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 only mentioned some of Philly's more recent history because the other poster seemed totally unaware or worse, dismissive, of Philly's industrial history and might that lasted for more than 150 years after the colonial times and after the nation's capital had already moved out of Philly. That poster seemed to say that Philly hasn't amounted to anything since colonial times. I thought that was a good teaching opportunity...
Did you miss the point being made, which was about Philly's industrial history? Especially to someone trumpeting something about Atlanta...
Apparently I did miss the point. I'm not from Atlanta but have lived there. Atlanta has the third highest number of Fortune 500 company headquarters, a robust private sector (in respect to the recession), contained some of the fastest growing counties in the 2000s, and has America's busiest single airport. I'm no Atlanta cheerleader but that is something to trumpet about that has happened within living memory of most people on this board.
Quote:
Originally Posted by a75206
Philly is 90 miles upriver and practically inland, I don't expect it to compete with NYC area ports or even with Baltimore. Though it seems to do just fine and is often rated as the largest freshwater port in America. It is one of the busiest ports of importing South American produce, for example. And the port is actively deepening the Delaware shipping channel to handle larger ships. Philly port is also served by 3 Class I railroads and of course it's got connections to the Interstate highway system via I-95. Who cares where a highway originates, as much as how much traffic/cargo it carries.
Please feel free to review this list of the busiest ports in the U.S. Maybe Philadelphia should care. You can add up the volume of Philadelphia and Wilmington and it still doesn't match that of Baltimore. How is Philadelphia's location along the Delaware River emptying Delaware Bay any different from Baltimore's location along the Patapsco River emptying into the Chesapeake Bay or New York City's location along the Hudson River emptying into the Upper New York Bay? The National Road (U.S. 40) thus I-70 originates in Baltimore, cuts through Maryland and links the coal and steel production hinterlands of Pittsburgh.
The I-270/I-70 corridor is a key factor in making Maryland the wealthiest state much like I-95 has previously made New Jersey and Connecticut the wealthiest states. Baltimore once had the largest steel mill in the country at Sparrows Point. Before you say Pittsburgh doesn't make steel anymore, it isn't because the Appalachians are out of coal and iron (Newport News is still the world's highest coal exporting port in volume), it is because U.S. Steel can't get Americans to produce steel for $1 an hour.
Quote:
Originally Posted by a75206
Sounds like you're egging for some comparison with Pittsburgh and have a "junior" complex of your own.
Not sure of your deductive logic here...perhaps you should read the title of the forum before posting in it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by a75206
Again, you seem to have some kind of an inferiority complex. The highlighted portion....is that like saying that you're the big fish in a little pond?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by a75206
When you slam a city, people will call it the way it is.
Instead of sticking to this, you go about diminishing what a bigger city than yours is all about, then say that forums like this turn into people slamming cities...what are you doing here if not slamming Philly?!
I think in your own post you eloquently explained Pittsburgh's prominence. If you feel Pittsburgh is superior in those areas, why would you think I have an inferiority complex? I think I have been pretty impartial about Philly. I'm not going to stroke any nads on the city because your feelings are hurt. I happen to live in an area where the metropolitan influences of Washington D.C., Baltimore, and Pittsburgh all meet. Feel free to look at the link below to see why that is a good thing. I'm cool with where I am. You do you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FamousBlueRaincoat
I don't think that people were smug about some position over Pittsburgh. I think the point was made that Pittsburgh is pretty much irrelevant to Philadelphia because it's really far away.
This might be the most ignorant post I've read outside of those posted on some of the forums from the Deep South.
First, Downtown Philly to Downtown Pittsburgh is 300 miles. The distance between the suburbs of Philly and Pittsburgh are about the same distance between New York and Boston or New York and Washington D.C. You may consider this far but these are all trips that are made quite frequently.
Please read the article in this link (is posted in a Baltimore forum):
Once again, I'm not certain why people feel I am bashing Philadelphia. Philly has done very well for itself over the past decade in terms of personal income growth. Like I said in a previous post, Philly is even seeing an uptick in its population within the city proper for the first time in 50 years.
