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.
For the Italics: Really? If Philadelphia just disappeared, NYC would become a shell of what it is now? Or is it the other way around?
You think that if NYC just disappeared Philly would become of shell of what it is now? If NYC just disappeared Philly would become the largest city on the east coast. If anything Philly would grow at an exponential rate and it would be a huge boon for the city.
If you meant that NYC is a big reason why Philly is important or large today, again I totally disagree. Remember for the first century or so in the history of these cities Philly was the larger city, so if anything Philly spurred NYC growth. But in all honesty neither really spurred the growth of the other. Both of these places became large important cities independently in a time when it took days to travel in between the two cities. So the real fact is that either of these cities could disappear and in the end the other city would absolutely not become a shell of its former self, in fact they would probably benefit at least in terms of population growth and GDP.
The thing is though I wasn't talking about a city disappearing or anything ridiculous like that. I know NYC would get along just fine without Philly, when I said they would benefit, I simply meant that have Philly so accessible would be a benefit. Sure NYC has the best downtown in the country, sure it's amazing, but Philly is one of the best cities in its own right and offers many unique offerings. Why wouldn't it be nice for New Yorkers to be able to come down to Philly so easily when ever they wanted to, whether it be to just go out in a different town or to see a unique cultural offering that NYC doesn't have like tour Independence Hall or check out the Barnes collection?
That's all I meant when I said it would benefit both cities. Who wouldn't want to be able to live in one of the best cities in the country and have another of the best easily accessible?
You use the word "absurd" a lot. You should stop that, it's very arrogant particularly when you are clearly - and repeatedly - missing a lot of points.
I am talking about perception and yes, over a long haul perhaps even reality.
In terms of perception, if you want to hold yourself out as being part of a bona fide, cohesive, well integrated, urban area of 30m, together with NY, then you must also accept the fact that Philadelphia will be a pretty insignificant part of that area. And I am saying that if that were to happen, Philly's significance (in terms of perception and ultimately reality) would probably diminish.
The analogy with Yokohama is perfect. It is a thirty minute train ride to Tokyo. Same as you are projecting between NY and Philly. What makes you think the results would be any different? Do you know anything about Yokohama? Particularly in comparison to Tokyo? Probably not.
Now if you are telling me that the connection between NY and Philly will never be that easy; it will always be expensive to travel; relatively far etc. etc. etc. (which is all probably correct) Well then it's not going to be one cohesive urban area in any meaningful sense, is it now? And if it's not one urban area, then why are we bringing NY into the conversation of Philly urban area and its comparison with Chicago?
Following me, Sherlock?
Laughing at the irony of you lecturing anyone on coming off as arrogant. Have you read your posts?
And I'm sorry if I come off as arrogant but to suggest that Philly would ever be a suburb of NYC and lose it's identity IS ABSURD, and anyone who suggests such a thing is either misinformed, trolling, or absurd themselves.
I don't understand what you don't understand about how NYC being close by is a plus for Philadelphia. Just like in the same sense but to a lesser extent, Philadelphia being so nearby is a plus for NYC.
They are two great cities, it's easy to move between the two, it's about to get easier. Great for everyone involved.
Why must it be taken to extremes?
In the end all I and many others are saying is "hey it's nice that NYC is close by" just like people from Chicago might say "hey it's nice to be right on the lakefront."
No one is trying to truly bring NYC into the discussion or consider Philly and NYC one place. It's simply a plus for Philly's location. Philly's location puts it close to other important, interesting, and fun cities. Chicago... not so much. That's all people are saying.
People are talking about the merger between Philly's and NYC urban areas to demonstrate the cohesiveness of the urban fabric in the northeast, to point out that measuring metro population and comparing them isn't entirely accurate because philly is boxed in by other metros, while Chicago has the freedom to spread out on and on, because there is nothing nearby.
You are the one that is trying to claim that Philadelphia and NYC will be so intertwined that Philly will lose it's identity. I do not understand the disdain that is shown when Philly touts it's proximity to NYC. It is a simple fact, and obvious benefit. That doesn't mean that Philly uses NYC as a crutch anymore than Chicago uses being on the lakefront as crutch if people from there were to point this fact out. It's simply a locational benefit, one that most cities don't have.
So you have a choice: you can remain a separate city/urban area of 5-6m people, as it is right now. A great city that is overshadowed in some ways by DC and NY, but nevertheless retains its identity and independence. Or you can be a part of a gazillion people urban area and be seen as a suburb of New York.
You must chose one, can't have both.
I don't think this is a "one or the other" type proposition that you're making it out to be; there are honestly a number of outcomes that could occur with increased linkages between Philly and New York.
Also, it's not a matter of what one "wants," but rather the result of what simply is. Urbanization is clearly taking place and will continue to take place between both cities. Megalopoli are emerging across the world, creating networks between highly populated urban areas. This is certainly not unique and in a sense is a natural progression -- humanity gravitates toward each other, hence so do our cities.
