Baltimore, DC, New York and Boston seem to rule the I-95 corridor... Does anyone care about Philadelphia anymore? (school, live in)

[miamiman]

Originally Posted by rainrock

I'm not saying Philadelphia is more important than Washington Dc but what I am saying is that Philadlephia blows the headlights off of Washington DC in just about every aspect of city living.

But I'm saying that's not true. DC is a much smaller and compact city than Philadelphia, but still manages to maintain a level of urbanity higher than that of Philadelphia. DC has a much more efficient Metro system that Philadelphia's SEPTA, DC attracts more tourists, DC has much less urban decay, DC with its smaller skyline actually has more office square footage in its downtown compared to Philadelphia, DC has numerous universities within its city boundaries just like Philadelphia, etc.

Originally Posted by rainrock

Philadlephia is the real deal, its growth evolved from capitalism,ingenuity,heavy risks,research + development and hard work. Washington Dc's growth in large part is due to the hard work of the rest of the country. It collects and sits on every penny of federal income tax earned in this country, which gets swaggeringly doled out to nearby defense, homeland security and government agencies.

DC's growth evolved from all of the reasons Philadelphia evolved. DC is more than government offices. There is a very vibrant, urban area outside of the government complexes and the museums. I don't see how DC is any less of city than Philadelphia because of its role on the center of government.

Originally Posted by rainrock

Washington DC has become the wealthiest metro in the country and they'll be sure to let you know that. What they wont tell you is that wealth originates from the hard work of the rest of country.

DC's metro area is wealthy independent of the rest of the country. Jobs in DC are some of the highest paying in the United States. People in the DC area tend to be very well educated, so that translates into a glut of well-paying, white-collar jobs. There are many jobs in DC and its suburbs that are not tied to the government at all. DC is a hub of media and numerous tech companies.

[miamiman]

Originally Posted by Duderino

As someone who has experience in both cities, I'll say that Philadelphia and Washington are two completely different places for which it is hard to draw a comparison. I'll certainly agree that DC is vitally important for being U.S capital -- and thus of the "free world." However, don't mistake DC for being a tride and true urban city with authentic grit and big city culture. The "big city" culture in DC, with all due respect, comes off as manufactured.

This is not to say that DC does not have stellar amenities in terms of top urban qualities (i.e., top universities, world-class public transporation, internationally-renown musuems). Yet, it is not a city that is even nearly as steeped in our nation's cultural development and history as Philadelphia, particuarly due to the fact that is was not the nation's first capital and developed much later than its counterparts farther north and east. Not to mention its amazining how nice a city can become when you are funded with countless federal dollars.

My point is, yes, you can certainly say that Washington is much more important than Philadelphia in a present day assessment -- but to exclude a historical overview of DC juxtaposed against Philadelphia vis-a-vis historical development would horribly discredit Philadelphia's importance, not to mention our nation's history.

I understand what you're saying. In a historical context its undeniable that Philadelphia has played a huge role in being the urban model for countless U.S. cities. However, from a modern day viewpoint, DC gives a much greater urban experience than Philadelphia. Grit and dirt do not make a city more urban than another.

DC is a perfect example of how a city can be relatively clean, with very efficient public transportation, and a low-rise skyline and still qualify as being extremely urban. As mentioned, DC does serve a much more vital role than Philadelphia does. I would beg to differ that much of DC's urbanity comes off as "manufactured." Living in Phoenix, I know what manufactured urbanity looks like and DC is far from that.

It's hard for me to believe that the unique urban experience in Georgetown, on U Street, in Adams Morgan, in Southeast DC, in downtown DC, and around Howard University are somehow manufactured or fake. Georgetown dates back more than 250 years and it still remains a vibrant neighborhood to this date. U Street and Southeast were two of the many centers of African-American settlement in DC. U Street, especially, became a very vibrant neighborhood from the 1920s through the remainder of the 20th Century. Adams Morgan has gone through large cultural transformations throughout the past 100 years, and is now a center of nightlife in DC. There are many other districts throughout DC that offer unique experiences, and its impossible for me to believe that they are in any way "manufactured."

[*Sweetkisses*]

^ You must be from DC originally. Besides the large concentration of Ethiopians ( my roots) and the transportation ( it is better than SEPTA), I wasn't impressed. There was nothing about DC that made me feel like I was in a bigger, more urban city than philadelphia. Its interesting to see how peoples opinions differ and I respect your view but I just didn't see it.

[beastieboy]

philly rules a**wh**e

[Torresdale]

^ Did you just add a "w" to the word "a**hole"?

[CHIP72]

I think many of the private sector jobs in the DC area are still strongly tied to government, either directly (consultants/contractors) or indirectly (media due to Washington being the U.S. capital and site of many political decisions). Also, Washington has a lot less urban decay than Philadelphia (and most other older U.S. cities) because it was never a significant manufacturing center. Having said that, one only needs to see many of the neighborhoods east of the Anacostia River (excluding Hillcrest and possibly a couple others), or Trinidad, or Brentwood, or Shaw just south of Howard University to see some serious urban decay.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Torresdale

^ Did you just add a "w" to the word "a**hole"?