With that being said, Philadelphia lags behind the three cities of I-70/I-270 fork connecting Baltimore, Washington, and Pittsburgh. But these are the only three metropolitan areas in the country in front of Philadelphia which I think is a fairly noble achievement. However, this is a forum about a rivalry between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and Pittsburgh is second in the country. And the gap between Philly and Pittsburgh is statistically large. Perhaps Pennsylvania should do more to stimulate growth between Philly and Pittsburgh or at least create some type of sustainable development in Delaware County that would spill over into Maryland that would at least anchor it to Baltimore metro.
I repeat, don't be provincial and get your feelings hurt because the Eagles haven't won a Super Bowl. A rivalry can actually be quite healthy for a state (such as the OP's characterization of Houston and Dallas). This causes cities to be more inventive and raise their game rather than rolling over and let development move everywhere else (see: All of the one-trick pony industrial cities of the Midwest without diversified economies).
Quote:
Originally Posted by FamousBlueRaincoat
Yet I would think that most people actually hold Atlanta and Denver in pretty low esteem as opposed to Philadelphia. I've literally never heard anyone say that Atlanta is a nice place - quite the opposite. And while Denver might be near the mountains, and may actually be a nice place, it essentially looks and feels the same as every other of the newer cities in the West and Midwest. And not to bash Denver....but I have never even heard of anything called the Intermontaine West. So I'm going to say it's better to be NYC junior than the leading metropolis of a place whose existence I have not heard of.
Second, you would think that most people would bash Denver and Atlanta. I think the growth of their metropolitan areas since 2000 proves otherwise. Denver has grown over 17% and Atlanta has grown nearly 29%! I don't think Philadelphia has anything to be ashamed of (particularly for a northern city) at 4.9%. But feel the sentiment that Denver and Atlanta are pretty well liked. I've gone to grad school in both Atlanta and Colorado. Great places.
Sorry you don't know what the Intermontaine West is. It is the area between the Great Plains and the Pacific Coastal Ranges encompassing the Rockies and Sierra Nevadas. I would think rather than dismissing something because you are ignorant to it you might take the time to look it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FamousBlueRaincoat
But if anything, this thread has proved who people actually see their rivals as: NYC and Washington DC. And no city is going to actually win a competition with those for a whole host of reasons. It's kind of pointless to even try. Plus, as someone who was born in New York, has been to New York a million times, and lives in (and prefers to live in) Philadelphia....this is a pretty dumb rivalry anyway which doesn't make a lot of sense...and also, it's dumb.
This is ignorant on a few levels. First of all, Philadelphia started out superior to both New York and Washington D.C. The Pennsylvania and Maryland colonies almost fought a war over ownership to Philadelphia (hence the surveying of the Mason-Dixon Line to settle the matter). However, if you are the type of individual Philly has historically attracted it is easy to see why the city fell behind both NYC and DC despite having competitive advantages over both. Your lack of intellectual curiosity is astounding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FamousBlueRaincoat
"...this is a pretty dumb rivalry anyway which doesn't make a lot of sense...and also, it's dumb."
Sorry to quote you again but this is indicative that you have the thought process of a 2nd grader.
This might be the most ignorant post I've read outside of those posted on some of the forums from the Deep South.
First, Downtown Philly to Downtown Pittsburgh is 300 miles. The distance between the suburbs of Philly and Pittsburgh are about the same distance between New York and Boston or New York and Washington D.C. You may consider this far but these are all trips that are made quite frequently.
I sort of consider 300 miles far away, so sorry. It has nothing to do with ignorance. Both times I've been to Pittsburgh, it's been as an overnight trip. And in all the years my family lived in New York City, nobody had every been to Boston or Washington DC, and nobody considered them cities that were necessarily "close" - so apparently we just have a different perception of what close is that you attribute to my ignorance, and that I will from this point forward attribute to your ignorance.
Also, from DC to Boston there are large cities with national significance and high populations. People travel through the region because they have to, and they travel because they want to. As opposed to between Pittsburgh and Philly, there are a couple of things of regional significance - but nothing spectacular, which makes people more likely to go west in the first place, which makes Pittsburgh even further away -being the main place of national significance, rather than one of several with sprawl in between.
