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.
A booster is someone who makes exaggerated claims about the city that they live in to make it appear that it's something other than what it is. That being said, the two that come immediately to mind are San Francisco and Philadelphia.
Without a poll I cannot take this thread seriously. We need a poll to get solid, concrete information as to which city has the most boosters on C-D. Then we can argue over the results.
I thought about doing one, but I figured that it would make for needless angry discussion. Most of the time when I see a poll, the first couple of responses are "NO WAY! I disagree!" and "why isn't X city included?" So I didn't go there.
In my opinion, NYC and SF seem to have the most dedicated boosters, but maybe I think this because these are both places that I have either traveled extensively or lived, and I take a very measured view of the pros and cons (and I pay attention to those discussions from time to time.) Atlanta, to me, seems to have quite a few dedicated boosters as well, so its interesting to note that several think it has more "defenders."
There are 2 or 3 annoying, childish, and just plain dumb Philly boosters that embarrass the rest of us. Other than that I don't see rampant boosterism from Philly posters.
I would agree (but maybe there are those who consider me among the 2 or 3) and they IMHO give Philly a bad wrap with lots of ill informed banter. Philly has its pros and cons no doubt
On the whole I think the Bay/SF would win this. Its a great place but its not utopia as to me many posts come off. Also NYC, LA (more recently), Philly (though like Atlanta, Houston, LA or even Chicago it gets pretty beat on at times IMHO), Atlanta and Houston (more prior), Seattle, and occasionally DC and Boston.
In my opinion an extremely underrated city in actual life but pretty overrated on this forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago South Sider
A booster is someone who makes exaggerated claims about the city that they live in to make it appear that it's something other than what it is. That being said, the two that come immediately to mind are San Francisco and Philadelphia.
Seems like an odd choice, right? Prove me wrong then, find ONE Seattle poster whose posts date as far back as May 2012 that ever acknowledges a single deficiency in their city. (from the city vs city board) They don't post as often but when they do it's never less than a rosy picture of their city. I've been to Seattle, on paper it's close to the most perfect city with splendid topography, low crime rate, healthy economy, wealthy area, etc. in real life it's a passive aggressive wasteland full of a lot of wimps and socially awkward people. All the hype of it being a "hip 5" is false, the place feels far to corporate to be hip. Their weather is just awful, 70 days of sunshine? Lol forget it.
IMO, if you are a so called "booster", yet are highly analytical and ARMED to the teeth with facts and statistics, you're in the clear. This type of booster has earned his/her respect IMO.
However, if all you have are hurt feelings, insecurities, inferiority complexes, labels and stereotypes. You got issues! There is a difference.
Seems like an odd choice, right? Prove me wrong then, find ONE Seattle poster whose posts date as far back as May 2012 that ever acknowledges a single deficiency in their city. (from the city vs city board) They don't post as often but when they do it's never less than a rosy picture of their city. I've been to Seattle, on paper it's close to the most perfect city with splendid topography, low crime rate, healthy economy, wealthy area, etc. in real life it's a passive aggressive wasteland full of a lot of wimps and socially awkward people. All the hype of it being a "hip 5" is false, the place feels far to corporate to be hip. Their weather is just awful, 70 days of sunshine? Lol forget it.
2. New Orleans
3. SF
4. Philly
While I don't have as strong an opinion about the city as you do, Seattle really is the only city that comes to mind for me. A search through this site's threads will show Seattle boosters comparing the city to virtually every major city in the world--including New York and London. Unless restricting the comparison to very specific criteria (weather, scenery, etc.), most posters limit comparisons to cities which fall within the same level as their home cities in the hierarchy of US cities.
Seems like an odd choice, right? Prove me wrong then, find ONE Seattle poster whose posts date as far back as May 2012 that ever acknowledges a single deficiency in their city. (from the city vs city board) They don't post as often but when they do it's never less than a rosy picture of their city. I've been to Seattle, on paper it's close to the most perfect city with splendid topography, low crime rate, healthy economy, wealthy area, etc. in real life it's a passive aggressive wasteland full of a lot of wimps and socially awkward people. All the hype of it being a "hip 5" is false, the place feels far to corporate to be hip. Their weather is just awful, 70 days of sunshine? Lol forget it.
2. New Orleans
3. SF
4. Philly
Not at all to me! I think that it's less noticable to people in larger cities. Minneapolis, San Diego, Denver, and Portland posters might notice it more because those cities are the ones being compared to Seattle more often.
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.