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.
I’ve heard ***** friends (is “kweer” really a slur??) of mine describe Boston as “old gay”. Basically the community’s been here long enough that there’s less emphasis on flashiness and ostentation within it. For example, the Boston Gay Men’s Chorus was founded in 1982. Elaine Nobel was the first openly gay state rep in 1975. But walk through the South End and I’m sure you’ll see plenty of rainbow and other LGBTQ+ flags.
And in my experience, the homeless people downtown yell at all peoples equally. <3
PDA is very rare in Boston period per my experience.
Wow, the auto-censor screwed up your URL too. Someone needs to dial down its sensitivity. IMO the Q-word has been defanged, mainly by LGBTQ folk who have been claiming it as a term to describe the people of the rainbow for nearly 30 years now. If you see the letter Q standing alone in a phrase or term where the thing being referred to (or target audience) is clearly LGBTQ, the letter usually stands for that word now.
(I co-host a program here in Philadelphia on Germantown Community Radio called "Q the Mic" (pun intended). It's also available as a podcast or online at Gtownradio.com.)
I was a charter member of the Boston Gay Men's Chorus and sang in its very first concert in 1982. Down here, I sang for nine seasons in the Philadelphia Gay Men's Chorus, which historically has had fewer singers than Boston's chorus but which dates its founding to one year before Boston's.
I think one reason why Boston is perceived as more gay-friendly by some is hinted at in that stat on the size of the two gay men's choruses. I remember marching in Boston's Pride parade; spectators lined the entire parade route, as much as six deep in some spots. When I've marched in Philadelphia's, the crowds are far spottier; there's a large clump near the start of the route in the Gayborhood, another near the reviewing stand at Independence Mall, and a third near its end in Old City near Penn's Landing, but between these clumps, there are stretches where one marches down empty streets. Now, maybe if Boston's parade were routed via Downtown Crossing, I might have seen the same thing there (the empty streets are in the commercial district, along 11th (later 7th) and Market streets), but I kinda doubt it.
But Philly's gayborhood is marked by the city, which erected street name signs with rainbow-flag bottoms in it (Philly is one of only four cities in North America that has put up some publicly visible signage or marker denoting its gayborhood). So Boston and Philly are probably actually equally gay-friendly.*
*I remember being called a "f**king f****t" by a drunken wench one New Year's Day during the Mummers Parade. Trust me, you haven't lived until you've been called that by a man in a dress.
"Provincetown(3+ Hours away) is where the LGBTQ push came from not at all Boston there's wayyyy less LGBTQ activism in Boston historically."
That is a deeply inaccurate characterization.
New England gay/lesbian activist cultures are long rooted in engagement with the what might be called classical New England temperament: a high value placed on substance over show, on the group over the individual (that is, against show-boating - while any activist agglomeration has its divas, Boston's seemed to emotionally too reserved to allow too much ground to grand operatics), on learning over self-involvement, and with a long-term view of things, a willingness to plan for years ahead (metaphorically, chopping wood during the good times to stock up for future use, knowing that things cycle over time). It was comparatively domestic (vs wild) compared to those of other large metros, and part of this was perhaps because lesbians were more involved than might be expected: putting aside the spokesfolks for the activist community (Arline Isaacson being probably best known to the public), one could take Mary Buonato as a nearly perfect exemplar of the archetype (she's a transplant...from Maine), as well Eleanor Acheson (granddaughter of the SoS), and with folks like Katherine Triantafillou complementing them in style/approach. I am familiar with many of the machers in this from the 1980s and 1990s, and the Boston-based community of activists was a remarkably effective group of people.