Quote:
Second, you would think that most people would bash Denver and Atlanta. I think the growth of their metropolitan areas since 2000 proves otherwise. Denver has grown over 17% and Atlanta has grown nearly 29%! I don't think Philadelphia has anything to be ashamed of (particularly for a northern city) at 4.9%. But feel the sentiment that Denver and Atlanta are pretty well liked. I've gone to grad school in both Atlanta and Colorado. Great places.
Sorry you don't know what the Intermontaine West is. It is the area between the Great Plains and the Pacific Coastal Ranges encompassing the Rockies and Sierra Nevadas. I would think rather than dismissing something because you are ignorant to it you might take the time to look it up.
For one thing, lots of people live in some of the worst places in America. And part of what makes those places so bad is precisely how many people live there (Phoenix, LA,...ATLANTA). I didn't make this up - Atlanta is highly criticized by people who care about urban planning, architecture, transit, environmentalism, and those things. I can honestly say that I have never heard someone actually say good things about Atlanta - but then again, I don't think I've actually met anyone from Atlanta. I would expect many of them to disagree, and I would respect that. The fact is you brought it up as a good place, and I have almost universally heard the opposite from people who have no stake in the argument.
I have no problems with Denver - I'd hardly consider it bashing. I simply had never heard the term you used, and I imagine many people have not heard it. The point was never about what the term means - the definition is fairly obvious from the word itself. The point was that I never even heard the term - and I doubt most people have. I have nothing against Denver, it seems like a nice place, and I'd even like to go there one day. But it being the best city out of some word I've never heard used before has no significance to me. Got it? Simple stuff here.
Quote:
This is ignorant on a few levels. First of all, Philadelphia started out superior to both New York and Washington D.C. The Pennsylvania and Maryland colonies almost fought a war over ownership to Philadelphia (hence the surveying of the Mason-Dixon Line to settle the matter). However, if you are the type of individual Philly has historically attracted it is easy to see why the city fell behind both NYC and DC despite having competitive advantages over both. Your lack of intellectual curiosity is astounding.
Thanks for the history lesson. I guess whenever I don't mention every single thing that ever happened it's because I don't know it? This is stuff we learned in like 4th grade history, and it was just as intellectually arousing from you as it was then!
Quote:
Sorry to quote you again but this is indicative that you have the thought process of a 2nd grader.
Actually, the fact that it never occurred to you that I knew exactly what I was saying is a lot more indicative of your thought process.
I'm not against Philadelphia becoming a better place, or even having better numbers than DC and New York. I just think it's a pretty high standard to hold oneself to - and a city need not be disappointed because it doesn't have an economy as good as the nation's capital or New York City. Believe it or not, a lot of people who live in New York - particularly outside of Manhattan - don't particularly like living there. There are lots of people who want to live in a nice city, but don't want to live in one of the largest cities in the world. I think defining what a good city should be and trying to meet those standards is a better way to go than trying to be New York City. And there are some negative consequences of trying to be like New York City as well - such as the massive skyscraper projects all over the country in order to create "skylines" despite the fact that lower density urban infill and good urbanism in general could have done a lot more for whichever particular city is in discussion.
I like Baltimore just fine, but this is maybe the first time I've heard so much talking up having a connection to it.
Also, Philadelphia is about a hundred miles closer to both Baltimore and DC than Pittsburgh is, so this whole thing seems strange to me.
I don't think that people were smug about some position over Pittsburgh. I think the point was made that Pittsburgh is pretty much irrelevant to Philadelphia because it's really far away.
No, I agree with this. Pittsburgh and Philly residents just don't think much about the other city and being in the same state is not sufficient for them to take a common interest in each other. But there are a couple folks who have taken it a step further.
Apparently I did miss the point. I'm not from Atlanta but have lived there. Atlanta has the third highest number of Fortune 500 company headquarters, a robust private sector (in respect to the recession), contained some of the fastest growing counties in the 2000s, and has America's busiest single airport. I'm no Atlanta cheerleader but that is something to trumpet about that has happened within living memory of most people on this board.
Fortune 500 is based on revenue, not profitability for a company. Walmart may be the biggest or second biggest company in Fortune 500 in any given year but its net profit margins are in very low single digits, and it hasn't created any wealth for anyone other than the few billionaire heirs of the Walton family. Secondly, Fortune 500 only counts companies that are HQ'd in the U.S. and not any foreign companies with major operations in the U.S. that have their U.S. HQ here. Thirdly, Fortune 500 also doesn't count subsidiary HQs and where those jobs may be located.
