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.
I work with a lot of boomers so anecdotally, I "shouldn't be" going to places like Chicago or Philadelphia because "crime" and "black people". Perceptions die hard.
Telling them I enjoy these cities is blasphemous.
Just trying to share some additional facts with you so you'll have a more well-rounded perspective outside your own world.
As for telling your coworkers you enjoy cites: either grow a pair or let it slide. Is there anything of importance really at stake?
What I don't understand is how Beacon Hill in Boston is proclaimed to have the "most photographed street" in America or something, but Society Hill in Philadelphia is literally the same exact thing, and also larger.
Here is a good question for actual Philadelphians.
Does it bother you when Boston steals the light sometimes? Because things Boston gets credit for, are things that Philadelphia is also known for. Or do you like flying under the radar? Maybe that's why so many people are pleasantly surprised when they visit. I would definitely say Philly is undermarketed.
Older Bostonians long for the days that it was a self contained, working class city with distinguishable culture within each and every neighborhood. I love Boston, and don't think I ever want to leave. But the things that make it "popular" and more "polarizing" in recent years are the exact things that have killed much of that blue collar, working class, hard nosed feel. It's an integrated melting pot of higher education, tech, and medical. It's not overly confusing to me- When you have the strongest healthcare and the strongest educational systems in the country, people are always around.
That said, it's not marketing that makes Boston... Boston. It's a powerhouse of a network, one that's tied high on many respective food chains. Politically, I'm not sure how we can quantify how much weight the area carries. From the Kennedy's to John Kerry to Mitt Romney, it's always been a major player despite its size. Economically, it's the most powerful economy in the US per capita outside of San Francisco. I mean, someone already said it, but the GDP of Boston is the same as Philadelphia. With a population delta that large, that speaks to 'the happenings' in Boston over the last two decades. Tech happened. Biopharma happened. The gentrification of the surrounding cities happened. Most importantly, foreign investment happened. I'm not sure I can really compare the build up of Boston's Seaport to any other area of any other city in the last few years. It's jaw dropping, and it's a culmination of extreme affluence, foreign investment, tech, bio pharma, and the network within Boston's walls.
Anyways, none of of this is different than Philly, but I do think it's magnified in Boston. Greater Boston shines in areas that carry more and more weight today- medical, education, tech. That, mixed with less of a perception problem, creates the Boston that everyone is referencing. Either way, though, I'm not sure the two cities should be compared at all.
Both great cities. If I was Phila, I'd keep my fingers crossed it continues to fly under the radar a bit. Keep that COL!
Both great cities. If I was Phila, I'd keep my fingers crossed it continues to fly under the radar a bit. Keep that COL!
I'd trade a little COL for better schools and less crime. But there is a nice balance to be had. I'd take something between Philly and Boston. But of course, nothing stays the same.
I'd trade a little COL for better schools and less crime. But there is a nice balance to be had. I'd take something between Philly and Boston. But of course, nothing stays the same.
Not sure about Boston having more than just Beacon Hill in terms of colonial style neighborhoods. I would obviously think not, but I do know Boston is smaller and tore down more of their colonial architecture in the 1800's.
So this is the part that I disagree with. Having spent extensive time in both, Boston has maintained it's neighborhoods and semblance of 18th/19th century architecture better than Philadelphia. Lest we forget, Society Hill was a wasteland until it's restoration in the 20th century. They did a great job of maintaining it's origins, though, so not knocking it.
Either way, these are all Federal/Georgian in architecture. I associate Colonial architecture more in line with a Newburyport, MA. Large, square colonial homes, downtown center with pervasive use of brick, etc. In reality, none of the cities are Colonial in architecture. Splitting hairs, though- I'm not an architectural historian by any means.
The Back Bay/South End/North End/Charlestown were all built in the 18th/19th century, with the exception of the North End, some of which actually dates back to the 17th century. Every single one of these neighborhoods has kept the absolute integrity of their initial build, which continues to be the draw. Sure, North End saw a mass influx of Italian immigrants, and saw a lot of it's commercial development into the 19th century. Even still, there is zero new building in that neighborhood excluding the waterfront.
I think Beacon Hill is great, but it's not the must see neighborhood in Boston. Most would give that title to the Back Bay, despite the national recognition Beacon Hill gets.
By the way, the South End is 300 acres, comprised of Federal/Victorian architecture dating back to the 18th/19th century. It's absolutely beautiful, and is the food mecca of Boston- Check it out next time you're up this way.
I would agree with the first paragraph for sure. Boston has the same blue collar history and identity as Philadelphia, but it's certainly gotten away from that over a long period of time. Philadelphia is even much much less blue collar than it was before, and it's portrayed in movies for both. They're both more white collar now than blue collar, but still have that history or identity of also being working class, which is cool.
I do think what does play a role between the two to reference that book is the Puritan values vs. Quaker values. Boston wants to be the best, and lets everyone know it. The Boston Brahmin are a big part of their history. Philadelphia isn't really about boasting, so even though they're similar areas characteristically, you'll probably hear a bit more from Boston. Bigmouths are marketable.
I do enjoy both cities, and I think they have similar appeal on a similar level or tier. I do lean Philadelphia though because I find Boston a bit too exclusive. Things that matter today are things Boston performs well in, and Philly does as well, even though Philly has another 10+ years to catch up in the gentrification department.
These neighborhoods are some of the best you will find in the entire US and both extremely photogenic. However, Philly's colonial hoods aren't limited to just this area. It's got a massive footprint for colonial areas like this all over the city. Not sure about Boston having more than just Beacon Hill in terms of colonial style neighborhoods. I would obviously think not, but I do know Boston is smaller and tore down more of their colonial architecture in the 1800's.
You keep bringing up this marketing point? What is Boston doing to market itself? Is there some kind of marketing campaign? Are we talking about Amazon presentations? Are talking about tourism ads?
You keep bringing up this marketing point? What is Boston doing to market itself? Is there some kind of marketing campaign? Are we talking about Amazon presentations? Are talking about tourism ads?
Yeah this part of his equation is pretty confusing. Somehow Boston is full of loudmouths, and folks from Philadelphia are humble and bashful? Bostonians are proud, sure. Type-A, definitely. Not an overly in your face crowd from my experience here, though, outside of taking an unexpected amount of pride in education. Not only higher education, but the public school systems in MA. That's the one thing you'll hear a lot about from folks around here. But that's not the worst thing to take pride in, is it?
As someone from Chicago, I know what a bunch of mouth-breathers sound like. Now WE are loudmouths about the city.
Boston has New England all to itself. New England and Boston are heavily marketed for their fall foliage, universities (especially drawing tourism in from Asia), beaches, Cape Cod getaways and positive press from sports. I had to actually explain this?
I call this positive notoriety.
I've never seen a wide-scale marketing or outreach program on behalf of Boston or more broadly Massachusetts (one like they have for MI, for example). Seriously, who's marketing on behalf of the city? I think people associate those things with Boston, because, well, they're accurate. Philadelphia doesn't have access to Cape Cod. Or the White Mountains. Or the Harvard/MIT/Prep School combo (Philips, Groton, Buckingham Browne & Nichols, etc). Those are facts, not knocks.
Feel like you're blaming Bostonians for being loudmouths because people have a positive preconceived notion about the city. Again, this is why we'are talking to begin with- Because Phila has a bad perception problem.
Boston's old city hall is still standing on a quiet street right around the corner from the new city hall.
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.
