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, mostly because I really don't care much for New York City at all and living there would really take a toll on me. Not that I really want to live in Boston either.
Philly and Boston are both massive college cities. Philly has the most colleges in the country. They have education reps.
So?
Miami has a lot of colleges. Should we count all the community colleges in Miami and say education is equal to Boston? Boston has 7 globally ranked restigious universities standing in the world, Philly has 2. That's even behind NYC, DC, Chicago, SF Bay Area, and LA. So should we say DC or LA have more in common with Boston now because they get more "reps"?
Quote:
Im not talking about championships, im talking about the fans. That probably has something to do with how provincial both cities are. Boston more hispanic and asian.
And Chicago and NYC would share this similarity with Boston too. In fact I would tier NYC and Boston together because they have out of control sports fans AND they have teams that win championships, in my lifetime before I become an old geezer and die. I would tier Philly and Chicago together because they don't win anything that much and have out of control sports fans. I know about the Phillies winning a few years ago and the Blackhawks and White Sox a few years ago so no need to correct me there.
Actually I like this tiering better, it distinguishes the winner cities from the not winner ones.
Quote:
ESPN as a page for LA too, and I wouldnt put LA in the same galaxy as either one as far as sports goes, and im not talking about championships. Its purely between the people themselves. Bostonians and Philadelphians. Just because Philadelphia doesnt have an ESPN page doesnt mean its any less a sports town. Thats absurd to me that youd even discount Philly as a sports town because of it. BIG mistake there.
I would. LA Dodgers sell out, so do the Lakers, Kings, and even the second tier teams like Angels and Ducks draw strongly. Then there's the LA Galaxy, you just cant beat them Ace.
Quote:
City Philly is more diverse, metro Boston is more diverse, but still very close. Philly has more from other and mixed races, Boston doesnt. Check it out, bud. Philly is predominantly black (West Indian as well), Boston is predominantly white. Youre underscoring Philly here, again regarding its diversity. Philly cuisine is better, but thats subjective.
Philly's Hispanic population, 75% of it is Puerto Ricans and Mexican. That's not true of Boston at all, which has a very even mix with all Hispanics and still manages to have 100K more of them and have a higher percentage of them. Then there's also that they have 300K Brazilians, the largest Brazilian population in the world outside of the Portuguese speaking nations of Portugal and Brazil. Boston also has in percentages a strong lead over Philly in Asian, and in raw numbers its not even close. Boston is a top 10 Asian city with LA, SF Bay Area, NYC, DC, Honolulu, Chicago, Seattle, Houston, San Diego, and Dallas and Philly isn't up there. Then lets focus on the black population, Boston metro is 450k and Philly metro is 1M more than that. They're not even on the same planet for black populations.
Quote:
Philly has Society Hill. Boston has Beacon Hill. What other cities have anything similar aside NYC (which used to have more)
Besides the part that they're the most upscale neighborhoods in either city, that they share the word hill in the name, and that they have rowhomes, they're nothing alike. Boston's rowhomes look nothing like Philly's, even the window shutters are different designs, colors, and styles let alone the clean, sleek, and well kept nature of one vs the other.
Quote:
Both cities share a massive amount of history during the same time period and had prominent roles in the founding of this country. Philly was the capital for awhile before DC was built.
Philly's history was more based on paper work. Articles of confederation, declaration of independence, etc and Boston's was more physical than that. The battles, massacres, betrayals, etc.
Quote:
Music? Both important, id argue Philly has a more rich music history, and there are artists you dont even realize are from there, other than hip hop.
Musically as someone that hates ghetto music, also known as hip hop, I know I'm being ignorant but IDC really they don't have anything in common IMO. You want to compare Freeway to Aerosmith? That just shows how different they really are musically.
Miami has a lot of colleges. Should we count all the community colleges in Miami and say education is equal to Boston? Boston has 7 globally ranked restigious universities standing in the world, Philly has 2. That's even behind NYC, DC, Chicago, SF Bay Area, and LA. So should we say DC or LA have more in common with Boston now because they get more "reps"?
And Chicago and NYC would share this similarity with Boston too. In fact I would tier NYC and Boston together because they have out of control sports fans AND they have teams that win championships, in my lifetime before I become an old geezer and die. I would tier Philly and Chicago together because they don't win anything that much and have out of control sports fans. I know about the Phillies winning a few years ago and the Blackhawks and White Sox a few years ago so no need to correct me there.