On all the counts above, Philly metro gets under counted. Philly is home to U.S. HQs of many many major companies, and it is home to many profitable concerns which tend to have many more high-paying jobs. And since so many Philly-based companies have been bought out, many continue to operate in the region, albeit as subsidiary HQ's.
For example, the Fortune 500 count misses the fact that all these companies have their U.S. HQ's in Philly metro:
ACE Ltd (European insurance giant)
Astra Zeneca (British pharma giant)
SAP America (German business software giant)
Subaru (Japanese car company)
Shire Pharmaceuticals (another British pharma giant)
Teva Pharmaceuticals (Israeli pharma giant, biggest generic drug maker in the world)
Siemens Medical Solutions (Medical arm of the German mega-conglomerate)
AugustaWestland (major helicopter and aviation company)
GlaxoSmithKline (yet another British pharma giant)
Philly metro is also home to many major subsidiary HQ's:
Rohm & Haas (specialty chemicals subsidiary of Dow Chemical)
PECO Energy (major regulated utilities subsidiary of Exelon Corp)
Boeing Rotorcraft (the other major helicopter manufacturer HQ'd in Philly)
MBNA (credit card segment of Bank of America)
McNeil Labs (makers of Tylenol, now part of Johnson & Johnson)
Centocor (another major subsidiary of J&J)
QVC ...it's studios and all ops are right here (part of Liberty Media)
Wyeth (pharma giant, just recently bought out by Pfizer)
Merck's major ops are also out of Philly metro.
And that list isn't exhaustive, but hopefully gives you an idea of some major corporate presence in the Philly metro that doesn't make any lists but is a part of a stable of local economic dynamos that keep Philly running despite how some on C-D like to put down the city for not being a "capital" of its region or something amorphous like that.
Quote:
Please feel free to review this list of the busiest ports in the U.S. Maybe Philadelphia should care. You can add up the volume of Philadelphia and Wilmington and it still doesn't match that of Baltimore. How is Philadelphia's location along the Delaware River emptying Delaware Bay any different from Baltimore's location along the Patapsco River emptying into the Chesapeake Bay or New York City's location along the Hudson River emptying into the Upper New York Bay? The National Road (U.S. 40) thus I-70 originates in Baltimore, cuts through Maryland and links the coal and steel production hinterlands of Pittsburgh.
Baltimore is a major coal exporting port, no doubt about it. And there is a connection between Baltimore and Pittsburgh partly because one of the Burgh's coal companies (and one of the biggest in America), CNX Energy, owns and runs port capacity in Baltimore. In its heyday, Philly built canals for easy water transportation of anthracite coal, and later, built railways to haul coal from central and northeastern PA to Philly's ports. Philly's port is simply not a coal port anymore. No big deal. Ports operate in their niches. Philly port's niche is fresh produce, it is servicing the trade route to Puerto Rico, and it is carving out other niches, such as being the import hub for Hyundai/Kia cars. Philly's port also gets crude imports due to a big concentration of refineries in the Northeast America lying right at the feet of Philly.
According to your own list, Boston's port tonnage is even smaller than Philly's, and Boston's port has the benefit of being sea-facing and easy to reach...ships calling on Philly ports have to make an upstream journey of almost 100 miles upriver, where they have to wait for high tide to roll them in. NYC's and Boston's ports don't have such problems. How much closer to the ocean is Baltimore's port?
Quote:
The I-270/I-70 corridor is a key factor in making Maryland the wealthiest state much like I-95 has previously made New Jersey and Connecticut the wealthiest states. Baltimore once had the largest steel mill in the country at Sparrows Point. Before you say Pittsburgh doesn't make steel anymore, it isn't because the Appalachians are out of coal and iron (Newport News is still the world's highest coal exporting port in volume), it is because U.S. Steel can't get Americans to produce steel for $1 an hour.
Key factor in making Maryland wealthy is its smallness (averages get lowered as you average over bigger populations) and its proximity to the major juggernaut in American economy that goes by the name of Uncle Sam.
