U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: ?
Barcelona 36 78.26%
Philly 10 21.74%
Voters: 46. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-27-2013, 03:16 PM
 
Location: Nob Hill, San Francisco, CA
2,346 posts, read 3,255,167 times
Reputation: 1077

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzrovian View Post
You have reading comprehension problems as well as a serious deficiency in analytical reasoning skills. That's why I don't normally try to engage you. It's a fruitless and thankless task.

I never defended Philly on the crime issue, nor did I say that's its crime rate is comparable to SF. What I said was that instead of ceaselessly barking about how disgusting Philly's crime rate is, you should look at your own backyard. SF's crime rate may not be as bad as Philly's but it is unacceptably high by non-US western standards as well. Capisce?
So you're saying San Francisco's crime problems are as disgusting as Phillys? Homicide 21/100k to homicide 5.5/100k and they even look like they are peers to you? Its perfectly natural to live in the US Rovian and be disgusted with a city that has 4 times the rate, I didnt say I wasnt appalled by crime in San Francisco, I'm appalled by crime as it is, any crime especially rape and homicide and you're in the disposition of defending the city that just happens to have the most of it and higher frequency of it.
Quote:
Now you got it. So focus on your own town instead of being so obsessed with Philly. You've got a crime problem of your own (not to mention the East Bay). It may not be as acute as Philly's but it exists nevertheless.
Thanks for the advice but I will have to pass.

btw, its not that I am not concerned about the crime here but San Francisco is not dotted by ghettos like the way Philly is, and as for our crime problems, we're significantly ahead of Philly so thats good enough for me, remember apparently the two cities are in the same "weight class". Even though one of them pulverizes the other on every significant metric known to man, besides cheesesteak production LOL.

Dont we all wish we had the crime rate of the UK or France? All I need to know is, SF Bay Area is much more closer to achieving that than your beloved Philly.

 
Old 01-27-2013, 04:09 PM
 
Location: NYC
2,253 posts, read 2,472,232 times
Reputation: 1557
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post

Agreed that Barcelona is truly an amazing city and the US does have several great and sophisticated cities when talking about the entire world. I was thinking more along the lines of comparing them to peer countries in which case it's fine if a country just has one city of such great caliber if the country's population is only a fraction of the US's. There's also the question of whether we're adjusting these comparisons for size in which case the US looks really shabby, i.e. Copenhagen is a truly great city and its metro population is just two million.
Yes one could certainly argue that given our size and wealth we should have more than one city that's a "total package". I think Chicago is probably the one city for which it is most achievable (in our lifetime) as it has the size, the bones and the infrastructure of a great city already in place. At some point early to mid 20th century it probably was much closer to a total package but crime problems, continuous population loss and inadequate investment in public transportation have dropped it back.

SF, DC and Boston are all terrific cities with many world class characteristics but they simply don't have the size and scale to get to Barcelona's level. LA is a great city as well but it has some fundamental "urban environment" issues that will not be remedied in our lifetime.

I agree that pound for pound American cities lag, but we have very bloated urban areas and most of our population is in the suburbs. That works against American cities in this analysis. For example, Boston technically has a metro area of 4m -- roughly equivalent to Barcelona, Berlin and Rome -- but it doesn't feel that big because its urban core is more along the lines of a 1m-2m metro area -- something like Copenhagen, Stockholm or Amsterdam. You need to discount a large chunk of its outer suburbs (many of those suburbanites rarely come to the city anyway) and that would bring it closer to Copenhagen's level. I think Copenhagen is a terrific city, but Boston compares to it favorably IMO.
 
Old 01-27-2013, 04:20 PM
 
Location: Nob Hill, San Francisco, CA
2,346 posts, read 3,255,167 times
Reputation: 1077
I consider LA and Chicago in the worlds 15 best cities and that's where I shut off the elites from the greats.
 
Old 01-27-2013, 04:56 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
45,788 posts, read 40,021,970 times
Reputation: 14680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzrovian View Post
Yes one could certainly argue that given our size and wealth we should have more than one city that's a "total package". I think Chicago is probably the one city for which it is most achievable (in our lifetime) as it has the size, the bones and the infrastructure of a great city already in place. At some point early to mid 20th century it probably was much closer to a total package but crime problems, continuous population loss and inadequate investment in public transportation have dropped it back.

SF, DC and Boston are all terrific cities with many world class characteristics but they simply don't have the size and scale to get to Barcelona's level. LA is a great city as well but it has some fundamental "urban environment" issues that will not be remedied in our lifetime.

