Parallel city rivalries (cost, state, better, largest)

[jpdivola]

Any one ever notice all the similarities in the Bos. vs Philly debates and the SF. vs. Chi debates.
You can interchange Boston and SF and Philly and Chicago and most of the main points remain the same.

Curious if there are other rivalries like this?


Boston is denser on average than Philly andhas greater peak densities.
However, Chicago is a much larger city than SF and sustainsurban densities across a much greater area.
Philly has more of the big, urban city feel. While Boston gives off a dense, polishedurban feel.
Chicago has a very vibrant growing downtown, but also hasmore issues with crime and abandonment in its outer neighborhoods than SF.
Boston is far more expensive and has a hard timebuilding housing than Philly. The city is lookinginto microunits and other measures to house more young, high tech workers.
SF has historically been dominated by NIMBYplanning process and an opposition to tall buildings.
Boston has a VC-driven high tech, economy, while Phillyhas a solid diversified, but less glamorous economy.
SF is more yuppie and has more of the costal elitistfeel. Chicagohas some reallyupscale areas, but is generally more of a blue collar town.
Boston has a greater share of immigrants,particularly Asians. While Phillyhas historically been a major center of African-American culture.
Chi is known for its machine driven big city democratic politics, while SF is known as more socially liberal/environmentalism.
Boston is considered to be in the more scenic/romanticized region.
SF is a liberal city in a liberal state, while Chicago is in a more “purple/light blue state” which makes the city slower to getthings like gay marriage.
Boston is much smaller compact city, however, it has adjoining urban cities.
SF is a bigger international tourist destination than Chicago.
Philly has a much more impressive skyline.
But, SF has a more of a tightly packed, mid rise European feel.
Boston has lots of wood framed housing just outside the downtown core.

[RadicalAtheist]

What?

[jpdivola]

The basic point is that when people compare Boston to Philly they use many of the same arguments as when they compare SF to Chicago.

Boston is denser on average than Philly and has greater peak densities. However, Philly is a much larger city than Bos and sustains urban densities across a much greater area.

could just as easily be:

SF is denser on average than Chicago and has greater peak densities. However, Chicago is a much larger city than SF and sustains urban densities across a much greater area.


SF is a bigger international tourist destination than Chicago.

could just as easily be:

Bos is a bigger international tourist destination than Philly.

Philly has a much more impressive skyline.
But, Bos has a more of a tightly packed, mid rise European feel.

could just as easily be:

Chicago has a much more impressive skyline.
But, SF has a more of a tightly packed, mid rise European feel.


and so on..

Just curious if there are any other popular rivalries on here where people use a lot of interchangeable reasons.

[kidphilly]

maybe boston and sf are the better comparison and the two others as well

people will always compare, just will always be on cvc

[cpomp]

Really every topic you mentioned between Boston/Philly and SF/Chicago is easily debatable, and I would not give it to either side.

And personally I think Philadelphia is more comparable to Chicago than Boston, aside from the historical aspect.

[Woodchucker]

I would agree that these particular statements generally make sense even if you replace Chicago/Philadelphia or San Francisco/Boston.

Except for "Chi is known for its machine driven big city democratic politics, while SF is known as more socially liberal/environmentalism. "

Boston may be known for liberal politics but it could just as easily be Chicago in that statement. Boston politics is very much machine-driven big city democratic politics.

Do you think these statements are still true if you only change one city? Could Philly and SF be compared with these statements, or Chicago and Boston?

[jpdivola]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

maybe boston and sf are the better comparison and the two others as well

people will always compare, just will always be on cvc

Yeah, that is what I'm trying to point out. Boston and SF are both geographically small, liberal, costal, pricy, yuppie, tech oriented cities. Philly and Chicago are more traditional "big cities" with lots of urban amenities and more of a blue collar reputation.

It seems people often compare Boston and Philly since they are NE rivals and people use the points above.

SF and Chicago also seem to be compared a lot since Chi is the 2nd largest "traditional urban city" and SF is the 2nd most densely population major city. It's basically the same points made above.

Weather is one area where the analogy doesn't hold. SF and Philly have the better winters.

[jpdivola]

Originally Posted by Woodchucker

Except for "Chi is known for its machine driven big city democratic politics, while SF is known as more socially liberal/environmentalism. "

Boston may be known for liberal politics but it could just as easily be Chicago in that statement. Boston politics is very much machine-driven big city democratic politics.

Do you think these statements are still true if you only change one city? Could Philly and SF be compared with these statements, or Chicago and Boston?

Yeah, Boston proper isn't as liberal as SF. It is really the more Cambridge side of the river. But, both areas are synonymous with liberalism.

I think a lot of the same points, could be made comparing Bos to Chi or SF to Philly. But, I don't think the analogies work as closely. i.e. Philly is more of a skyscraper city than Bos and Chicago is more so that SF. But, it is a tighter debate between Philly and SF.

[Mutiny77]

I think the "Big Four" in the Southern U.S. qualify (Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Miami).