Quote:
Not sure of your deductive logic here...perhaps you should read the title of the forum before posting in it.
The OP was asking whether there is any rivalry, and didn't start off with making the point that there in fact is a rivalry and why it is. If you notice, most people from Philly have said that they don't consider there to be any rivalry between the two cities and most are cordial about it, and gave many reasons for there to not have been any rivalry. You, OTOH, seem to act like there is a rivalry by the way you put down Philly and/or prop up Pittsburgh...that seems like a one-sided rivalry, frankly.
Quote:
I think in your own post you eloquently explained Pittsburgh's prominence. If you feel Pittsburgh is superior in those areas, why would you think I have an inferiority complex? I think I have been pretty impartial about Philly. I'm not going to stroke any nads on the city because your feelings are hurt. I happen to live in an area where the metropolitan influences of Washington D.C., Baltimore, and Pittsburgh all meet. Feel free to look at the link below to see why that is a good thing. I'm cool with where I am. You do you.
I was being conciliatory. In reality, Philly has basically had no in-state competition in most of the history. Even now, Philly metro's Gross Metro Product forms a major chunk of the entire state's economy. Philly GMP is anywhere around $350 billion, and state's GSP is what, around $600 billion? In so much as Pittsburgh has upped its game in recent years, that's a great thing not only for itself but also for the state. And surely Philly can learn good thing not just from Pittsburgh but from anyplace else...evolving and changing for the better is what keeps an area vital and going.
Quote:
First, Downtown Philly to Downtown Pittsburgh is 300 miles. The distance between the suburbs of Philly and Pittsburgh are about the same distance between New York and Boston or New York and Washington D.C. You may consider this far but these are all trips that are made quite frequently.
There is geographic distance, then there is psychological distance. IMO, Philly folks simply feel socially and psychologically closer to their Bos-Wash Corridor sister cities than to Pittsburgh. Many others upthread have also mentioned that Pittsburgh feels more Midwestern than mid-Atlantic/Northeast U.S. And other Midwesterners feel closer to Pittsburgh than to Philly.
Perhaps it is hard for you to understand this because you seem to desperately want to be Philly's rival, while most Philly folks don't care to be your rival. This seems only your issue, as others from Pittsburgh haven't sought out any rivalry and are content with way things are.
Quote:
Once again, I'm not certain why people feel I am bashing Philadelphia. Philly has done very well for itself over the past decade in terms of personal income growth. Like I said in a previous post, Philly is even seeing an uptick in its population within the city proper for the first time in 50 years.
Considering that Philly is the only city other than NYC that has been in the nation's top-10 most populous for all its history, and until 1990 it was the top-5, I would say Philly has done just fine and is doing just fine being by itself and doesn't need to hitch itself to a smaller town with a smaller economy (Baltimore).
Quote:
With that being said, Philadelphia lags behind the three cities of I-70/I-270 fork connecting Baltimore, Washington, and Pittsburgh. But these are the only three metropolitan areas in the country in front of Philadelphia which I think is a fairly noble achievement. However, this is a forum about a rivalry between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and Pittsburgh is second in the country. And the gap between Philly and Pittsburgh is statistically large. Perhaps Pennsylvania should do more to stimulate growth between Philly and Pittsburgh or at least create some type of sustainable development in Delaware County that would spill over into Maryland that would at least anchor it to Baltimore metro.
That's where you are wrong; the thread isn't about a rivalry between the two cities, the thread began with someone asking WHETHER there is a rivalry. And from what I've read in this thread from almost everyone else, aside from what I know myself, I think it is pretty clear that there is no major rivalry between the two.
Quote:
I repeat, don't be provincial and get your feelings hurt because the Eagles haven't won a Super Bowl. A rivalry can actually be quite healthy for a state (such as the OP's characterization of Houston and Dallas). This causes cities to be more inventive and raise their game rather than rolling over and let development move everywhere else (see: All of the one-trick pony industrial cities of the Midwest without diversified economies).
Who is being petulant here and "rubbing it in" as it were? I believe I was the one who mentioned upthread that in sports, especially football Pittsburgh has done very well compared to Philly. Again, you seem to come off as a little brother trying to act up... may be that's your thing.