I don't necessarily disagree with some of the things you've noted (i.e., transit linkages increasing Philly-NY commuting). However -- and this was my fault for evoking somewhat of a comparison between Stamford and Philly-- I don't agree that Philadelphia would merely relegate to a "bedroom community." It much too large of a highly-developed and autonomous urban center for that. We're talking about a city of 1.5 million people -- not around 120,000 like Stamford.
I simply believe (and I understand that this is one take of many) that increased transit linkages and more contiguous urbanization will increase the economic standing and opportunities of an already linked urban area -- providing even more worldwide standing to both cities.
Laughing at the irony of you lecturing anyone on coming off as arrogant. Have you read your posts?
No not really, I try to read other people's posts. I know what mine say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillies2011
And I'm sorry if I come off as arrogant but to suggest that Philly would ever be a suburb of NYC and lose it's identity IS ABSURD, and anyone who suggests such a thing is either misinformed, trolling, or absurd themselves.
Again a lot of misplaced insecurity. phillies2011, I like many of your posts and you know that I have agreed with you on more than one occasion. You should know by now that I don't troll and that I try to be objective and reasonable. So don't jump the gun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillies2011
I don't understand what you don't understand about how NYC being close by is a plus for Philadelphia. Just like in the same sense but to a lesser extent, Philadelphia being so nearby is a plus for NYC.
They are two great cities, it's easy to move between the two, it's about to get easier. Great for everyone involved.
Why must it be taken to extremes?
In the end all I and many others are saying is "hey it's nice that NYC is close by" just like people from Chicago might say "hey it's nice to be right on the lakefront."
No, that's not all you and others are saying. You are now jumping all over the place and mixing apples and oranges. The exchange usually goes like this:
- I say - Chicago has a much larger urban area than Philly.
- You (or others) say -- well, not really, if you look at 10,000 sq miles they are about the same... in fact we are one urban area with NY.
- I say -- what does NY have to do with the size of Philly?
- You (or others) say -- well, we are part of one continuous urban area. Even US census is about to say so.
- I say - are you really part of one urban area? And, even if you are, how does it enhance Philly's size when 80% of that urban area is in the NY sphere of influence?
And that's where we jump off the rails. So, to restate, you are obviously not part of one urban area for reasons I have painstakingly explained. The level of the transit, urban and social cohesion simply isn't there. Not even close. Urban contiguity is pretty irrelevant here... it goes all the way up to Springfield Mass. But ifyou were to become one legitimate, cohesive, well-integrated urban area -- let's pretend there was a 30 minute train that cost $15 and everybody would travel all the time -- then yes, Philly would be to NY what Yokohama is to Tokyo.
You still haven't explained why that analogy is so absurd. Yokohama is a city of 3.6 mil people., with great history, and a center of a prefecture of 9m people. Have you even heard of it?
Now your telling me that having Manhattan so close is a locational plus, which I in no way disagree with, has nothing to do with our discussion of (i) Philly size in comparison to Chicago or (ii) anything else about Philly vs. Chicago, other than that proximity. That's what I am trying to highlight here. It's nonsensical to bring in NY in the comparison between Philly and Chicago, except that it's easy for you to go to Manhattan once in awhile. Sure, that's one advantage, but it has nothing to do with Philly's size, importance, etc. etc. etc. vis-a-vis Chicago.
Are you following me? We are not that far off, you are just yelling at me without thinking about what I am saying.
Are you following me? We are not that far off, you are just yelling at me without thinking about what I am saying.
I don't mean to respond for phillies2011, but it seems like two conversations somehow got co-mingled into one. I agree that the discussion of Chicago's size being comparable to Philly has absolutely nothing to do with connectivity to New York City.
I personally do not think that the Chicago urban area is in any way comparable in size to the Philly urban area for several reasons; I was just entering the conversation from a tangential point about a Philly-NY urban area.
I don't mean to respond for phillies2011, but it seems like two conversations somehow got co-mingled into one. I agree that the discussion of Chicago's size being comparable to Philly has absolutely nothing to do with connectivity to New York City.
I personally do not think that the Chicago urban area is in any way comparable in size to the Philly urban area for several reasons; I was just entering the conversation from a tangential point about a Philly-NY urban area.
Duderino, I think you are an extremely reasonable poster. However, I am sad to say, many other philly posters on CD suffer from severe insecurity and illusions of granduer. For which there is no good reason! Philly is a wonderful city, with amazing history, yes a terrific location, and is certainly a top 6 urban city in the country. As to whether comparisons with Chicago are appropriate, as discussed, some things yes, some things no. And when it comes to size, the answer is NO. We can talk about whys and hows, but it is what it is. And I have no idea why that concept bothers people so much.
Laughing at the irony of you lecturing anyone on coming off as arrogant. Have you read your posts?
And I'm sorry if I come off as arrogant but to suggest that Philly would ever be a suburb of NYC and lose it's identity IS ABSURD, and anyone who suggests such a thing is either misinformed, trolling, or absurd themselves.