Actually I like this tiering better, it distinguishes the winner cities from the not winner ones.
I would. LA Dodgers sell out, so do the Lakers, Kings, and even the second tier teams like Angels and Ducks draw strongly. Then there's the LA Galaxy, you just cant beat them Ace.
Philly's Hispanic population, 75% of it is Puerto Ricans and Mexican. That's not true of Boston at all, which has a very even mix with all Hispanics and still manages to have 100K more of them and have a higher percentage of them. Then there's also that they have 300K Brazilians, the largest Brazilian population in the world outside of the Portuguese speaking nations of Portugal and Brazil. Boston also has in percentages a strong lead over Philly in Asian, and in raw numbers its not even close. Boston is a top 10 Asian city with LA, SF Bay Area, NYC, DC, Honolulu, Chicago, Seattle, Houston, San Diego, and Dallas and Philly isn't up there. Then lets focus on the black population, Boston metro is 450k and Philly metro is 1M more than that. They're not even on the same planet for black populations.
Besides the part that they're the most upscale neighborhoods in either city, that they share the word hill in the name, and that they have rowhomes, they're nothing alike. Boston's rowhomes look nothing like Philly's, even the window shutters are different designs, colors, and styles let alone the clean, sleek, and well kept nature of one vs the other.
Philly's history was more based on paper work. Articles of confederation, declaration of independence, etc and Boston's was more physical than that. The battles, massacres, betrayals, etc.
Musically as someone that hates ghetto music, also known as hip hop, I know I'm being ignorant but IDC really they don't have anything in common IMO. You want to compare Freeway to Aerosmith? That just shows how different they really are musically.
jus cuz u chinese dont mean erybody else wants to have a top 10 asian city and you say philly has a bigger black population like it's a drawback, makes sense tho, u hate hip hop, and u hate the blacks too
Center City is a lot more like Manhattan than downtown Boston though. There'll be wandering into a good deal of ****-smelling areas, large skyscrapers often desolate after hours, and a mostly straight grid pattern--however, they'll also have wonderfully bougie parts.
Manhattan is but a small part of NYC and an even smaller part of the metro. Even then, I think you might've missed much of the upper third of Manhattan and areas like the Lower East Side.
Good points. I forgot how gritty Manhattan can be, whereas Boston is the antithesis of gritty.
I was thinking from a more industry, white collar, coastal, trendy, upscale point of view IMO. You brought up good points.
Quote:
What's across the Charles is not very much like what's across the Hudson. I don't see how Long Island is that much like the peninsula since Long Island is so incredibly dependent on NYC and comes out of a huge sprawl rather than nice, connected suburbs/small towns. What's Boston's great flailing city to NYC's Newark and Philly's Camden? What about the close-in wealthy escape suburbs of Westchester for NYC and Philadelphia's Main Line?
Westchester is ok, really I would put all of the Connecticut suburbs ahead of Wstchester. Westchester is more in line with Gladwyn on the Philly main line. Great suburbs, and some of the best anywhere truly but the ones in Fairfield CT kill them both IMO.
Boston doesn't have a comparison to Newark or Camden but I would argue Newark isn't comparable to Camden either. Newark has some positive things for it, Camden is a complete warzone and it even looks like it. All it was missing were some trenches IMO.
Boston sprawl is different than NYC's, New Englands sprawl is different from anywhere else in the US anyway, the small towns are surrounded by patchy forests and they cant develop the way the rest of the country can because of the NECTA restrictions. They cannot build the same way, therefore cannot sprawl the same way. Which is why I call Boston the spiderweb metro. The big metro of collecting small towns and suburbs in a web design.
Quote:
The big difference between Cleveland and Philly is that Cleveland is still descending while Philadelphia is going up. There's been ample redevelopment outside of Center City and it's not just large mega-projects but a lot of individuals buying up and fixing up places much as it was with NYC. And yea, of course it'll take decades. It took decades for NYC to recover and it did so in parts so it still has incredibly massive regions of poverty even though the city as a whole has been improving. This is a large part of why Philly is much more like NYC than Boston is.