Quote:
Second, you would think that most people would bash Denver and Atlanta. I think the growth of their metropolitan areas since 2000 proves otherwise. Denver has grown over 17% and Atlanta has grown nearly 29%! I don't think Philadelphia has anything to be ashamed of (particularly for a northern city) at 4.9%. But feel the sentiment that Denver and Atlanta are pretty well liked. I've gone to grad school in both Atlanta and Colorado. Great places.
Cities undergo bursts of growth and rapid booms. Philly had its boom many many decades ago. The locals don't want growth, they want stability. Not everything is great with hypergrowth when cities can't keep up with basic services, for example. If you love to be in a boom-growth area, instead of being in a small town between Pittsburgh and Baltimore, perhaps you should move to some place like Austin or Denver or Dallas. Atlanta...the boom has seemingly turned into a bust. Which is kind of the point with grown cities like Philly and Boston and San Fran...they are also well established and grown out. Philly at most will add back the 500,000 it lost from its peak population in 1950. But at about 1.6 million, Philly is plenty big and with its slow growth, the city and the metro will continue to be in the Top-10, population-wise and economy-wise, in America, for the foreseeable future.
That's because you don't know much about Philly's history, perhaps?
Philly was known as the "Workshop of the world" until about 1950s and major brands were not just manufactured here but created here, as in intellectual capital. Everything from "Philadelphia" cream cheese, to Stetson hats, to Baldwin locomotives, and major military and civilian ships, Philly produced everything when Atlanta was a cow patch.
When they wanted to make a spreadable cream cheese, the best brand they could think of was to call it after the city that produced the best quality of everything, "Philadelphia." That's a brand name for this city.
At one time, Philly was also the beer brewery capital of the U.S., before Milwaukee knew anything about beer. In fact, even now there is a neighborhood of North Philly by name of Brewerytown.
Heck, back when railroads were the biggest and baddest companies and had the political capital and muscle to get their way on anything in this country, Pennsylvania Railroad was the biggest and baddest of them all. And it built and ran its empire from Philly.
Now, those other cities have fared better in the past few decades. Boston had the fortune of never having as much industry as Philly had, so when it left it didn't have as much impact there. Industry also left earlier from Boston, so Boston has had longer to recover and get into eds-and-meds... things where Philly is right behind and nobody else comes even that close.
Regardless, the rest of the country doesn't think of Philly this way which is more to the point. Pittsburgh at least has its steel legacy. Obviously Philly did stuff then and does stuff now with so many people living there and in its vicinity. I'm not questioning that. But we think of NYC, Chicago, DC, LA, ... a lot, but Philly doesn't seem to have real significance despite its size. The same is true for Baltimore.
Regardless, the rest of the country doesn't think of Philly this way which is more to the point. Pittsburgh at least has its steel legacy. Obviously Philly did stuff then and does stuff now with so many people living there and in its vicinity. I'm not questioning that. But we think of NYC, Chicago, DC, LA, ... a lot, but Philly doesn't seem to have real significance despite its size. The same is true for Baltimore.
I know this thread has sort of taken on a life of its own, and I don't mean to add to it....but does Pittsburgh's steel legacy actually bring anything to it? I grew up close enough to Bethlehem, which also has a steel legacy - and unless I'm missing something, it adds nothing to the city, except provided them an almost sacrilegious site for their casino.
What exactly could Philadelphia make its legacy?
People think of LA typically because its an entertainment legacy. It's not like Philadelphia is going to turn into Hollywood. New York City is also an entertainment center, the financial center of the nation, a real estate center - plus it has over 8,000,000 people, which in reality is a pretty unsustainable number of people for a city to aim for. Washington DC is the nations capital, and that's not going to change.
Is there anything specifically about Chicago that people think about? I've been there a couple of times - and its huge and vibrant. But it stands out more clearly because there aren't any other "big" cities anywhere near it. Do you think people would care about Chicago that much if it was just down the highway from New York? Or conversely, do you think if Philadelphia was just the way it is now, but simply had no other cities close by, it would be more recognizable simply based on the fact that it was the biggest thing around?
