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.
Same could be said about Pittsburgh but I'd rather have the lets all make some money free for all of 1950 than today's Phd's only Pittsburgh. The city looks much better now but QOL was way higher then.
Does the city look better now with tons of abandoned homes and vacant lots? Serious question, is that preferably over the crowded older CLE or PIT?
Quality of life was way higher when you couldn't walk outside in a white shirt without it turning brown from pollution?
OK, probably a slight exaggeration, but this was the era during where smokestack smoke was blackening redbrick buildings, including schools, and when Cleveland polluting the Cuyahoga River to the extent where the first of those embarrassing, oil-slick fires on the river started occurring ... the most noteworthy being that in 1969, which sent national comedians abuzz... Fortunately this led to beginning the massive EPA-led cleanup to the extent jet skiers, kayakers, college rowers others navigate the Cuyahoga and Lake Erie routinely and without incident from foul waters.
Considering the competition, Boston's rise in prominence is nothing short of remarkable, despite the lackluster skyline.
Skyline is very impressive you need to see the full skyline, because it’s basically two. Also driving into Bsoton form the north or sort the skyline is nothin short of spectacular.
Considering the competition, Boston's rise in prominence is nothing short of remarkable, despite the lackluster skyline.
No doubt. Just look at all this blight in Boston in 1982!!- 1000% unrecognizable now. Small parts of the city still had remnants this look until about 2001, imo.
Skyline is very impressive you need to see the full skyline, because it’s basically two. Also driving into Bsoton form the north or sort the skyline is nothin short of spectacular.
It is lacking considering the size of the metro. It looks like a taller Pittsburgh with less hills and less architecture, but to each his/her own. And yes I am aware of density, row homes, infill etc. I am referring to the skyline only.
No doubt. Just look at all this blight in Boston in 1982!!- 1000% unrecognizable now. Small parts of the city still had remnants this look until about 2001, imo.
As hard as it is for some people to believe today, for most of history Philadelphia was more prominent than Boston. By the 60s/70s they were mostly thought of in the same regard. But Boston began to gentrify 20-25 years before Philadelphia ever really did, and eventually surpassed Philly in terms of a place of business and commerce.
Frankly, Philadelphia of 1950 doesn't exist much today. Both sides of my family, like a lot of people, left the inner city to seek a life with more land and more space. NYC had subways, but Philadelphia had one of the largest streetcar system in the world. Estimates show over 50% of the money spent by the federal government went to industry in Philadelphia to support the war effort. This created an enormous demand for physical labor in the city and made the city a world industrial power house. When the war ended, as Bob Dylan would say, the times they are a changin'.
Considering the competition, Boston's rise in prominence is nothing short of remarkable, despite the lackluster skyline.
No, not remarkable considering all of those colleges & university, plus the relatively tiny black population that precluded the massive white flight that devastated other northeast and midwest cities.
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.