U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
View Poll Results: Which one is the most important?
Bay Area 162 54.92%
Boston 54 18.31%
Philadelphia 66 22.37%
Confused 13 4.41%
Voters: 295. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-11-2012, 05:41 PM
 
5,460 posts, read 4,017,158 times
Reputation: 2230

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by SirGreenDown View Post
The general consensus being the poll numbers? or whats in your head?

For the record Boston (Based on pics ive seen and what I know of the city) looks like a beautiful city with things to see and do and I look forward to visiting hopefully this summer

However I find it hilarious how there must be some conspiracy that Philly is beating out Boston in this poll..you guys will have to deal.

Unless we're talking Education..I don't see how Boston would be a clear winner over Philly anyway..
No its because Philly Posters Blindly vote for there city no matter what, there could be a poll "which city is the Empire State Building in?" and a good portion of the vote would go to Philly, even though factually it is not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-11-2012, 06:48 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia Pa
1,575 posts, read 1,577,105 times
Reputation: 590
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4 View Post
How so?
is it because the general consenus is Boston> Philly (abiet slightly)

Back and forth arguing, much of which is lies coming from both sides. and no
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2012, 08:10 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
6,538 posts, read 5,013,835 times
Reputation: 2449
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4 View Post
No its because Philly Posters Blindly vote for there city no matter what, there could be a poll "which city is the Empire State Building in?" and a good portion of the vote would go to Philly, even though factually it is not.
Did you ever think that Philly is just a great city? and many people like it? Buuuuuttt noooooo... that can't be the reason!! Who would pick Philly over boring old Boston?! Idk why you're so butthurt but you must have some hidden hatred for Philly. People like different things... get over it. Not everyone like Boston.. hell not even everyone likes NY. If you don't like Philly then get over. But you must be secretly jealous of it if you keep talking about it in every damn thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2012, 08:13 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
6,538 posts, read 5,013,835 times
Reputation: 2449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp Point View Post
You are the dumbest idiot on this board. Not even all of North Philly is ghetto. Just about 30 percent of it. You've obviously kidnapped when you were visiting Philly, and dropped off in The Badlands. Also you act as if all ghettos are BLACK. Stop saying "Poor black ghetto neighborhoods". What about the Hispanic and white ones? You obviously have a mental block or just need to keep your stupid ass in perfect San Francisco where the rest of the perfects in this country are.
I would say that more then 30 percent of it is ghetto haha. But i def agree. Not all of it is ghetto. Fairmount, Franklintown, Poplar, Spring Garden and Northern Liberties are very nice. There are some very nice places in North Philadelphia. It just gets a bad rep because it has some of the worst areas in the city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2012, 08:19 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
6,538 posts, read 5,013,835 times
Reputation: 2449
Parasight... just stop talking. I have yet to see one post from you that has any basis anywhere close to fact. First... Chicago has more ghettos than Philly that are worse off and are much larger and more plentiful. Philly has four ghetto areas. A area of North Philly is the largest of them.

Here is map if you don't believe me. The red are the "slums."
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?oe=UT...,0.181103&z=13

If Philly is the "king" of ghettos than what is Camden? What is Detroit? What is New Orleans? What is East St. Louis? What is Compton? What is Flint? What is Chicago?

Every city in the entire world deals with problems. Mostly every city deals with poor urban violence. Urban violence is a problem but man you really have no idea what you are talking about. Sure people deal with violence living in Philly but a lot do not. 80% of crime in Philly involves poor struggling blacks. That leaves only 20% that involves other races. There are people in many parts of the city that never come in contact with crime. To most people in CC, the violence in North Philadelphia is in a different world. These are human beings who are struggling to survive so they turn to violence and drugs as a mean to make money so they can feed themselves and their families... most people do not have another choice. And these are people living in America? The home of the free? And then there are people like you sitting in your white suburban house calling them animals. You have never contributed a ****ing thing to society. So seriously just stop talking. Everyday there are community groups trying everything they can to stop the violence and help these young people who have no where to go. No education. No family. No money. City Council does things too... just wish they would do more. Starting in the summer there will be 400 Philly Police officers on foot in bad areas of the city.