I agree that pound for pound American cities lag, but we have very bloated urban areas and most of our population is in the suburbs. That works against American cities in this analysis. For example, Boston technically has a metro area of 4m -- roughly equivalent to Barcelona, Berlin and Rome -- but it doesn't feel that big because its urban core is more along the lines of a 1m-2m metro area -- something like Copenhagen, Stockholm or Amsterdam. You need to discount a large chunk of its outer suburbs (many of those suburbanites rarely come to the city anyway) and that would bring it closer to Copenhagen's level. I think Copenhagen is a terrific city, but Boston compares to it favorably IMO.
Agree with your post. By %, Barcelona may have the highest residential density of any city in the developed world. Few if any low density areas. Most of the city and many of its suburbs are at Manhattan-like densities. It's hard to compare to any American city except maybe New York City and Barcelona has a built in advantage for things such as urban bustle and transit. Of course, a city can be very dense and boring with few amenities or anything to do, but that doesn't sound true for Barcelona.
 
Old 01-27-2013, 06:58 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia
11,834 posts, read 9,929,982 times
Reputation: 7989
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX View Post

Hi! I called you and your city out earlier, if you'd be so kind as to respond! Thanks!

Last edited by 2e1m5a; 01-27-2013 at 07:15 PM..
 
Old 01-28-2013, 12:51 AM
 
Location: Mid Atlantic USA
12,102 posts, read 9,721,270 times
Reputation: 5281
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
I think transit in the Philly area has the potential to seriously rival the Barcelona MSA if Septa restored service to some regional rail lines to towns like West Chester, PA and Newtown, PA for example. I would love for the Roosevelt Boulevard Subway line to be built one day. Also what really slows down the Philly area from arguably having the 2nd best transit system in the country is the lack of rail service in South Jersey. The state of New Jersey has never really invested that much into South Jersey when it comes to mass transit. We had to fight tooth and nails just to get the River Line built. It also doesn't help to have one of the most anti-transit governors we've seen over the past 20 years.
That gave me a good laugh. Will never, ever happen. This is the US, the land where people hate taxes, and money spent on good infrastructure just will never happen. The typical American despises public transport and wants their own little private existence with their massive car.

Barcelona wins hands down. Live in one, and been to the other.
 
Old 01-28-2013, 02:28 AM
 
3,625 posts, read 3,615,374 times
Reputation: 4978
Philly is a trash hole filled with criminals. It's laughable these two cities are even compared.
 
Old 01-28-2013, 08:24 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia
11,834 posts, read 9,929,982 times
Reputation: 7989
Quote:
Originally Posted by fibonacci View Post
Philly is a trash hole filled with criminals.
Haha, you sure don't seem like a reasonable person that contributes much or knows what they're talking about.
I'm sure any city would love to have the 9th largest GDP in the World in addition to being the birthplace of this republic.

The World forum should have a minimum age requirement of 13 to prevent posts such as these.
It's funny the people that trash other places never seem to list where they live or where they're from.

Last edited by 2e1m5a; 01-28-2013 at 08:34 AM..
 
Old 01-28-2013, 12:01 PM
 
Location: In the heights
20,479 posts, read 22,050,487 times
Reputation: 10496
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX View Post
So you're saying San Francisco's crime problems are as disgusting as Phillys? Homicide 21/100k to homicide 5.5/100k and they even look like they are peers to you? Its perfectly natural to live in the US Rovian and be disgusted with a city that has 4 times the rate, I didnt say I wasnt appalled by crime in San Francisco, I'm appalled by crime as it is, any crime especially rape and homicide and you're in the disposition of defending the city that just happens to have the most of it and higher frequency of it.

Thanks for the advice but I will have to pass.

btw, its not that I am not concerned about the crime here but San Francisco is not dotted by ghettos like the way Philly is, and as for our crime problems, we're significantly ahead of Philly so thats good enough for me, remember apparently the two cities are in the same "weight class". Even though one of them pulverizes the other on every significant metric known to man, besides cheesesteak production LOL.

Dont we all wish we had the crime rate of the UK or France? All I need to know is, SF Bay Area is much more closer to achieving that than your beloved Philly.
SF's crime problem, Philly's crime problem, etc. are the US's crime problems. They follow the same basic patterns with the gentrified and/or wealthy portions of the metro being low crime and then parts of intense concentration of crime that sometimes spill over into other parts. SF has done a great job of pushing crime out of the city itself, but it isn't quite the same as actually remediating the situation when both Oakland (a fairly large city) and Richmond have areas of intense crime and commonly pop up as some of the most dangerous cities in the US. For Philadelphia, that's North Philly (within city boundaries) and Camden. It is a US issue, do you understand? SF does not pulverize Philly when we're comparing against cities of our peer countries when you're talking about urban vibrancy, history, infrastructure, etc. SF and Philly are very much in the same tier. We are after all on the world forum and the comparison is to a city from outside the US, so maybe that should be put into consideration. Of course, all US cities on this forum have their own boosters high-fiving each other and turning a blind eye to what are very much US issues in trying to tear other US cities down. It's just flat out stupid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzrovian View Post
Yes one could certainly argue that given our size and wealth we should have more than one city that's a "total package". I think Chicago is probably the one city for which it is most achievable (in our lifetime) as it has the size, the bones and the infrastructure of a great city already in place. At some point early to mid 20th century it probably was much closer to a total package but crime problems, continuous population loss and inadequate investment in public transportation have dropped it back.

