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.
Maybe you haven't been paying attention to the tourism ads, but a bunch of people down here in this city that is (to adapt what's been said about Mexico) "so far from God and so close to New York" have been laboring heroically to alter those negative perceptions.
We've landed on lists of Best Cities for Shopping (yes, shopping; the Travel + Leisure readers' poll singled out Third Street in Old City), Best Food Cities, and Most Helpful People (believe it or not).
And nobody calls it "Killadelphia" anymore. Even if our murder rate ticked up last year. It's still way below where it was when that moniker was common.
I left Kansas City to attend college in Cambridge, then my ex dragged me to Philadelphia kicking and screaming 34 years ago. The place grew on me, as it does on lots of people who visit it and ultimately decide to live there. And it had changed somewhat from the city I first saw in 1971. While litter was still a problem - you'll still hear on occasion people refer to this place as "Filthydelphia" - it didn't look as grimy in 1983 as it did then, when my first reaction on seeing it was "This city needs a bath desperately."
The swagger you might detect in Philadelphia today is of relatively recent origin. The city I now live in is not the same city I lived in as recently as 10 years ago.
Oh, and: I agree with you that maybe we should continue to hide some of our light under a bushel. Philly's affordability relative to other large coastal metropolises (on both coasts) is perhaps its biggest ace in the hole.
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.
I haven't checked recently but there are probably about 70 million Boomers left. So you are generalizing. Lol. Again who do you think started the urban rival originally?
Something I'll never understand is why people actually pay it. If I'm paying rents that high I'm living somewhere where the amenities match the expense like NYC or SF.
Boston is about 50 square miles, and it's a real estate bubble that is not sustainable, that's why.
Boston is not NYC prices. The delta between Greater Boston and NYC Metro is probably closing, though.
Actually, Boston is cheaper than some of it's sister cities - Cambridge and Brookline. So, it has nothing to do with Boston's size as the prices often increase in the suburbs as a mean. A good portion of industries, like tech, actually primarily live outside of Boston, which is why you see the disgusting sticker prices in inner ring suburbs like Wellesley or Belmont or Lexington or Concord or Winchester. Even some rather ordinary/somewhat unsightly suburbs demand $400-$500 p/sq ft.
If there was an equation to calculate why people pay Greater Boston prices, it would look something like this:
One of the strongest private sectors in North America X high priority on education X expansive public transportation + medical offerings + progressiveness X beautiful downtown X access to New England's dynamic offerings + low crime + some of the nicest suburbs in the US / Cost of living
The pros outweigh the cons, so there is continued high demand (more than ever, unfortunately)
Don't disagree on most levels with the exception of the overall private sector health (not that it's "bad" in Philadelphia). And although Philadelphia has improved on so many levels, I don't ever hear it referenced when talking about beautiful American cities, but certainly parts of Philadelphia should be referenced. It's got a ways to go before it has a seat at that table, IMO.
I'd say Boston is more in line with the Seattles/Austins in the way of recent market activity, growth and job opportunity. Either way, it's the perception part that, to me, distances the two. You said it yourself when you talked through this whole 'Boston marketing' idea. When someone from around the country talks about large metros- NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston, DFW, DC, Miami, ATL, Boston, San Fran, I think Philadelphia blends in with the pack based on perception. It's great, we've all agreed on that, but the perception doesn't match how we feel. Do you think it does? What are the niche differentiation factors in Philadelphia that are talked about by the masses domestically?
Yeah, Boston certainly punches above it's weight economically.
I really like Philadelphia. Main line is about as nice as it gets.
I'm arguing for the sake of arguing, because that's what we tend to do on cD. But to come full circle, I do think there is a disparity in reality vs. perception around Philadelphia.
I really like Philadelphia. Main line is about as nice as it gets.
I'm arguing for the sake of arguing, because that's what we tend to do on cD. But to come full circle, I do think there is a disparity in reality vs. perception around Philadelphia.
I'll stop now.
That's fair. I think few people would argue that there aren't still lingering perceptual issues re: Philly.
The only thing tends to be rather annoying is comments I've seen--from insiders and outsiders alike--that city leaders/officials "aren't doing anything about it." Meanwhile, Philly arguably has one of the more robust and multi-faceting marketing campaigns in the US for business and tourism (e.g., VisitPhilly and the "PHL" branding that's making its rounds).
The key is that folks also need to be willing to have an open mind to giving "comeback cities" the second chance they deserve.
Well characteristically, like I've said before, Philadelphia and Boston offer the same things, but I do appreciate Philadelphia's general vibe or attitude of "this is who we are, take it or leave it". They don't really care how they appear, and they're not in it for looks, it's more about substance. Boston is more about prestige and tidiness, or whatever you wanna call it. It's far more concerned with appearance in ways. They're both as real as it gets attitude wise, but Boston does seem a bit ostentatious at the same time. While I do appreciate places like Beacon Hill or The North End mostly, I am more interested in the meat and potatoes parts like Southie. Working class areas where it's identity came from. The grit.
I do think there is an age factor when it comes to perception, because different generations are brought up differently. I don't think Millennials are as suburb-oriented as Baby Boomers. It really started with Gen X. Depopulation trends come and go.
Also, Main Line is definitely as nice as it gets, anywhere. I think the Northeast has the best "nice" areas in the country, and I've been all over. Most of my family is actually out West (CA, WA, HI).
Boston is not NYC prices. The delta between Greater Boston and NYC Metro is probably closing, though.
Actually, Boston is cheaper than some of it's sister cities - Cambridge and Brookline. So, it has nothing to do with Boston's size as the prices often increase in the suburbs as a mean. A good portion of industries, like tech, actually primarily live outside of Boston, which is why you see the disgusting sticker prices in inner ring suburbs like Wellesley or Belmont or Lexington or Concord or Winchester. Even some rather ordinary/somewhat unsightly suburbs demand $400-$500 p/sq ft.
If there was an equation to calculate why people pay Greater Boston prices, it would look something like this:
One of the strongest private sectors in North America X high priority on education X expansive public transportation + medical offerings + progressiveness X beautiful downtown X access to New England's dynamic offerings + low crime + some of the nicest suburbs in the US / Cost of living
The pros outweigh the cons, so there is continued high demand (more than ever, unfortunately)
The median home prices in Boston metro are actually higher than NYC area by nearly $30,000. Boston itself has very high rents as well-and I agree with another poster that mentioned that it doesn't make sense. At least not to me-but DC is starting to be the same too.
Boston is a physically tiny city (I lol'd when you mentioned there are only triple deckers in neighborhoods "far from the center") which has inflated COL tremendously as gentrification took hold (similar to DC and SF, which also have physically small cities-despite their enormous metros.) Philly (and even NYC to a degree) have many neighborhoods that are significantly less expensive than the gentrified areas-which leaves room for many good bargains as areas develop and gentrify.
Quote:
Originally Posted by l1995
As an outsider, I much prefer Philly to Boston. I'm not sure how Boston has NYC level rents.
I often say the same lol (even if an exaggeration) -and I have a lot of family in Boston and visit at least once a year-it's a great city, but for the cost? No.
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.
I'll stop now.
