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.
Great point, the local culture and identity is what makes Philadelphia and Chicago different from, say, Dallas and Atlanta. I think that is why you see Sunbelt city bashing here. And I agree that DC is missing that.
What makes Raleigh Raleigh, what makes Tampa Tampa? I bet most inhabitants can answer that one. What makes Philly Philly? Everyone can answer that one.
A lot of what makes a city is its built environment. It's what sets NYC aside in its own tier.
Always a lot of DC bashing here...... but just because the city's original grid and pattern was after Paris. The city is in North America and centuries of American standards. Its height restrictions add to its uniqueness and of course, as the center of US government and its monuments to top to pier free museums.
Cores of cities still play big rolls in defining cites, tiers and character. But again, THE BUILT ENVONMENT, street-grids of if a city more without one. Then you have VISUAL PERCEPTIONS of more f a city in its neighborhoods.
Saying the US never having war destruction in cities. I think of DECAY AND DECLINE OF NEIGHBRHOODS OVER DECADES. Some cities experienced race and Vietnam mixed in riots where blocks were burned and buildings destroyed and vandalized. DECAY BLEMISHES OUR CITIES STILL TODAY.
These with most still visible ..... have that effect outsiders views yet today. Locals see all the good, changes, improvements, gentrification etc. Visitors see EVERYTHING in the mix.
Philadelphia and other cities. Are a product of mainly the growth and downfalls thru the 20th century. The Earliest American areas of our Eastern cities ..... are a fraction of them. DC and mighty NYC saw huge strides in gentrification. Though NYC maintains its grittiness with it far more then other cities. Philly too. But each city is in its own levels of renewal. More haphazard renewals where decay mixes between blocks with renewal. Still have that blemish locals do not understand why outsiders then don't get the positive openings more......
But to lessen DC does not help Philly in perceptions. At the end of the day ...... APPEARENCES RULE.
Least judge of DC is a Train station. Most of our major Northern cities have one. None are Paris or London's. So no points there to use to lessen DC.
Its getting to look more and more like some jealousy here ...... while NYC gets none and Boston much much less. PHILADELPHIA STILL IS ITS OWN CITY. Rising more from decay ..... but a process that takes a decade here. While some cities clear out blight ...... long before gentrification comes. So they look good sooner, or on a faster track sooner that helped them more. DC seems like one. A HUGE factor was getting its extensive subway in the 70s to.
Sure Philly is a REAL CITY. Some see DC as not? But plenty to still have DC and its growth as if a Sunbelt city with plenty of Prestige to start with.
A lot of what makes a city is its built environment. It's what sets NYC aside in its own tier.
Always a lot of DC bashing here...... but just because the city's original grid and pattern was after Paris. The city is in North America and centuries of American standards. Its height restrictions add to its uniqueness and of course, as the center of US government and its monuments to top to pier free museums.
Cores of cities still play big rolls in defining cites, tiers and character. But again, THE BUILT ENVONMENT, street-grids of if a city more without one. Then you have VISUAL PERCEPTIONS of more f a city in its neighborhoods.
Saying the US never having war destruction in cities. I think of DECAY AND DECLINE OF NEIGHBRHOODS OVER DECADES. Some cities experienced race and Vietnam mixed in riots where blocks were burned and buildings destroyed and vandalized. DECAY BLEMISHES OUR CITIES STILL TODAY.
These with most still visible ..... have that effect outsiders views yet today. Locals see all the good, changes, improvements, gentrification etc. Visitors see EVERYTHING in the mix.
Philadelphia and other cities. Are a product of mainly the growth and downfalls thru the 20th century. The Earliest American areas of our Eastern cities ..... are a fraction of them. DC and mighty NYC saw huge strides in gentrification. Though NYC maintains its grittiness with it far more then other cities. Philly too. But each city is in its own levels of renewal. More haphazard renewals where decay mixes between blocks with renewal. Still have that blemish locals do not understand why outsiders then don't get the positive openings more......