To try to get back on topic, any idea if the "rainbow flag" community is wealthy/getting wealthier compared to its straight counterparts in comparable cities/metros? I never hear anything about that community being the type that owns/hails limos, bodyguards, maids, exotic vehicles, or yachts. I always found them to be middle to upper-middle class with an occasional 1%er., but since they tend to congregate in cities known for a lot of wealth as well as gentrifying neighborhoods, I find them to be one of the most upwardly mobile groups in many instances, outperforming their straight counterparts. Think about how expensive real estate is in the Castro and surrounding neighborhoods, Dupont Circle, the west side of Manhattan, West Hollywood, and then mention how this community isn't affluent in terms of wealth?
IMO if that particular community suddenly became the dominant force holding of our nation's wealth full of trust-fund babies, we may have some problems ahead regarding class warfare.
Last edited by Borntoolate85; 03-29-2021 at 07:42 AM..
Sure, I would say this is everywhere in America though gay people seem to do well economically, especially if white and male. Because they’re buoyed by white male money. The difference is I found the “surface level” and open anti LGBTQ to be elevated in Boston. And the fact that like your buddy in Revere- gay people in Boston seem very buttoned up and there’s not nearly as much visibility and rainbows as NYC/DC or even Philly. And maybe that’s because folks can and will call you a “f*ggot” to your face with zero consequence or it will be yelled at you by random homeless folks downtown if they see you holding hands.
Gay PDA is something I really never see in Boston outside of like maybe parts of JP. I don’t see that in Roslindale or Fenway at all. Forget about Southie or Roxbury. We’ve ever elected what-one gay city councilor? a woman in 2019, who is very old and not immediately lesbian-presenting.
It's not a Boston specific thing. Your making this out to be an only Boston thing.
A 'coastal elite' metro (as defined by the populist new Right) has a few characteristics:
1. Extreme gross wealth (old but especially new), which directly affects national politics and institutions
2. Industries that have (at least perceived) outsized effects on most American lives (Media, Tech, Hollywood, Wall St)
3. Elite academic institutions and the knowledge-based economies that come with them.
4. A palpable misunderstanding of, if not disdain for, the undereducated, forgotten, rural parts of the country, especially if influenced by a history of European aristocratic norms. (There's an argument that every metro today fits this, but let's just focus on the most extreme)
5. Significant global influence
**all ratings scaled to size of metro PPP GDP...I get it Pittsburgh is a tech hub and San Diego property values are high, spare me
Qualifying metros:
1. NYC, LA, SF...next tier: Chicago, Boston, MIA, Dallas, Houston, DC, Seattle
2. NYC, LA, SF, DC...next tier: Houston
3. Boston, NYC, Philly, DC, Chicago, SF, Seattle...next tier:, ATL, Houston, Charlotte/Raleigh/Durham, Austin
4. Boston, NYC, Philly, DC, Chicago, SF, LA, Dallas, Seattle... next tier: top 100 metros
5. NYC, LA, SF, DC... next tier: Chicago, Miami, maybe Boston
A few tiers emerge:
1st--NYC
2nd- DC, LA, SF
3rd: Chicago, Boston
4th: Miami, Houston, Philly, Seattle etc etc
Tiers 1 and 2 are absolutely non-negotiable, after that is more semantics.
BTW I just include San Jose with SF because this is about perception and no one knows that San Jose is actually Silicon Valley, not SF. I guess if I do this I should merge Philly into NYC, but I digress...
^^^^ Nice list above.... still since I generally do speak on Chicago too much.
Still in Global rank it has a place for business reasons especially .... and still others even over DC and yet Boston as not even on the one top 20 list yet .....just going by below listings. US Capital certainly adds to recognition for sure though.
From AC Kearney Global cities list and rank 2019 (not sure why I could not find the 2020 list at least. I think the top 10 though stayed the same as listed here? Might be London at #1 and NYC #2 for 2020 though?
List of to 10 global cities.
1 ) NYC
2 ) London
3 ) Paris
4 ) Tokyo
5 ) Hong Kong
6 ) Singapore
7 ) Los Angeles
8 ) Chicago
9 ) Beijing
10) Washington DC
Resonance Consultancy - is one who listed the top 20 cities and below under Best with even weather as one criteria... lots of other criteria and global status was still key given what the sight is for and about.