SF, DC and Boston are all terrific cities with many world class characteristics but they simply don't have the size and scale to get to Barcelona's level. LA is a great city as well but it has some fundamental "urban environment" issues that will not be remedied in our lifetime.

I agree that pound for pound American cities lag, but we have very bloated urban areas and most of our population is in the suburbs. That works against American cities in this analysis. For example, Boston technically has a metro area of 4m -- roughly equivalent to Barcelona, Berlin and Rome -- but it doesn't feel that big because its urban core is more along the lines of a 1m-2m metro area -- something like Copenhagen, Stockholm or Amsterdam. You need to discount a large chunk of its outer suburbs (many of those suburbanites rarely come to the city anyway) and that would bring it closer to Copenhagen's level. I think Copenhagen is a terrific city, but Boston compares to it favorably IMO.
Yea, the US should have a greater number of vibrant cities. If you look at photos, stats, and accounts of US cities prior to the mass suburbanization, general inner city disinvestment, and then poorly planned urban renewal projects of most US cities, those cities all seem like bustling metropolises (even when they were quite a bit smaller). Pictures of St. Louis, Detroit, Chicago (including the South Side), and early Los Angeles etc. all looked like they had a lot more going on in the city day in and day out.

I think Copenhagen is the bee's knees, but I see what you're saying about Boston though Boston is a lot less fun and bustling even when we're talking about an overall level. Copenhagen is something ridiculously quaint and functional and though Boston wins for importance to the global economy, by other metrics Copenhagen blows Boston out of the water and is just generally a much better place to live. The infrastructure is far better (by a huge leap), the old architecture is that much older and more elegant and the new architecture is amazing. Food, produce, restaurants, nightlife, etc. are better in Copenhagen than in Boston and there's generally a lot less inequality, poverty or crime in Copenhagen than Boston. Added to that is that people are just generally friendlier (and more attractive, better dressed).

Also, if we're taking that kind of metric, then we should probably be paring down all US cities in their comparisons to cities elsewhere as the same factors are in play in pretty much all US cities.

Last edited by OyCrumbler; 01-28-2013 at 12:22 PM..
 
Old 01-28-2013, 07:15 PM
 
Location: Mid Atlantic USA
12,102 posts, read 9,721,270 times
Reputation: 5281
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
SF's crime problem, Philly's crime problem, etc. are the US's crime problems. They follow the same basic patterns with the gentrified and/or wealthy portions of the metro being low crime and then parts of intense concentration of crime that sometimes spill over into other parts. SF has done a great job of pushing crime out of the city itself, but it isn't quite the same as actually remediating the situation when both Oakland (a fairly large city) and Richmond have areas of intense crime and commonly pop up as some of the most dangerous cities in the US. For Philadelphia, that's North Philly (within city boundaries) and Camden. It is a US issue, do you understand? SF does not pulverize Philly when we're comparing against cities of our peer countries when you're talking about urban vibrancy, history, infrastructure, etc. SF and Philly are very much in the same tier. We are after all on the world forum and the comparison is to a city from outside the US, so maybe that should be put into consideration. Of course, all US cities on this forum have their own boosters high-fiving each other and turning a blind eye to what are very much US issues in trying to tear other US cities down. It's just flat out stupid.



Yea, the US should have a greater number of vibrant cities. If you look at photos, stats, and accounts of US cities prior to the mass suburbanization, general inner city disinvestment, and then poorly planned urban renewal projects of most US cities, those cities all seem like bustling metropolises (even when they were quite a bit smaller). Pictures of St. Louis, Detroit, Chicago (including the South Side), and early Los Angeles etc. all looked like they had a lot more going on in the city day in and day out.

I think Copenhagen is the bee's knees, but I see what you're saying about Boston though Boston is a lot less fun and bustling even when we're talking about an overall level. Copenhagen is something ridiculously quaint and functional and though Boston wins for importance to the global economy, by other metrics Copenhagen blows Boston out of the water and is just generally a much better place to live. The infrastructure is far better (by a huge leap), the old architecture is that much older and more elegant and the new architecture is amazing. Food, produce, restaurants, nightlife, etc. are better in Copenhagen than in Boston and there's generally a lot less inequality, poverty or crime in Copenhagen than Boston. Added to that is that people are just generally friendlier (and more attractive, better dressed).

Also, if we're taking that kind of metric, then we should probably be paring down all US cities in their comparisons to cities elsewhere as the same factors are in play in pretty much all US cities.
Very true. Once you have been to Europe you have a different perspective. Many of their bustling cities are smaller than dead inner city US cities. I think it has more to do with the American people and their preference for living in their McMansion and enclosing their yard so they can fully embrace the individualistic lifestyle they desire. Why did they flood out to the suburbs in the first place? After WWII that was it for a lot of US cities vibrancy. Americans don't really like a lot of their fellow Americans very much. They prefer to hang in their yard around their own kind. Generally most US cities can't hold a candle to cities in the rest of the developed world, except for NYC.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top