But to lessen DC does not help Philly in perceptions. At the end of the day ...... APPEARENCES RULE.
Least judge of DC is a Train station. Most of our major Northern cities have one. None are Paris or London's. So no points there to use to lessen DC.
Its getting to look more and more like some jealousy here ...... while NYC gets none and Boston much much less. PHILADELPHIA STILL IS ITS OWN CITY. Rising more from decay ..... but a process that takes a decade here. While some cities clear out blight ...... long before gentrification comes. So they look good sooner, or on a faster track sooner that helped them more. DC seems like one. A HUGE factor was getting its extensive subway in the 70s to.
Sure Philly is a REAL CITY. Some see DC as not? But plenty to still have DC and its growth as if a Sunbelt city with plenty of Prestige to start with.
You have a generous definition of "bashing," I think. Before I advise this, I want to qualify this is not a personal attack, and I want to assure that almost every post I write, I go back and reread later (for a third time, because I always "try" to proofread once), to find at least one silly or confusing typo. Proofreading one's own work is challenging, especially immediately after writing. One is inclined to reread as it was intended to be written, not as it actually is.
If you want your posts to be taken seriously here, I think it is advisable to do some more editing and to use standard English more often. It is difficult to read with all of the extended ellipses, capitalized words/sentences, "sentences" like "Philadelphia and other cities." etc.
You have probably been advised of this before, and I think another poster even mentioned it in this thread. I would be happy to reply if your post were more readable.
You have a generous definition of "bashing," I think. Before I advise this, I want to qualify this is not a personal attack, and I want to assure that almost every post I write, I go back and reread later (for a third time, because I always "try" to proofread once), to find at least one silly or confusing typo. Proofreading one's own work is challenging, especially immediately after writing. One is inclined to reread as it was intended to be written, not as it actually is.
If you want your posts to be taken seriously here, I think it is advisable to do some more editing and to use standard English more often. It is difficult to read with all of the extended ellipses, capitalized words/sentences, "sentences" like "Philadelphia and other cities." etc.
You have probably been advised of this before, and I think another poster even mentioned it in this thread. I would be happy to reply if your post were more readable.
His proclaiming that DC was centuries old made me lol. London(orginally Londinium) and Paris are both approx. 2000 years old.
Paris was originally founded by the Gauls( Parisii tribe)and London was founded by the Romans.
Again, DC will never be like those cities even with a faux Parisian street layout.
All of this is OT for this thread so I will stop with the above.
You have a generous definition of "bashing," I think. Before I advise this, I want to qualify this is not a personal attack, and I want to assure that almost every post I write, I go back and reread later (for a third time, because I always "try" to proofread once), to find at least one silly or confusing typo. Proofreading one's own work is challenging, especially immediately after writing. One is inclined to reread as it was intended to be written, not as it actually is.
If you want your posts to be taken seriously here, I think it is advisable to do some more editing and to use standard English more often. It is difficult to read with all of the extended ellipses, capitalized words/sentences, "sentences" like "Philadelphia and other cities." etc.
You have probably been advised of this before, and I think another poster even mentioned it in this thread. I would be happy to reply if your post were more readable.
Simply put. DC lessening (instead of bashing to suit some Philly posters) is not merely one post. Usually it's about DC superiority by its residents and transplants mentioned as disliked. Here it goes further .... WHY?
If you see nothing to reply on in past on something understood in post? Why bother. My reply on a DC revival and city not like a true Paris. That its original layout was patterned. Was because it was not about recreating a Paris. Though it could have had those who hoped for much like that .... to be fulfilled.
Many cities had aspects of Paris looked into for rebuilds. Rebuilding SF after its great earthquake had aspects dawn up by architect Daniel Burnham for that city ..... before even the Great earthquake of 1908. It then was voted down after all the devastation as too costly. Or it would be a much different city today. Or without NIMBYISM if preserved too as much of SF is. It might also be more like a Hong Kong today in skyscrapers by land restrictions and demands for housing letting developers build much more upward thru the city.
