiss saying these cities can keep to themselves.

[*Sweetkisses*]

Originally Posted by Slyman11

My location is unneeded within this thread, this gimmick to include DC into Philly convos is unwarranted. DC has surpassed Philly in importance, that is not debatable. SF and Boston have surpassed Philly in importance for the very reasons you dismiss saying these cities can keep to themselves.

I'm just saying that is fine. Doesn't dismiss the fact that millions of people call Philly home and are living quite fine here. No need for the condescending attitude. K?

[Slyman11]

Originally Posted by *Sweetkisses*

I'm just saying that is fine. Doesn't dismiss the fact that millions of people call Philly home and are living quite fine here.

Where people choose to live does not define importance. I am a realist, what I say bothers forumers because I don't tolerate a credit out of line. This discussion is garbage, the people who make threads like these have little understanding of relevance. Its more than justly glancing the list of largest CSA's and making a thread with the cities.

Money is power and the metros with the most money are the most powerful, there's the summary to what this thread seeks. SF, then Boston, then Philly. That order, no place out of line and have all the ducks accounted for.

[*Sweetkisses*]

Originally Posted by Slyman11

Where people choose to live does not define importance. I'm a realist, what I say bothers most forumers because I don't tolerate a credit out of line. This thread is garbage and so is this discussion, the people who make threads like these have little understanding of relevance. Its more than justly glancing the list of largest CSA's and making a thread with the aforementioned cities.

Yea you also like to have the last word. You win. I'm going to bed.

[Dub King]

No, you are just an obnoxious bore. Go to a (city) park and line up/count real ducks or something, you wanna-be cop.

Originally Posted by Slyman11

Where people choose to live does not define importance. I am a realist, what I say bothers forumers because I don't tolerate a credit out of line. This discussion is garbage, the people who make threads like these have little understanding of relevance. Its more than justly glancing the list of largest CSA's and making a thread with the cities.

Money is power and the metros with the most money are the most powerful, there's the summary to what this thread seeks. SF, then Boston, then Philly. That order, no place out of line and have all the ducks accounted for.

[rainrock]

Originally Posted by Slyman11

How? Boston and SF has larger metros, larger economies, more prestige, more money, more influence. Spare me the details on how Philly competes because it doesn't.

Absolutely ridiculous assertion.

Philadelphias MSA is larger than both SF and Boston. Philly has the Largest urbanized area, Greatest GDP of the 3 MSA's.

Please stop using these exaggerated oversized inflated CMSA statistics for comparing core cities and their importance and heirarchy.


Philadelphias enormous influence on the USA over the course of history makes SF appear like the remote, insignificant, bayside, googleville hamlet, that it is. Bostons influence on the USA is much more essential than SF's but even it cannot compare to Philadlephias historical and industrial contributions.

The only current difference economically between the 3 is that Bos + SF gegraphy(coastal real estate) lends itself to higher per capita statistics.

[rainrock]

Originally Posted by Slyman11

Money is power and the metros with the most money are the most powerful, there's the summary to what this thread seeks. SF, then Boston, then Philly. That order, no place out of line and have all the ducks accounted for.

Get some facts and come back and see us.

Claritas- 2007 Household Income

Regional Households Income worth $1,000,000 to $1,999,999

NYC- 189,669
LA- 127,556
Chicago- 87,440
Philadelphia- 76,561
SF- 72,631
Washington-72,463
Boston-64,090
Dallas- 51,832
Atlanta-50,834
Detroit-50,164



Regional Household worth $2,000,000 +

NYC- 130,807
LA- 85,313
CHI-56,608
SF-50,990
Wash-50,498
Philadelphia- 48,831
Boston 42,380
Dallas- 33,071
Atlanta 32,1777
Detroit- 31,687

[Philly's south]

Philly doesn't even compare to the Bay Area or others. This city is so unenticing and one sighted.

[cpomp]

Originally Posted by Slyman11

How? Boston and SF has larger metros, larger economies, more prestige, more money, more influence. Spare me the details on how Philly competes because it doesn't.

Another ridiculous comment, nowhere near true.

[Dub King]

Lovely. What humorous Philly bashing will you come up with under your new moniker, I wonder. Will this be your 'masterpiece' alter-ego?

Originally Posted by Philly's south

Philly doesn't even compare to the Bay Area or others. This city is so unenticing and one sighted.