The report, issued by Resonance Consultancy which advises on real estate, tourism and economic development, scored 100 cities around the world that have populations higher than one million residents using 25 ranking factors groups into six categories. The factors include diversity, weather, the number of parks and tourist attractions, and the number of social media hashtags and check-ins. For the first time this year in the 2021 ranking, the cities were also ranked on new criteria such as unemployment, the rate of COVID-19 infections (as of July) and income disparity.
List by Resonance Consultancy.
1 ) London
2 ) NYC
3 ) Paris
4 ) Moscow
5 ) Tokyo
6 ) Dubai
7 ) Singapore
8 ) Barcelona
9 ) Los Angeles
10) Madrid
11) Rome
12) Chicago
13) Toronto
14) San Francisco
15) Abu Dhabi
16) St Petersburg
17) Amsterdam
18) Berlin
19) Prague
12) Washington DC
A 'coastal elite' metro (as defined by the populist new Right) has a few characteristics:
1. Extreme gross wealth (old but especially new), which directly affects national politics and institutions
2. Industries that have (at least perceived) outsized effects on most American lives (Media, Tech, Hollywood, Wall St)
3. Elite academic institutions and the knowledge-based economies that come with them.
4. A palpable misunderstanding of, if not disdain for, the undereducated, forgotten, rural parts of the country, especially if influenced by a history of European aristocratic norms. (There's an argument that every metro today fits this, but let's just focus on the most extreme)
5. Significant global influence
**all ratings scaled to size of metro PPP GDP...I get it Pittsburgh is a tech hub and San Diego property values are high, spare me
Qualifying metros:
1. NYC, LA, SF...next tier: Chicago, Boston, MIA, Dallas, Houston, DC, Seattle
2. NYC, LA, SF, DC...next tier: Houston
3. Boston, NYC, Philly, DC, Chicago, SF, Seattle...next tier:, ATL, Houston, Charlotte/Raleigh/Durham, Austin
4. Boston, NYC, Philly, DC, Chicago, SF, LA, Dallas, Seattle... next tier: top 100 metros
5. NYC, LA, SF, DC... next tier: Chicago, Miami, maybe Boston
A few tiers emerge:
1st--NYC
2nd- DC, LA, SF
3rd: Chicago, Boston
4th: Miami, Houston, Philly, Seattle etc etc
Tiers 1 and 2 are absolutely non-negotiable, after that is more semantics.
BTW I just include San Jose with SF because this is about perception and no one knows that San Jose is actually Silicon Valley, not SF. I guess if I do this I should merge Philly into NYC, but I digress...
Solid ranking, but I agree with NoHyping, Chicago belongs in Tier 1 for everything, less #2 since its a very diversified economy (a good thing), but doesn't completely dominant any one industry. It also should be in Tier 2 overall with DC, LA, SF.
Philadelphia also belongs in Tier 2 for the #1 criteria. The level of wealth / influence in the region is not lagging behind that group besides Boston and DC (which should be the first 2 cities in Tier 2). Miami is more of the outlier IMO.
A 'coastal elite' metro (as defined by the populist new Right) has a few characteristics:
