Critical Location: Baltimore & Philadelphia (live, better, largest, compared)
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.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,060,443 times
Reputation: 4047
Advertisements
As many of you know these two cities are situated in between the Financial Capital & National Capital of our country.
But in terms of who is more restricted and has it worse as far as growth or boundaries goes, or even when it's population isn't accounted for, who would it be?
Also note both of these cities are heavily overshadowed by their more influential neighbors. New York City & Washington DC.
Anyways, who has it better and how do they have the better situation, and who has it worse and how do they have it worse?
- Boundaries
- Population centers
- Components restricting larger MSA
- Overshadowed or not?
Philadelphia is less overshadowed than Baltimore in my opinion, mostly because it is a much larger city. So it stands out when you look at any kind of measurable data, whereas Baltimore gets lost in a crowd. A city the size of Philadelphia is important by any standard, whereas a city the size of Baltimore has to be unique in some fashion. DC, SF, Boston, all similar in size to Baltimore get a lot more respect because they take the lead in some aspect of American culture or economy.
And if that doesn't answer the question, consider this. Philadelphia has a top tier baseball team, whereas Baltimore has what is arguably the worst team in the majors.
Philadelphia is less overshadowed than Baltimore in my opinion, mostly because it is a much larger city. So it stands out when you look at any kind of measurable data, whereas Baltimore gets lost in a crowd. A city the size of Philadelphia is important by any standard, whereas a city the size of Baltimore has to be unique in some fashion. DC, SF, Boston, all similar in size to Baltimore get a lot more respect because they take the lead in some aspect of American culture or economy.
And if that doesn't answer the question, consider this. Philadelphia has a top tier baseball team, whereas Baltimore has what is arguably the worst team in the majors.
The Orioles suck because Baltimore is smaller than than Philly?
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,060,443 times
Reputation: 4047
I perceive it to be nearly an identical situation.
Baltimore may seem like it has it worse when it really doesn't. And here are my reasons why-
For a large city like Philadelphia that is America's 6th largest city, and 6th largest metropolitan area, when they are ranked they fall short, and I know part of the reason is because they are overshadowed by their neighboring metropolitan areas in the essence that they cannot expand to greater lengths.
That is a hit for Philadelphia in a case where overall importance for it is downplayed due to it's location, it would be a much more massive metropolitan area if it were so. Yes it gets adequate representation and it does have some elite sports teams and it's own history, but the city itself loses out to competitors like Boston & San Francisco much of the time because they drew the short stick due to their location.
And that is a major step back for Philadelphia caused by it's location, something any large metropolitan area suffering would have some resent for, IMO (I don't know for sure, I don't live there)
Baltimore in that case seems worse because despite being the larger city it plays sidekick to Washington DC. Even San Francisco takes the backseat to San Jose when the CSA title is presented as "San Jose- San Francisco- Oakland". I suppose that's what happens when you are neighboring the national capital.
Baltimore for it's size doesn't get much recognition and has had a large history in the past, not many cities can say they have been the 2nd largest city in the country and have held that spot for a few decades. Baltimore has, but today it's considered a medium sized MSA and a medium sized city or so.
For it's size it is underrepresented by quite a lot.
I think considering both of their MSA sizes, they both have it bad in their own ways which come out equally as harmful for both of them. Philadelphia and a lot of it's progression can be stunted by counties just 14 miles away not being apart of it's area, that's some GDP measurements that could have been fed into it's MSA. Baltimore is overshadowed and does not get adequate representation.
It would be like a real life scenario such as this, would you drive to work knowing the only road to your office has a car wreck with a 2 hour wait as there is a flipped over 18 wheeler or would you take mass transit knowing that you have to keep making stops in different stations and waiting lengths time between each train adding up to 2 hour delay.
That's how I perceive it, I don't know if anyone else would agree though.
I perceive it to be nearly an identical situation.
Baltimore may seem like it has it worse when it really doesn't. And here are my reasons why-
For a large city like Philadelphia that is America's 6th largest city, and 6th largest metropolitan area, when they are ranked they fall short, and I know part of the reason is because they are overshadowed by their neighboring metropolitan areas in the essence that they cannot expand to greater lengths.
That is a hit for Philadelphia in a case where overall importance for it is downplayed due to it's location, it would be a much more massive metropolitan area if it were so. Yes it gets adequate representation and it does have some elite sports teams and it's own history, but the city itself loses out to competitors like Boston & San Francisco much of the time because they drew the short stick due to their location.
And that is a major step back for Philadelphia caused by it's location, something any large metropolitan area suffering would have some resent for, IMO (I don't know for sure, I don't live there)
Baltimore in that case seems worse because despite being the larger city it plays sidekick to Washington DC. Even San Francisco takes the backseat to San Jose when the CSA title is presented as "San Jose- San Francisco- Oakland". I suppose that's what happens when you are neighboring the national capital.
Baltimore for it's size doesn't get much recognition and has had a large history in the past, not many cities can say they have been the 2nd largest city in the country and have held that spot for a few decades. Baltimore has, but today it's considered a medium sized MSA and a medium sized city or so.
