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.
Your argument makes no sense. Ghettos dont really contribute that much to a city besides culture and the real city feel. So if you take away Philly's ghetto, it would definitely still go above and beyond SF, it would just be a more sterile city and would lose some cultural factors. And you make it sound like Philly is just some big ghetto which obviously isnt true.
You have a very skewed version of culture if you think ghettos are what makes a city unique, if violent crime is culture I want to live in the most sterile place on earth.
Your argument makes no sense. Ghettos dont really contribute that much to a city besides culture and the real city feel. So if you take away Philly's ghetto, it would definitely still go above and beyond SF, it would just be a more sterile city and would lose some cultural factors. And you make it sound like Philly is just some big ghetto which obviously isnt true.
The only difference here is that the ghetto in the Philly area is in the city. It's not that SF doesn't have one - they just call it Oakland.
Likewise, a lot of nicer parts of the Philly area are just west of the city limits or just across the river.
It's not like Boston doesn't have 'hoods either. They're just in different towns you have to take a train to.
You have a very skewed version of culture if you think ghettos are what makes a city unique, if violent crime is culture I want to live in the most sterile place on earth.
My argument was just that they somewhat do contribute to city. Think about it, the ghetto was the birth place of hip hop, jazz, and many other things. Plus it is where many famous people and musical artist are from. These days ghettos are one of the only places where you can find people that are actually from a city and represent there city. Obviously crime is a bad problem in ghettos but that is not all they contribute.
e. I am not trying to diminish Philly as it's also very strong across the board. But i think you have to give a slight edge to Boston on culture.
Since they're both top notch cities, though, in terms of culture, I think at some point it does come down to personal perspective/opinion as to which has the "edge." Orchestras, as well as art museums, can fluctuate over the years, but Boston and Philly have generally maintained top performance (the recent Philly Orchestra troubles aside, which definitely appear to be abating) on the cultural front for centuries.
I think you're also underestimating the more "alternative" cultural offerings, as well as upcoming museum expansions/renovations and groundbreakings.
I have heard that Boston's MFA has recently completed a tremendous expansion, but from what I gather, Philly has really been bolstering its cultural stock lately -- from brand new museums (The American Jewish History Museum, the relocated Barnes, the upcoming American Revolution Center), to expansions (Franklin Institute, PMA exhibits) and very broad-range festivals (Design Philadelphia, International Festival of Arts). Let's also not forget the largest mural arts program in the country that also serves as a model worldwide. These are all factors that contribute to the cultural fabric of a city.
In other words, Boston may seem to have a very slight edge in more "traditional" cultural venues, but Philly currently really bursting at the seams with new creative collaboration and innovative displays of talent/culture. The creative sector is really driving the revitalization of Philadelphia. I am not so sure this burgeoning artistic/cultural spirit is currently as evident in Boston.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzrovian
Also, Boston has done a much better job taking care of the city. Let's face it, Philly has a serious problem with crime and huge no-go areas. While that is not directly related to importance, it is indirectly as it affects the city's reputation and national stature. Boston is much more on the tourist map (particularly among foreign visitors, it seems to me).
I have to agree. Boston is simply in much better physical shape and has a better reputation nationally and internationally, but again, Philly has been making very impressive strides -- and there is no reason to believe that will stop anytime soon.
International visitation continues to increase. Philly went from the 21st most internationally visited US city in 2001 to the 13th highest in 2011.
Also, in terms of international "importance," Philly does indeed rank in the same level as Boston by the highly-coveted GaWC ranking as of their most recent report (Alpha -), which is an increase in ranking from the prior ranking:
So, again, all in all, at best, I would concede a stronger position to Boston in some areas, but Philadelphia appears to currently have stronger momentum for strength in the near future.
The only difference here is that the ghetto in the Philly area is in the city. It's not that SF doesn't have one - they just call it Oakland.
Wrong.
San Francisco itself has ghetto areas...one of them is right in the middle of downtown in fact. Oakland is a separate city that has nice areas and bad areas, just like SF has nice areas and bad areas.
your statements have absolutely no basis in reality. philadelphia is statistically poor. How can you argue against that. there really is no other city who's residents are more deluded about the quality of their city versus other cities. my point is a point that really needs to be taken seriously, if you take away philadelphia's ghetto you take away have the city. as for what philadelphia has downtown, it is absolutely inferior to san francisco, every part of it. what are you going to argue 4, shopping? Food? sightseeing? chinatown versus china town? battle of the bridges?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo_1
Your argument makes no sense. Ghettos dont really contribute that much to a city besides culture and the real city feel. So if you take away Philly's ghetto, it would definitely still go above and beyond SF, it would just be a more sterile city and would lose some cultural factors. And you make it sound like Philly is just some big ghetto which obviously isnt true.
what's kind of the dribble is that? by your own admission philadelphia is the city that has urban ghetto. The other cities don't have it. You said it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly
The only difference here is that the ghetto in the Philly area is in the city. It's not that SF doesn't have one - they just call it Oakland.
Likewise, a lot of nicer parts of the Philly area are just west of the city limits or just across the river.
It's not like Boston doesn't have 'hoods either. They're just in different towns you have to take a train to.
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.