There are other cities of similar size to Philadelphia. Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, Miami...are these special places? Or in fact, does Philadelphia have a clearer image than these places, despite the fact that it is so close to New York and DC? That's a serious question...I don't really think of anything particular when I think of these cities, but perhaps I am out of the loop. And does even having an "image" really matter to anything besides tourism? Does it help an economy for people to conjure up something that may or may not be accurate about a particular city each time they think of it?
So many red herrings, so little time. I won't address all of it, but will touch on a few finer points before I go watch the Pro Bowl.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FamousBlueRaincoat
I sort of consider 300 miles far away, so sorry. It has nothing to do with ignorance. Both times I've been to Pittsburgh, it's been as an overnight trip. And in all the years my family lived in New York City, nobody had every been to Boston or Washington DC, and nobody considered them cities that were necessarily "close" - so apparently we just have a different perception of what close is that you attribute to my ignorance, and that I will from this point forward attribute to your ignorance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FamousBlueRaincoat
For one thing, lots of people live in some of the worst places in America. And part of what makes those places so bad is precisely how many people live there (Phoenix, LA,...ATLANTA). I didn't make this up - Atlanta is highly criticized by people who care about urban planning, architecture, transit, environmentalism, and those things. I can honestly say that I have never heard someone actually say good things about Atlanta - but then again, I don't think I've actually met anyone from Atlanta. I would expect many of them to disagree, and I would respect that. The fact is you brought it up as a good place, and I have almost universally heard the opposite from people who have no stake in the argument.
Thanks for the history lesson. I guess whenever I don't mention every single thing that ever happened it's because I don't know it? This is stuff we learned in like 4th grade history, and it was just as intellectually arousing from you as it was then!
Is Pittsburgh near or far? You can go ahead and familiarize yourself with absolute vs. relative vs. social distance. However, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are in the same state, one with a strongly rectangular morphology with no funky elongations. The United States is very big and I assume most people fly across long distances. However, the distance from Philly to Pittsburgh is only a tenth of the way across the entire U.S. Pennsylvania has always been one of the largest states in the East. I could assume that people from large states are accustomed to traveling lengthier stretches. That is just my assumption which isn't worth any more than anyone else's. For the third or fourth time, I am not the one saying people don't travel from Philly and Pittsburgh. The people from Philly are saying it.
Congrats.
So to the FamousBlueRaincoat, sorry you don't want a history or geography lesson. Maybe you should admonish your fellow Philadelphians for giving them as justification in the previous posts. If you had read the previous posts you would have seen that it was somebody from Philly that started talking about cream cheese, beer, and Stetsons and there was already a discussion (that I didn't introduce) about Atlanta and Denver. Once again, that's your lack of intellectual curiosity.That is your opinion how many people you think don't like or criticize Atlanta for its sprawl.(Of which I am also critical but that is neither here nor there.) But as I have repeatedly stated in this forum, I like Philadelphia just fine. Some people from the SunBelt might find it dilapidated and dirty. Hey, this is a discussion board and everyone is entitled to their opinion. That's what it is for. However, don't try and pass off your opinion like it has some type of academic merit or you have conducted some research. It doesn't and you haven't. Once again, your comments insulting history and learning in general makes you the poster child of why America is falling behind in the industrial world in educational attainment.
Once again, I'm no cheerleader for Atlanta. Only New York and Houston have more Fortune 500 company headquarters. But it is interesting that you mentioned Wal-Mart because it is the prime example of reverse hierarchical diffusion and pretty much transformed the economy of Arkansas. I would say that Fortune 500 company headquarters are important. Diminish them if you must.
Philadelphia is about 100 miles closer (or half the distance) to the Atlantic Ocean than Baltimore. This is the reason why the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal was constructed almost 200 years ago (plans for it started 250 years ago). Philadelphia was superior to Baltimore in terms of sea access and Baltimore wanted to give itself the advantages that Philadelphia naturally had. I honestly have no idea where you were going with that.
And I'm not even going to touch what you mentioned about Boston and NYC. Just think, I was accused of having an inferiority complex.
