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.
The thing with Boston is that it's a very polished city. It's a very storied but modern place, storied in the sense that it's history is preserved and modern in the sense that when you look at it's roads, train stations, and buildings-- they're just so well kept. Also love how the hills right north of the city come crashing down on the coast. I think Boston has several enviable factors to it, the low crime rate (at metropolitan level at that), the progressive nature of the city, the ambition and innovation, quality of service, the performing arts, and the power hitter that is New England culture.
Boston's one of my top 5 US cities to live in, which as everyone's probably seen before I have quite a long list up to 16 but truth be told it's one of the FAR and few on my short list and one of which I wouldn't ever consider a step down moving from Washington DC. The other 4 being New York, Chicago, Miami, and San Francisco.
Yeah Philadelphia receives more domestic tourists than Boston but Boston receives more foreign tourists. However when you add it all up, overall Philadelphia receives more tourists than Boston yearly. On topic San Francisco is most similar to Boston out of the 3 cities
It was me who said that Boston was more of a tourist destination than Philly. I based that on the Wikipedia entries for both cities. The Boston and San Francisco entries both mentioned tourism as a major industry while the Philadelphia site didn't. I apologize for misstating the facts.
It was me who said that Boston was more of a tourist destination than Philly. I based that on the Wikipedia entries for both cities. The Boston and San Francisco entries both mentioned tourism as a major industry while the Philadelphia site didn't. I apologize for misstating the facts.
No problem. Here is a more accurate list of 10 most visited cities from 2011:
1. Orlando- 48 million
2. New York City- 47 million
3. Chicago- 45.5 million
4. Anaheim/ Orange County, California- 42.7 million
5. Miami- 38.1 million
6. Las Vegas- 36.5 million
7. Atlanta- 35.4 million
8. Houston- 31 million
9. Philadelphia- 30.3 million
10. San Diego- 29.6 million
Here is a more accurate list of 10 most visited cities from 2011:
1. Orlando- 48 million
2. New York City- 47 million
3. Chicago- 45.5 million
4. Anaheim/ Orange County, California- 42.7 million
5. Miami- 38.1 million
6. Las Vegas- 36.5 million
7. Atlanta- 35.4 million
8. Houston- 31 million
9. Philadelphia- 30.3 million
10. San Diego- 29.6 million
And the same can be said about Boston. The Kendall Square/East Cambridge area, right across Charles River, has a ton of office space that's not factored in the Cushman survey.
Yep, according to Grubb-Ellis, there's another 20 million sq feet of space right across the river in Cambridge.
Boston, Philadelphia and New York grew up together and share similar histories. IMO San Francisco is the outlier out of these 4 cities from an architectural and cityscape perspective. This may offend people but the architecure in SF really does leave a lot to be desired. SF is also the outlier in regards to natural scenery, as it may be the most picturesque city in the country.
It only makes sense, being thousands of Miles away and all and growing into it's own at a completely different point in history.
Population 1850 NYC 696,115 Boston 136,000 Phila 121,000 SF 25,000
Population 1860 NYC 1,174,779 Phila 565,529 Boston 177,840 SF 56,802
Population 1900 NYC 3,437,000 Phila 1,293,000 Boston 560,000 SF 342,000
Why do people keep talking about population and architecture? Apparently there are like 3 people who actually read the OP's post.
The OP's post is very vague and only mentions literature, media and politics as barometers. He also quoted a post that doesn't make exact sense. Although it is true that SF, Boston and Philly are infinitely more closely related on an economic level than they are to NYC.
SF, Boston and Philadelphia all take noticeable backseats to other cities on these media exposure measures, especially NYC and LA and even Miami and DC (politics) so it is a very subjective and somewhat uninteresting discussion.
If I could try to discern what he is getting at, it would be that SF and Boston (and of course NYC) have a more positive reputation throughout the country than does Philly. But this is all very subjective. I see Boston and Philly paired up MUCH more often than SF and Boston. I don't know if I've ever seen Boston and SF paired up, except when talking about Boston's tech sector. People on the East Coast really don't think a whole lot about SF, which makes sense given it's location.
Last edited by 2e1m5a; 01-24-2013 at 09:34 AM..
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.