Last edited by RightonWalnut; 03-11-2012 at 08:33 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2012, 08:21 PM
 
Location: where u wish u lived
897 posts, read 359,516 times
Reputation: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by killakoolaide View Post
The common perception of Philly seems to be that it is a nice city surrounded by a ring of massive slums surrounded by a suburban wasteland with some of the nations worst cities sprinkled in for good measure. How does a place that is so ghetto have arguably the most stable economy in the nation.
Maybe because it's a blue collar city idk, but I do feel that Philly gets a bad wrap for its ghettos, LA also gets that eventhough it is one of the safest big cities in the nation, people on this board act like ghetto areas are a cancer, to certain extent they are but they have also produced some of the most talented people, to me the ghettos are the "real" part of the city, a place where you don't see granpa wilson taking pics with his grandkids in front of the graumans chinese theatre or in Philly's case the liberty bell, all large cities in the world have large ghetto areas in and around the city, doesn't mean a city without ghettos is not a real city but you can't name one mega city in the world without a large ghetto.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2012, 11:08 PM
 
Location: NYC
1,805 posts, read 1,168,608 times
Reputation: 1004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino View Post

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:

GAWC World Cities - The World's Most Important Cities

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.
You make some good points. Indeed GAWC does rank Philly as an Alpha-. And it should. On the other hand, the more comprehensive Foreign Policy survey does not rate Philly at all, which is bizarre. (Boston is rated top 20 in the world.)

I think its fair to say though that Boston excels more consistently across the board and, although I would certainly put them in the same league, I think the argument for Boston being the more important city is more compelling than vice versa. I also feel like Boston has a much stronger and more successful brand, both nationally and internationally. When people think of Boston they think of beautiful architecture, amazing educational institutions and great culture. When people think of Philly, sad to say, they think as much about urban blight and crime as they do about its amazing history and architecture. That by itself does not necessarily mean that Boston is a more important city but perception does reflect reality to a certain extent. Though I would suggest that Philly could also do a much better job promoting itself. I still remember first time I went to Philly I was totally blown away by the beautiful historic architecture. I knew about Boston's from very young age. But I only found out about Philly's when I actually visited.

One more point. You are justifiably proud of the great strides that Philly is making in arts, tourism and elsewhere. But that is typical. You see people from all over the country constantly hailing all the great things happening in their cities. All great cities work hard to maintain their competitiveness and make things better, so while you should be proud of the progress taking place in Philly you should not be assuming that other cities are standing still.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2012, 11:11 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
6,538 posts, read 5,013,835 times
Reputation: 2449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzrovian View Post
You make some good points. Indeed GAWC does rank Philly as an Alpha-. And it should. On the other hand, the more comprehensive Foreign Policy survey does not rate Philly at all, which is bizarre. (Boston is rated top 20 in the world.)

I think its fair to say though that Boston excels more consistently across the board and, although I would certainly put them in the same league, I think the argument for Boston being the more important city is more compelling than vice versa. I also feel like Boston has a much stronger and more successful brand, both nationally and internationally. When people think of Boston they think of beautiful architecture, amazing educational institutions and great culture. When people think of Philly, sad to say, they think as much about urban blight and crime as they do about its amazing history and architecture. That by itself does not necessarily mean that Boston is a more important city but perception does reflect reality to a certain extent. Though I would suggest that Philly could also do a much better job promoting itself. I still remember first time I went to Philly I was totally blown away by the beautiful historic architecture. I knew about Boston's from very young age. But I only found out about Philly's when I actually visited.

One more point. You are justifiably proud of the great strides that Philly is making in arts, tourism and elsewhere. But that is typical. You see people from all over the country constantly hailing all the great things happening in their cities. All great cities work hard to maintain their competitiveness and make things better, so while you should be proud of the progress taking place in Philly you should not be assuming that other cities are standing still.

