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.
Im not from Philadelphia, but you are from Albany and you're trying too hard to be a sophisticated San Franciscan. Maybe because its better for Asians. I don't know.
The bias is quite clear.
I love how Philadelphia gets attacked and Philadelphians get **** when they comment back. It's a lose-lose situation haha.
Philadelphians always on their knees begging their superiors to notice them
I hate to say it, but it's true. Philly posters these days are so insecure and always saying how they're underrated and how people don't appreciate Philly enough.
Philly needs to find a way to market itself better and become more competitive with the widening gap between it and the 3 other NE/Mid Atlantic cities of NYC, Boston, and D.C. Philly stuck in a sort of void between a successful NE city and a rustbelt city.
I don't think he was picking on you at all. He was simply pointing out a falsity. How can Philadelphia be more dangerous than DC when it has a lower homicide rate, violent crime rate, and overall crime rate? DC is definitely the "most dangerous" of the three.
That may be the case for city limits, but I think its sort of useless to compare these cities' crime rate by their city limits when it seems to me everyone in this thread is comparing the metros for everything else.
With Philly being over 2x the size of DC and over 2.5x of Boston, it doesn't make sense to compare crime rates with each other along with population, density, GDP, and etc because of arbitrary boundaries that were drawn over 150 years ago. Same would apply to the cities of Houston, Dallas, or Phoenix, in which their large city boundaries are likely skewing their crime rate in relation to other cities. To me, it makes more sense to compare metro crime data just like for everything else.
In that case, the Philadelphia metro is most dangerous of the three with a murder rate almost twice that of DC metro and 4x that of the Boston metro. For the violent crime rate, DC (331.1) is the safest followed slightly by Boston (354.5), and Philadelphia (497.5) having in the highest rate.
I hate to say it, but it's true. Philly posters these days are so insecure and always saying how they're underrated and how people don't appreciate Philly enough.
Philly needs to find a way to market itself better and become more competitive with the widening gap between it and the 3 other NE/Mid Atlantic cities of NYC, Boston, and D.C. Philly stuck in a sort of void between a successful NE city and a rustbelt city.
Insecurity is far from limited to Philadelphia on city-data--that's for sure. Also, let's not mistake "insecurity" for simply responding to constant misconceptions and falsehoods.
Philly is arguably in better shape today than it's been in over half a century. Revitalization continues to be a work-in-progress, but the vital signs (population, business, tourism, cultural amenities, etc.) are all increasingly positive.
The bottom line is--for many people who actually truly get to know the city, it is has become a satisfying and attractive urban alternative compared to more glorified cities.
That may be the case for city limits, but I think its sort of useless to compare these cities' crime rate by their city limits when it seems to me everyone in this thread is comparing the metros for everything else.
With Philly being over 2x the size of DC and over 2.5x of Boston, it doesn't make sense to compare crime rates with each other along with population, density, GDP, and etc because of arbitrary boundaries that were drawn over 150 years ago. Same would apply to the cities of Houston, Dallas, or Phoenix, in which their large city boundaries are likely skewing their crime rate in relation to other cities. To me, it makes more sense to compare metro crime data just like for everything else.
In that case, the Philadelphia metro is most dangerous of the three with a murder rate almost twice that of DC metro and 4x that of the Boston metro. For the violent crime rate, DC (331.1) is the safest followed slightly by Boston (354.5), and Philadelphia (497.5) having in the highest rate.
Competing MSA crime statistics is quite a stretch too isn't it? Like what happens in Camden, Chester or North Philadelphia has any affect on those in Ardmore, Newtown and Kennet Square. LOL
Competing MSA crime statistics is quite a stretch too isn't it? Like what happens in Camden, Chester or North Philadelphia has any affect on those in Ardmore, Newtown and Kennet Square. LOL
That's absurd.
while crime is local Philly of these three and really compared to many large metros has the largest number of higher crime areas - it does
People do fly in and out of Newark from Philly and coming to Philly. Newark is a cheaper airport. I've heard of people flying in and out of Harrisburg too to come to Philly.
I hear they dont. Prove it, show me the #s. You make things up and you hate when folks call you out on it.
If I lived in Philly I would make things up too. No one cares for it, its at the bottom of every desirability poll and no scholars take it seriously. Its beneath Seattle and Denver in some importance rankings. sometimes its not considered.
I never hear anyone talk about visiting Philly or moving there in SF but know Philadelphians here that wouldnt ever move back
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.