Daniel Burnham also did work on DC before Chicago and SFs and a key roll in Chicago's new buildings as early skyscrapers. But a rebuilt lakefront with harbors, Parks and beaches, were adopted and still ongoing on the river today. But in the city's grid. His city plans only had some boulevards added and diagonal streets and a downtown spoke of a wheel streets not utilized with a City Hall at the middle. So it did not get a more European Paris grid.
Philly had William Penn's original layout. That was quickly perverted as streets got subdivided without town squares and added streets as the city grew greatly over the centuries. Yards fr a small garden got less in much of the city as Penn desired.
Again the Row-Home defined the city more then any other to this day. Appearances of these today still play a KEY part of outsiders views, with CC to other oldest neighborhoods seen most positively. But it is a very uneven view they get or have overall thru the city. As reviving areas become greater. Then these view improve as DC's has arguably had more if it?
But DCs perception has nothing to do with Philly's. Back to what helps or hurts Philly's views and perceptions both true and false. But any negatives are not erased by opinions..... that they are false. If they get maintained and stubbornly continue. Lessening DC's revival doesn't help Philly's view or perceptions in the least. Like them or not.
But DCs perception has nothing to do with Philly's. Back to what helps or hurts Philly's views and perceptions both true and false. But any negatives are not erased by opinions..... that they are false. If they get maintained and stubbornly continue. Lessening DC's revival doesn't help Philly's view or perceptions in the least. Like them or not.
I feel compelled to respond as someone who's posted about some negative attributes about DC in my experience as a former resident of both the city and immediate suburbs for most of my young adulthood.
I'm not sure why you'd automatically equate a negative opinion/viewpoint to "bashing," particularly as mine is backed up by real world experience, as opposed to a baseless rant. Neither was my opinion meant to elevate a particular view of Philly at the expense of DC; it was merely a personal anecdote, just like the OP's. Both anecdotes are equally valid.
I'll be clear, because I fear you've misunderstood: I offered my viewpoint not as a simple putdown to DC (which I'll again say is an absolutely beautiful city with a ton to offer, even if its populated by especially socially Darwinist people and offers little truly local culture/identity). It was offered to make the broader point that outward image and aesthetics only take a city so far. Factors like social environment, the "sense of place" and the cultural depth of a city are arguably much more critical factors for human enjoyment. And those are things that you won't find listed on Trip Advisor or posted on Instagram; it has to be experienced in person.
No one is trying to compete with DC here, because that would be patently silly. But Philly also doesn't need to do so. It already pretty effortlessly offers a very unique urban experience that one definitely couldn't replicate in DC. If some folks choose to overlook that; then that's too bad for them. But the fact that those people exist doesn't inherently invalidate anything about Philadelphia.
I feel compelled to respond as someone who's posted about some negative attributes about DC in my experience as a former resident of both the city and immediate suburbs for most of my young adulthood.
I'm not sure why you'd automatically equate a negative opinion/viewpoint to "bashing," particularly as mine is backed up by real world experience, as opposed to a baseless rant. Neither was my opinion meant to elevate a particular view of Philly at the expense of DC; it was merely a personal anecdote, just like the OP's. Both anecdotes are equally valid.
I'll be clear, because I fear you've misunderstood: I offered my viewpoint not as a simple putdown to DC (which I'll again say is an absolutely beautiful city with a ton to offer, even if its populated by especially socially Darwinist people and offers little truly local culture/identity). It was offered to make the broader point that outward image and aesthetics only take a city so far. Factors like social environment, the "sense of place" and the cultural depth of a city are arguably much more critical factors for human enjoyment. And those are things that you won't find listed on Travel Advisor or posted on Instagram; it has to be experienced in person.
No one is trying to compete with DC here, because that would be patently silly. But Philly also doesn't need to do so. It already pretty effortlessly offers a very unique urban experience that one definitely couldn't replicate in DC. If some folks choose to overlook that; then that's too bad for them. But the fact that those people exist doesn't inherently invalidate anything about Philadelphia.