You don't wanna know.

[United_Caps_Skins_Fan]

Originally Posted by rainrock

You are confused.


Not to be a jackass and Washington certainly has its strong points but Philadelphia puts a significant whooping on Washington as a city. Philadelphia has 2 peers- NYC and Chicago in regards to the context of what constitutes a city. Washington is back in the pack choking on the fumes.

LMAO!!!!! HAHAHAHA! Im sorry, but thats one of the funniest and most ridiculous things I have seen. LOL! LOL! Im not even going to justify this with a real reasponse because its just so ridiculous its actually very funny. LOL! The only thing I WILL say is this. Philly is 1 million in the city. D.C. is 600K. Philly's metro is 5.8. DC's metro is 5.3. Uhhh.. thats some ass whoopin there buddy....

Originally Posted by Duderino

As someone who has experience in both cities, I'll say that Philadelphia and Washington are two completely different places for which it is hard to draw a comparison. I'll certainly agree that DC is vitally important for being U.S capital -- and thus of the "free world." However, don't mistake DC for being a tride and true urban city with authentic grit and big city culture. The "big city" culture in DC, with all due respect, comes off as manufactured.

This is not to say that DC does not have stellar amenities in terms of top urban qualities (i.e., top universities, world-class public transporation, internationally-renown musuems). Yet, it is not a city that is even nearly as steeped in our nation's cultural development and history as Philadelphia, particuarly due to the fact that is was not the nation's first capital and developed much later than its counterparts farther north and east. Not to mention its amazining how nice a city can become when you are funded with countless federal dollars.

My point is, yes, you can certainly say that Washington is much more important than Philadelphia in a present day assessment -- but to exclude a historical overview of DC juxtaposed against Philadelphia vis-a-vis historical development would horribly discredit Philadelphia's importance, not to mention our nation's history.

Im sorry, but Philly is not that much more historically relevant than Washington. So much mis information in your post. D.C. Is NOT federally funded. That is a total CROCK. Why do you think the citizens of Washington contunally recite the mantra of taxation without representation???? WOW, you are very very misinformed on Washington D.C.

I have spent ALOT of time in Philly, and of course plenty in Washington, which is my home town, born and raised and lived for almost 38 y ears now. To say that Washington's "big city" culture or urbanness is 'manufactured' is manufactured is preposterous. thats absolutly false and to say something like that just proves even more how little about Washington you know. Washington is every bit as urban, if not more so than many parts of Philadelphia. Period. Thats not to say Philly does not have its sections, just like DC does. It does. You need to spend more time in both places. Furthermore, to say D.C. not nearly as steeped in our nations cultrual development is also, preposterous. Please. Some of the ignorance in this thread is just ASTOUNDING!!!!!!

Oh and furthermore, I did mention Philly's historic relevance in my previous post, and I dont think anyone would ever dispute that.

That said. Philly is only 50 years older than Washington. 1701 Vs 1749 for the founding of Alexandria ( originally part of Washington, D.C.) and 1751 for Georgtown. The rest came about slowly beginning in i believe the 1790s.

Originally Posted by tenken627

Maybe you can write to your Congressman rainrock, and get the height limit in Washington D.C. lifted. And also ask him/her to help D.C. get rid of its teeny problem of taxation without representation while your at it too, please.
Thanks.

WHY on EARTH would we want the heights of buildings increased? So Washington can look like every other city in the country? No thanks, I love our uniqueness just fine thanks. Oh, and while im at it, the heights of the buildings in Washington have no thing to do with monuments or the capitol, it has to do with the size of city blocks, and width of the streets.

Originally Posted by miamiman

I understand what you're saying. In a historical context its undeniable that Philadelphia has played a huge role in being the urban model for countless U.S. cities. However, from a modern day viewpoint, DC gives a much greater urban experience than Philadelphia. Grit and dirt do not make a city more urban than another.

DC is a perfect example of how a city can be relatively clean, with very efficient public transportation, and a low-rise skyline and still qualify as being extremely urban. As mentioned, DC does serve a much more vital role than Philadelphia does. I would beg to differ that much of DC's urbanity comes off as "manufactured." Living in Phoenix, I know what manufactured urbanity looks like and DC is far from that.

It's hard for me to believe that the unique urban experience in Georgetown, on U Street, in Adams Morgan, in Southeast DC, in downtown DC, and around Howard University are somehow manufactured or fake. Georgetown dates back more than 250 years and it still remains a vibrant neighborhood to this date. U Street and Southeast were two of the many centers of African-American settlement in DC. U Street, especially, became a very vibrant neighborhood from the 1920s through the remainder of the 20th Century. Adams Morgan has gone through large cultural transformations throughout the past 100 years, and is now a center of nightlife in DC. There are many other districts throughout DC that offer unique experiences, and its impossible for me to believe that they are in any way "manufactured."

Excellent post. Giving credit where credit is due to Philly, without taking away from Washington, and giving Washington its due.

The only things I would add would be, if you want to see fake, manufactured urbanness, go to Miami or LA. Im sure they are every bit as manufactured as Phoenix or Las Vegas.