This is a well thought out and reasonable argument that I can agree with. I agree 100%. I'm glad Philly is making the great strides it is taking to get better every year. In all fairness Boston didn't go through the horrible things that Philly did. I hope one day people won't think of Urban blight when they think of Philly. But I agree with the way you put it. Well said.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2012, 02:28 AM
 
1,991 posts, read 1,313,646 times
Reputation: 1482
I'ma get real here.

I've been to SF a few times in the last 2 years. I love it. I just got back from Boston yesterday. I like it there a lot too. What I find really appealing about SF is the weather and the scenery what I dislike is how expensive it is, the homeless/drifter culture, and how quickly one gets out of the urban core and into places where you absolutely need a car. What I find appealing about Boston is the architecture, how stately it seems, how clean and relatively quiet it is, and how much I feel at home (because the scale is so much like Philly). What I dislike about it is how expensive it is, the weather and the scenery, and the new england culture. There are pros and cons to any of these 3 places and the right job could easily (and happily) land me in any one of them.

Now, all that said, it kinda irks me that the data touted in the first couple posts of this thread is about a CSA that is enormous when compared to the other 2. It's 130 miles from Gilroy to Santa Rosa. That's like if I drove from Newark, DE to Lower Manhattan and more importantly - i do go to those places - frequently. I go to places like New Brunswick and Atlantic City for sh*ts & giggles, I go to Baltimore and NYC on a regular basis and on a whim. When my Indian friends got married (in Philly) they had the reception catered by a company from Edison (Edison has one of the largest Indian communities in the US). People from Bucks Co. work in Central Jersey and vice versa. The Lehigh Valley has it's own identity in no different a way than San Jose is different from SF. Amtrak, the Chinatown buses, the regional rail and highways are full of people, day & night, going back and forth between NYC, Philly, Baltimore and DC. Amtrak does a brisk business in monthly passes to people making those commutes.

Census can draw the boundaries wherever they want. What i'm saying is that the city I live in and the suburbs and hinterlands I move around in (and actually know my way around in) are more like a city of 10 or 11 million souls and if we're talking "hey, i'm flying out of DCA/BWI/PHL/EWR/JFK can you give me a ride?" or "let's go to the beach/let's go skiing/let's go catch a Phillies away game in DC or at Citifield" or do something else within a 2 hour drive this weekend then we're talking more like 25 or 30 million people.

Let's compare apples to apples.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2012, 05:58 AM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
25,352 posts, read 33,197,163 times
Reputation: 10743
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post

Now, all that said, it kinda irks me that the data touted in the first couple posts of this thread is about a CSA that is enormous when compared to the other 2.
This is because of rules created by people in Washington DC and not out of some secret scheme to make the Bay Area bigger than it is.

Oh and from top to bottom, the Bay Area CSA its actually 220 miles from Cloverdale to Bitterwater.
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/6752/cloverdalebitterwater2.jpg (broken link)

Quote:
Census can draw the boundaries wherever they want. What i'm saying is that the city I live in and the suburbs and hinterlands I move around in (and actually know my way around in) are more like a city of 10 or 11 million souls
Actually I think San Francisco and Boston have a much easier time justifying that claim.

Boston because it is the de facto capital of New England and San Francisco because it is the de facto 'CITY' for hundreds of miles in all directions. Isolation has actually benefitted SF in this regard immensely. Northern California, Northern Nevada and sometimes even Southern Oregon are considered part of San Francisco's area of influence depending on which agency or organization is doing the research. For example, Rand McNally's Major Trading Area ranking(Where SF is 3rd with around 16 million people now) says SF extends all the way from the Pacific Ocean to the NV/UT border which is insanely huge.

But even if we just keep it strictly instate, Northern California is home to about 15 Million people and would have the nation's 4th largest economy behind TX, NY and SoCal--and the entire region is dominated by the Bay Area, specifically SF.

Philadelphia benefits from being sandwiched between NY and DC in that it is near many places, but it also suffers in that its area of influence as perceived by the rest of the country is greatly diminished---which is not a good or bad thing. It just is what it is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $89,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top