I don't understand what you don't understand about how NYC being close by is a plus for Philadelphia. Just like in the same sense but to a lesser extent, Philadelphia being so nearby is a plus for NYC.
They are two great cities, it's easy to move between the two, it's about to get easier. Great for everyone involved.
Why must it be taken to extremes?
In the end all I and many others are saying is "hey it's nice that NYC is close by" just like people from Chicago might say "hey it's nice to be right on the lakefront."
No one is trying to truly bring NYC into the discussion or consider Philly and NYC one place. It's simply a plus for Philly's location. Philly's location puts it close to other important, interesting, and fun cities. Chicago... not so much. That's all people are saying.
People are talking about the merger between Philly's and NYC urban areas to demonstrate the cohesiveness of the urban fabric in the northeast, to point out that measuring metro population and comparing them isn't entirely accurate because philly is boxed in by other metros, while Chicago has the freedom to spread out on and on, because there is nothing nearby.
You are the one that is trying to claim that Philadelphia and NYC will be so intertwined that Philly will lose it's identity. I do not understand the disdain that is shown when Philly touts it's proximity to NYC. It is a simple fact, and obvious benefit. That doesn't mean that Philly uses NYC as a crutch anymore than Chicago uses being on the lakefront as crutch if people from there were to point this fact out. It's simply a locational benefit, one that most cities don't have.
People act like Chicago is in the middle of no man's land. Come on I can come up with several major cities that are more isolated from other places than Chicago.
People, on city vs city in particular, Downgrade chicago's location in the U.S. but Chicago's location is one of the reasons why it was able to boom in the late 1800's/early 1900's and is one of hte reasons why its a key player in the U.S.
I don't think this is a "one or the other" type proposition that you're making it out to be; there are honestly a number of outcomes that could occur with increased linkages between Philly and New York.
Also, it's not a matter of what one "wants," but rather the result of what simply is. Urbanization is clearly taking place and will continue to take place between both cities. Megalopoli are emerging across the world, creating networks between highly populated urban areas. This is certainly not unique and in a sense is a natural progression -- humanity gravitates toward each other, hence so do our cities.
Duderino, I wanted to reply to your post. As I mentioned to phillies2011, when I was talking about "chosing" I meant purely in terms of the perception that some people on this board try to advance. If one wants to say that Philly is very large because its part of a 30 million urban area then you must also accept that Philly is not a very significant part of that urban area. In which case, any comparison with Chicago would make no more sense. That would be like comparing Brooklyn to Chicago. In other words, the continuous attempts to inflate Philly's size/stature - by association with NY or otherwise -- serve no good goal.
The other stuff I mentioned is pure hypotheticals, and a lot of what you are saying is sensible. As a practical matter, nobody needs to worry about Philly becoming a suburb of NY (it seems i touched on a nerve) because, while the transit links might improve in a few decades, they are unlikely (in our lifetime) to ever be cheap and efficient enough to create a truly well-integrated single urban area.
People act like Chicago is in the middle of no man's land. Come on I can come up with several major cities that are more isolated from other places than Chicago.
People, on city vs city in particular, Downgrade chicago's location in the U.S. but Chicago's location is one of the reasons why it was able to boom in the late 1800's/early 1900's and is one of hte reasons why its a key player in the U.S.
mas23
I agree. I actually like Chicago's location. I mean it may be a bit more spread out from Milwaukee, Indianapolis, St. Louis, Madison, Ann Arbor, Detroit, Champaign, Rockford etc. than the Bos-Wash corridor, but it's not isolated like Boise or Cheyenne or even Seattle
People act like Chicago is in the middle of no man's land. Come on I can come up with several major cities that are more isolated from other places than Chicago.
People, on city vs city in particular, Downgrade chicago's location in the U.S. but Chicago's location is one of the reasons why it was able to boom in the late 1800's/early 1900's and is one of hte reasons why its a key player in the U.S.
mas23
This is a good point. Philly posters need to remember that Philly's strategic location has been both a positive and a negative. While the city has continued to thrive it has also declined, on a relative basis, in status and importance compared to its East Coast neighbors.
All those people clamoring for greater urban integration with New York, to form one massive 30m urban area, need to be careful what they wish for. If the two really truly become one urban area -- so that it's as easy to get to Philly as, say, to Coney Island - what is there to stop Philly from becoming another Brooklyn? After all, in the 19th century Brooklyn was an important independent city. Then it integrated with Manhattan and, while it continues to be a wonderful place, it has undeniably declined in stature and importance. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that btw. And it has its benefits. But is that what people from Philly want? Do you really want to become known as the "6th borough" (as some, funny enough, have already referred to Philly)? It is totally fine if you say "yes" but just be honest about it. And do you think you would be any closer to Chicago were that to happen?
I am sure I am gonna get a lot of nasty replies.
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.
Or is it the other way around?