A few other places left out of your listing of vibrant urban neighborhoods in the district, Capitol Hill, Dupont Circle, Columbia Heights, Shaw, Woodley Park, Cleveland Park, Van Ness, Chinatown, and now the newer area around Nationals Park in South East just beyond the Capitol, which has been completely revitalised and will become a thriving and vibrant urban center, just has the once barren and desolate chinatown has in the last 15 years.


Again, Excellent post, which is largely spot on.

[CHIP72]

I work down in the Nationals Park area. That area will NOT become a vibrant neighborhood anytime in the near future IMO. Unlike the area north of The Mall, none of the areas south of I-295/I-395 and north of the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers have been vibrant in recent decades, at least on a relatively large scale. The freeway really has created a "right side/wrong side of the tracks" situation.

I can see what some of the other people are saying about Washington having a "manufactured big city culture". I don't think that's true in many of DC's neighborhoods; a place like Cleveland Park, to use one example, seems genuinely real to me. However, I do think the massive influx of non-natives (which has a different demographic than the multi-generational natives of the area) and the desire of many DC transplants to make the city into a New York wannabe (IMO) has given some DC neighborhoods a somewhat non-genuine feel. Mind you, this non-genuine feel still is miles better IMO than the totally generic, suburban feel that many newer, western cities, like a Las Vegas or Phoenix, have.

Incidentally, Philadelphia was founded by William Penn in 1682. That city observed its tricentennial in 1982.

[United_Caps_Skins_Fan]

Originally Posted by CHIP72

I work down in the Nationals Park area. That area will NOT become a vibrant neighborhood anytime in the near future IMO. Unlike the area north of The Mall, none of the areas south of I-295/I-395 and north of the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers have been vibrant in recent decades, at least on a relatively large scale. The freeway really has created a "right side/wrong side of the tracks" situation.

I can see what some of the other people are saying about Washington having a "manufactured big city culture". I don't think that's true in many of DC's neighborhoods; a place like Cleveland Park, to use one example, seems genuinely real to me. However, I do think the massive influx of non-natives (which has a different demographic than the multi-generational natives of the area) and the desire of many DC transplants to make the city into a New York wannabe (IMO) has given some DC neighborhoods a somewhat non-genuine feel. Mind you, this non-genuine feel still is miles better IMO than the totally generic, suburban feel that many newer, western cities, like a Las Vegas or Phoenix, have.

Incidentally, Philadelphia was founded by William Penn in 1682. That city observed its tricentennial in 1982.

Re Nationals park area: It WILL become a thriving and vibrant area. One need to look no further than Chinatown just to the north, which, in 1996, when Verizon Center first opened, was a desolate wasteland with few residents, even fewer businesses, and many empty, undeveloped lots, and abaondoned buildings. Here were are 13 years later, and Chinatown is a destination spot down town, completely revitalised, and thriving. This too will happen in the area surrounding Nationals park. However, no one ever said it will happen over night. It wont. Get back to me 5 years from now and tell me it wont, then again in 10 years, and tell me or anyone else it wont. It will.

If there is any area of Washington D.C. that has a slight manufactured feel, its Chinatown, because as I just pointed out 13 short years ago, it wasnt there, it was dead. I dont buy the rest of your notion that any of the other places are manufactured. They just arent.


RE Philly's founding: The land charter that was to become Pennsylvania, was granted in 1682. The charter that established Philadelphia as a city was issued by Penn, in 1701...

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In 1644, New Sweden supported the Susquehannocks in their victory in a war against the English province of Maryland. A series of events led the Dutch — led by governor Peter Stuyvesant — to move an army to the Delaware River in the late summer of 1655. Though New Netherland now nominally controlled the colony, the Swedish and Finnish settlers continued to enjoy a degree of local autonomy, having their own militia, religion, court, and lands. This status lasted officially until the English conquest of the New Netherland colony, in October 1663-1664, and continued unofficially until the area was included in William Penn's charter for Pennsylvania, in 1682.
In 1681, as part of a repayment of a debt, Charles II of England granted William Penn a charter for what would become the Pennsylvania colony. Part of Penn's plan for the colony was to create a city on the Delaware River to serve as a port and place for government. Despite already having been given the land by Charles II, Penn bought the land from the local Lenape to be on good terms with the Native Americans and ensure peace for his colony.[4] According to legend Penn made a treaty of friendship with Lenape chief Tammany under an elm tree at Shackamaxon, in what is now the city's Kensington section.[5] As a Quaker, Penn had experienced religious persecution and wanted his colony to be a place where anyone could worship freely despite their religion. Penn named the city Philadelphia, which is Greek for brotherly love (philos, "love" or "friendship", and adelphos, "brother").[6]

William Penn's plan was that Philadelphia would be like an English rural town instead of a city. The city's roads were designed with a grid plan with the idea that houses and businesses would be spread far apart and surrounded by gardens and orchards. The city's inhabitants didn't follow Penn's plans and crowded by the Delaware River and subdivided and resold their lots.[7] Before Penn left Philadelphia for the last time, he issued the Charter of 1701 establishing Philadelphia as a city

Just sayin...