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.
Boston and Philly economies (annual metro GDP) are practically the same size - 383m Philly vs. 370m Boston for 2013, and Boston could very well have surpassed already
Boston could very well have surpassed already, and guess what, I'm still alive. But you have no facts to back up anything you're saying, so you're now resorting to personal attacks. Pathetic and weak, just like Philly's economy.
Personal attack? What on earth are you talking about? If anything you are the one getting edgy. Did someone in Philadelphia steal your girlfriend/boyfriend or something?
Boston is 50 years older than Philly and growing faster. NY is nearly 60 years older than Philly and growing faster.
The Boston Globe once called Boston "a hopeless backwater, a tumbled-down has-been among cities" back in the 1950s. Economically, Boston fell apart in the 1940s and 1950s, and reached its cultural and economic nadir in 1970. If you called Boston a world-class city in 1970, or even in 1980, everybody would laugh at you, just like you laugh at people who call Philadelphia a world-class city today.
The only difference between Boston and Philadelphia is that Boston fell apart 30 years before Philadelphia did, and has had 30 extra years to reinvent itself as a result. Philadelphia fell apart in the 1970s and 1980s, and reached its cultural and economic nadir in 2000. Philadelphia has become a better city since 2000, just like Boston started to become a better city after 1970.
If Boston can wake up from the 30-year coma it was in and become a world-class city again, then so can Philadelphia, believe it or not, like it or not. For that matter, who's to say that Philadelphia won't end up growing faster than Boston 30 years from now? There's no guarantee it will, but there's no guarantee it won't either. Cities ebb and flow.
Anyway, you strike me as a bandwagon urbanist, buying into cities after they become trendy instead of before, and pretending that where you live makes you better than other people, so you might want to buck the trend and jump on the Philadelphia bandwagon now, before it gains too much momentum for people to get on. It's already begun to move, so you better hurry up.
The only difference between Boston and Philadelphia is that Boston fell apart 30 years before Philadelphia did, and has had 30 extra years to reinvent itself as a result.
Perhaps The main reason Philadelphia lags statistically against the top ranked cities is location and geography. 60 miles of livable land between Philly and the coast.Land is plentiful, real estate cheaper which is actually a very good thing but tends to lower economic statistics like median home value ,cost of goods and services,gdp etc etc..
The Top economic statistical cities are all located right on the coast where you get the benefit of ocean front property and 50% of their possible real estate is under water, commercial and residential real estate becomes a premium.
And of course DC creates its own bloated economy fed by Billion Dollar contracts paid by the us worker+consumer.
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.