The whole "you are trying to invent a rivalry that is not there" but "I was being concilliatory toward Pittsburgh" is a massive contradiction. Both Philadelphia and Pittsburgh were two of the pre-eminent industrial age cities of the first half of the 20th century. Both have transformed their economies fairly successfully to the quartenary and quinary sectors. This forum is asking if there is a rivalry or not. Whether you believe one exists or not is your (and everyone else's opinion). But the grounds for a rivalry are there. I think that is why the OP asked whether one existed. As this is posted on a Philly section of the forum, I think it would be more natural that Philadelphians answer than Pittsburghers. Not sure what your point is there. Once again, that is ignorant and provincial to think that people outside of Philadelphia would look at Pennsylvania and see that is has two major cities of similar prominence but not expect a rivalry to exist. We're not exactly talking Boston vs. Springfield or NYC vs. Buffalo here.
"Considering that Philly is the only city other than NYC that has been in the nation's top-10 most populous for all its history, and until 1990 it was the top-5, I would say Philly has done just fine and is doing just fine being by itself and doesn't need to hitch itself to a smaller town with a smaller economy (Baltimore)."
Philadelphia has already hitched itself to Camden, Wilmington, and Atlantic City (as per the definition of its CMSA) which all had MUCH smaller economies. Baltimore has hitched itself to Washington D.C. and that has worked out fabulously. Particularly for Maryland. This is why your "Maryland as a small state" argument doesn't hold water because it surpassed a smaller state (Connecticut) to become the wealthiest. Many more factors than a simple population density equation at play.
Well, keep fighting the good fight. Perhaps this discussion will be revisited once the revenues from Marcellus Shale Extraction filter through Pennsylvania at increased levels. Did oil money benefit Houston or Dallas more? (The OP's original postulation) Maybe we'll be asking the same questions about Philly and Pittsburgh in a few years.
Last edited by Steelers10; 01-30-2011 at 04:34 PM..
I know this thread has sort of taken on a life of its own, and I don't mean to add to it....but does Pittsburgh's steel legacy actually bring anything to it? I grew up close enough to Bethlehem, which also has a steel legacy - and unless I'm missing something, it adds nothing to the city, except provided them an almost sacrilegious site for their casino.
Even Cleveland and Birmingham Alabama were steel but no, only Pittsburgh is remembered for steel. It's their icon. Pittsburgh has been distancing itself from it because it makes people think it is a dirty sooty city. But maybe they should be creative and try to embrace it in a positive way.
Quote:
What exactly could Philadelphia make its legacy?
People think of LA typically because its an entertainment legacy. It's not like Philadelphia is going to turn into Hollywood. New York City is also an entertainment center, the financial center of the nation, a real estate center - plus it has over 8,000,000 people, which in reality is a pretty unsustainable number of people for a city to aim for. Washington DC is the nations capital, and that's not going to change.
Is there anything specifically about Chicago that people think about? I've been there a couple of times - and its huge and vibrant. But it stands out more clearly because there aren't any other "big" cities anywhere near it. Do you think people would care about Chicago that much if it was just down the highway from New York? Or conversely, do you think if Philadelphia was just the way it is now, but simply had no other cities close by, it would be more recognizable simply based on the fact that it was the biggest thing around?
There are other cities of similar size to Philadelphia. Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, Miami...are these special places? Or in fact, does Philadelphia have a clearer image than these places, despite the fact that it is so close to New York and DC? That's a serious question...I don't really think of anything particular when I think of these cities, but perhaps I am out of the loop. And does even having an "image" really matter to anything besides tourism? Does it help an economy for people to conjure up something that may or may not be accurate about a particular city each time they think of it?
When I think of Philly I think, Liberty Bell, Benjamin Franklin, etc. I couldn't tell you want makes it important today. Chicago has its gangster image, big shoulders, Sears tower (now Willis), the Great Lakes etc image. Even a highly successful Broadway show and movie adds glitz to its image even if undeserved. Plus Chicago dominates the Midwest. Dallas and Houston have the oil image along with the Texas mystique. Ft Worth got swallowed up by Dallas as the defining city. Minneapolis also dominates St Paul. Phoenix is the sun and desert, no real competing city for attention. Miami...the sun and the beach. Even Orlando doesn't diminish it. To me, Philly has been deprecated like....New Jersey. We know it's there but who cares?
Face it, Philly is the red-headed stepchild of the northeast.
Last edited by MathmanMathman; 01-30-2011 at 05:22 PM..
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.