Well I'm 34 today, I don't know how long I'll be alive to see Philly look like what Boston does today. All I know is that if I got on a plane and went to Boston to enjoy what I aesthetically described to you, it would exist right now whereas for Philly it will come in stages over the timeline of a slew of decades. I'm not even sure if some of those dilapidation are fixable man, how many billions will it cost the city to facelift and repair those roads? How about clean everything? I'll leave all the other issues unaddressed just because I'm trying not to bash the place for once.
IDK bruh, I'm not looking to travel that much when I turn into an old geezer. I just want to move to San Diego by then, grow a long white mustache (because I'll be old), sit outside and just soak in the sun in my final days.
jus cuz u chinese dont mean erybody else wants to have a top 10 asian city and you say philly has a bigger black population like it's a drawback, makes sense tho, u hate hip hop, and u hate the blacks too
No I didn't say its a drawback or mean it. I was just pointing out the diversity differences between the two cities that's all. I actually want to visit Atlanta for the black culture, guess if I want to indulge in the best culture for something then go to the best place, right? I go to Oakland every weekend because one of my good friends is black and we both hate hip hop. That's not a race thing, that's a preference thing.
btw for major cities Boston is the 10th largest Hispanic population for metro. Philly is not up there again. I'm just arguing diversity with Ace, that's all.
No I didn't say its a drawback or mean it. I was just pointing out the diversity differences between the two cities that's all. I actually want to visit Atlanta for the black culture, guess if I want to indulge in the best culture for something then go to the best place, right? I go to Oakland every weekend because one of my good friends is black and we both hate hip hop. That's not a race thing, that's a preference thing.
btw for major cities Boston is the 10th largest Hispanic population for metro. Philly is not up there again. I'm just arguing diversity with Ace, that's all.
if hes black and hates hip hop, hes not black, hes uncle tom
Good points. I forgot how gritty Manhattan can be, whereas Boston is the antithesis of gritty.
I was thinking from a more industry, white collar, coastal, trendy, upscale point of view IMO. You brought up good points.
Westchester is ok, really I would put all of the Connecticut suburbs ahead of Wstchester. Westchester is more in line with Gladwyn on the Philly main line. Great suburbs, and some of the best anywhere truly but the ones in Fairfield CT kill them both IMO.
Boston doesn't have a comparison to Newark or Camden but I would argue Newark isn't comparable to Camden either. Newark has some positive things for it, Camden is a complete warzone and it even looks like it. All it was missing were some trenches IMO.
Boston sprawl is different than NYC's, New Englands sprawl is different from anywhere else in the US anyway, the small towns are surrounded by patchy forests and they cant develop the way the rest of the country can because of the NECTA restrictions. They cannot build the same way, therefore cannot sprawl the same way. Which is why I call Boston the spiderweb metro. The big metro of collecting small towns and suburbs in a web design.
Well I'm 34 today, I don't know how long I'll be alive to see Philly look like what Boston does today. All I know is that if I got on a plane and went to Boston to enjoy what I aesthetically described to you, it would exist right now whereas for Philly it will come in stages over the timeline of a slew of decades. I'm not even sure if some of those dilapidation are fixable man, how many billions will it cost the city to facelift and repair those roads? How about clean everything?
IDK bruh, I'm not looking to travel that much when I turn into an old geezer. I just want to move to San Diego by then, grow a long white mustache (because I'll be old), sit outside and just soak in the sun in my final days.
Newark is much like Camden for large portions--Newark is much larger and more populous though so there's greater variation with the worst parts a lot like much of Camden. Newark (and Camden) are also one of many municipalities of their respective regions which have gone through very tough times.
Basic point is that Philly and NYC are more alike than Boston and Philly are.
NYC changed in a really short period of time. Philly is headed in roughly the same direction, and unless something drastically alters current trends (which are still going the same way even in wake of the recession) and you're looking to die young, you'll probably see Philly changing pretty soon. It won't be clean everything (I don't think anyone in their right minds would claim NYC has clean everything), but you'll see a lot of the gentrification that NYC saw in short time. And like NYC, some areas won't be fixable--they're already abandoned lots or decayed beyond repair. There are still a good lot of vacant lots in many parts and even wandering through now desirable parts of NYC such as Long Island City, Williamsburg, Prospect Heights, etc., you'll see plenty of recent construction filling in the gaps where parts of the city had burned down.
let's let go of this philly comparison thang
wat bout boston tho, i need more info, im considerin to move there
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.