For it's size it is underrepresented by quite a lot.
I think considering both of their MSA sizes, they both have it bad in their own ways which come out equally as harmful for both of them. Philadelphia and a lot of it's progression can be stunted by counties just 14 miles away not being apart of it's area, that's some GDP measurements that could have been fed into it's MSA. Baltimore is overshadowed and does not get adequate representation.
It would be like a real life scenario such as this, would you drive to work knowing the only road to your office has a car wreck with a 2 hour wait as there is a flipped over 18 wheeler or would you take mass transit knowing that you have to keep making stops in different stations and waiting lengths time between each train adding up to 2 hour delay.
That's how I perceive it, I don't know if anyone else would agree though.
I understand what you're saying, but that's strictly from a statistics perspective. Philly benefits greatly be being near NYC. It has a very strong economy, has kept more population than many of the other major cities in the US since the 60s (with evidence that there's growth for 2010), and it has a bustling downtown. NYC is a great asset, and companies and people want to be in Philly for its preserved culture and location.
So, if you're talking about bragging rights on C-D for MSA numbers, then you're right. If you're talking about the impact in the real world, and health as a city, I don't know that I agree.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,060,443 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA
So, if you're talking about bragging rights on C-D for MSA numbers, then you're right. If you're talking about the impact in the real world, and health as a city, I don't know that I agree.
Lol, no I am not talking about bragging rights on City-Data. That is not important at all.
I am talking about the method most people do commute and where they live. Work in New York City and live in a place like 14 miles from downtown Philadelphia, those are the people that I was talking about as far as impact goes.
I don't have any of the GDP measurements, but I am positive that it drains Philadelphia of at least 70 billion USD. Which is more of a use for a competitive edge on rankings and studies for global cities, Philadelphia gets a disadvantage on that when compared to say rival Boston.
I understand what you're saying, but that's strictly from a statistics perspective. Philly benefits greatly be being near NYC. It has a very strong economy, has kept more population than many of the other major cities in the US since the 60s (with evidence that there's growth for 2010), and it has a bustling downtown. NYC is a great asset, and companies and people want to be in Philly for its preserved culture and location.
So, if you're talking about bragging rights on C-D for MSA numbers, then you're right. If you're talking about the impact in the real world, and health as a city, I don't know that I agree.
This - living here there is no barrier and all the amenitities are accesable
In the real world i agree it is a huge benefit. Access to everything, jobs, culture, events, amenties etc...
Lol, no I am not talking about bragging rights on City-Data. That is not important at all.
I am talking about the method most people do commute and where they live. Work in New York City and live in a place like 14 miles from downtown Philadelphia, those are the people that I was talking about as far as impact goes.
I don't have any of the GDP measurements, but I am positive that it drains Philadelphia of at least 70 billion USD. Which is more of a use for a competitive edge on rankings and studies for global cities, Philadelphia gets a disadvantage on that when compared to say rival Boston.
Maybe in CD battles with rival Boston it matters.
But in reality I don't think people living in the Phildelphia area, who work in the NYC area, are draining Philadelphia at all. In fact, I think it is the complete opposite! I think they are bringing additional monies into the Philly area.
Think about it, some people in the Philadelphia area work in the New York area and they bring home their salaries..... to use in the Philadelphia area. They use their salaries to buy goods and services in the Philly area. They also pay their property and other taxes to the Philadelphia area.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,060,443 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative
Maybe in CD battles with rival Boston it matters.
But in reality I don't think people living in the Phildelphia area, who work in the NYC area, are draining Philadelphia at all. In fact, I think it is the complete opposite! I think they are bringing additional monies into the Philly area.
Think about it, some people in the Philadelphia area work in the New York area and they bring home their salaries..... to use in the Philadelphia area. They use their salaries to buy goods and services in the Philly area. They also pay their property and other taxes to the Philadelphia area.
True and fair points.
I would imagine though that it would matter to those like GaWC when it came to ranking these places though. At times even one person makes a major difference. Lol, 2009 Washington DC stayed ahead by a mere 1,028 people over Atlanta.
But I do see the point of your argument and in reality I think most of which is discussed here has little to no relevance with the average person.
I would imagine though that it would matter to those like GaWC when it came to ranking these places though. At times even one person makes a major difference. Lol, 2009 Washington DC stayed ahead by a mere 1,028 people over Atlanta.
But I do see the point of your argument and in reality I think most of which is discussed here has little to no relevance with the average person.
Exactly.
To answer your OP, I think Baltimore has it a little rougher than Phildelphia. This is because of the different nature of their larger neighbors: Washington DC and New York City.
The New York City area is primarily a white collar areas with private jobs like banking, Wall Street etc. There is no reason that the Philadelphia area cannot get some of the growth from that. Ironically, a growing Philadelphia area might also return the favor and further nuture the New York area as well.
On the other hand, the Washington DC area is primarily fueled by FEDERAL government jobs. Unless you think that Baltimore is going to be able to attract the Pentagon or the Congress to set up shop in Baltimore, you can see the problem.
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.