1. Extreme gross wealth (old but especially new), which directly affects national politics and institutions
2. Industries that have (at least perceived) outsized effects on most American lives (Media, Tech, Hollywood, Wall St)
3. Elite academic institutions and the knowledge-based economies that come with them.
4. A palpable misunderstanding of, if not disdain for, the undereducated, forgotten, rural parts of the country, especially if influenced by a history of European aristocratic norms. (There's an argument that every metro today fits this, but let's just focus on the most extreme)
5. Significant global influence
**all ratings scaled to size of metro PPP GDP...I get it Pittsburgh is a tech hub and San Diego property values are high, spare me
Qualifying metros:
1. NYC, LA, SF...next tier: Chicago, Boston, MIA, Dallas, Houston, DC, Seattle
2. NYC, LA, SF, DC...next tier: Houston
3. Boston, NYC, Philly, DC, Chicago, SF, Seattle...next tier:, ATL, Houston, Charlotte/Raleigh/Durham, Austin
4. Boston, NYC, Philly, DC, Chicago, SF, LA, Dallas, Seattle... next tier: top 100 metros
5. NYC, LA, SF, DC... next tier: Chicago, Miami, maybe Boston
A few tiers emerge:
1st--NYC
2nd- DC, LA, SF
3rd: Chicago, Boston
4th: Miami, Houston, Philly, Seattle etc etc
Tiers 1 and 2 are absolutely non-negotiable, after that is more semantics.
BTW I just include San Jose with SF because this is about perception and no one knows that San Jose is actually Silicon Valley, not SF. I guess if I do this I should merge Philly into NYC, but I digress...
Agreed with everything but #2. Becuase Boston probably needs to be in one of those tiers for playing a huge part in the development of all three vaccines. (Moderna based in Cambridge, Beth Israel developed JJ, and Pzifer has NorthAndover/andover labs that directly worked on vaccines). As well as having 18 million+ sqft of lab underway, more than 40% of the current pipeline in the US.
*Edit 19.2 mil sqft of lab coming down the pipeline thanks to a Watertown dvlpmnt announced three days ago*)
A 'coastal elite' metro (as defined by the populist new Right) has a few characteristics:
1. Extreme gross wealth (old but especially new), which directly affects national politics and institutions
2. Industries that have (at least perceived) outsized effects on most American lives (Media, Tech, Hollywood, Wall St)
3. Elite academic institutions and the knowledge-based economies that come with them.
4. A palpable misunderstanding of, if not disdain for, the undereducated, forgotten, rural parts of the country, especially if influenced by a history of European aristocratic norms. (There's an argument that every metro today fits this, but let's just focus on the most extreme)
5. Significant global influence
**all ratings scaled to size of metro PPP GDP...I get it Pittsburgh is a tech hub and San Diego property values are high, spare me
Qualifying metros:
1. NYC, LA, SF...next tier: Chicago, Boston, MIA, Dallas, Houston, DC, Seattle
2. NYC, LA, SF, DC...next tier: Houston
3. Boston, NYC, Philly, DC, Chicago, SF, Seattle...next tier:, ATL, Houston, Charlotte/Raleigh/Durham, Austin
4. Boston, NYC, Philly, DC, Chicago, SF, LA, Dallas, Seattle... next tier: top 100 metros
5. NYC, LA, SF, DC... next tier: Chicago, Miami, maybe Boston
A few tiers emerge:
1st--NYC
2nd- DC, LA, SF
3rd: Chicago, Boston
4th: Miami, Houston, Philly, Seattle etc etc
Tiers 1 and 2 are absolutely non-negotiable, after that is more semantics.
BTW I just include San Jose with SF because this is about perception and no one knows that San Jose is actually Silicon Valley, not SF. I guess if I do this I should merge Philly into NYC, but I digress...
I’m trying to understand how Chicago has “significant global influence”? O’Hare is an international hub but there isn’t that much of an O & D market. Boeing moving their HQ to Chicago killed the company and it’s inevitable they will move back to Seattle. Other than Walgreens owning Boots, there aren’t any global companies there. It’s important domestically but I don’t see the global importance.
I’m trying to understand how Chicago has “significant global influence”? O’Hare is an international hub but there isn’t that much of an O & D market. Boeing moving their HQ to Chicago killed the company and it’s inevitable they will move back to Seattle. Other than Walgreens owning Boots, there aren’t any global companies there. It’s important domestically but I don’t see the global importance.
Are you serious...? So Chicago is your s*** city of the week?
All I will say, Chicago is without a doubt a major player globally in business, economics, finance, etc. A quick Google search will help your brain.
I will let other posters take it from here...
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.