I agree. Just DC keeps getting brought in. You have to admit. Only NYC can have rude, tourist hating, get moving people and its still .... NYC so we get over it.
Everyone has a right o their view and point of view on DC. People seem to be a big on. But then Hilly gets its share and NYC the usual out as ...... faghetabutit. Its New York.
I'm no DC booster. Just see no booster for a DC. But its original street like Paris grid and plan was not to become the Paris of the New World. Nor its main Train Station should be more like it, or its revival of areas and population growth not a boasting point for them. DC lido endured its years of decay.. Yes it has its over-zealous boosters in threads. But as you note .... at the end of the day. Both cities have their own character and boasting points and people perceptions. Neither looks to the other for ideas.
All cities have to stand on there own choices that they became what they are today .... and so many had the scourge of radical declines and racial change with white-flight that can still prevail. It can be true that some cities hide it better, removed blight better, gentrified more and perceived cleaner or many factors a visitor sees .... and they do see everything more.
They either get more impressed, have a mixed view of both, or something that lessened it. CC generally
The hop is far more Great to at least good impressions and they take that home to tell others. Philly seems to get this uneven mix. Some locals here abhor and hate any labeling them not loving Philly as all trolls. But far more s becoming favorable. Especially for Philly's Core as a top one in the Nation.
I never denied those post on DC people being called things like snobby and overly boastful. But that is not what defines a city as the #1 grading it a visitor uses. It is far more again:
- offerings from shopping to eateries and museums.
- built environment in Cores especially. But also seeing other parts and neighborhoods of that city and it adds to perceptions good or bad. Sadly, sometimes lessens it.
- people not use to tight streets and homes all attached to the sidewalks or green there. Might have a new kind of reality that they are not use to at all. If not fully looking pretty well-kept etc.? It can hurt greatly perceptions.
Surely we expect them to see all the good and improvements locals see. But much remains hit and miss as neighborhoods changing and improving. Have mixes for years of blight and renewed old and new infill all mixed around still with some blighted parts.
Locals have admitted how blight can remain in one block and the next renewed. Again, a visitor not use to that and has the perceived good ...... lessened many times by it.
Time is on Philly's and other Northern cites side as they renew and add infill again. Some faster and differently then others. Philly of course, need not see DC as a competitor. Philly is definitely Urban by every US metric. DC has its own type style too that even height limits effects it still .... big time and may be seen as getting more suburban quicker.
Yet DC is mentioned negatively in many threads of this forum..... where Philly is perceived in some negative aspect that Philadelphians then use almost like a bit of a deflection. Some then say they couldn't care less what DC does. But still can enjoy its offerings as any other city visited.
Chicago gets it isn't NYC and locals really do not care said that it isn't. Far too many things that might ruffle their feather. Not even not being a mini-NYC means little to them. But a bit more meaningful if Philly is a bit as a mini-NYC. That is my opinion.
Philly as most cities. Just want to be themselves and best they can be. I clearly get that. Getting more visitors that also perceive the good to offer and more who visit note it .....
Most will be happy I see no more use in posting in the thread..... but others I may.
Always a lot of DC bashing here...... but just because the city's original grid and pattern was after Paris. The city is in North America and centuries of American standards. Its height restrictions add to its uniqueness and of course, as the center of US government and its monuments to top to pier free museums. .
(emphasis added)
Not quite, for two reasons:
1) Paris wasn't laid out on a planned grid as Philadelphia, Savannah, Bath or Dresden were; its streets may display gridlike patterns, but those patterns are the accretion of activities in a medieval settlement that grew over the centuries.
2) The planned element that makes Paris' street network distinctive - namely, the boulevards that slice through the medieval warrens of streets - postdates Pierre L'Enfant's Washington city plan by about a century. L'Enfant laid the diagonal avenues and traffic circles over the basic grid in order to make it more difficult for armies to advance on the city; Baron Haussmann rammed the boulevards through after the uprisings and Paris Commune of 1871 demonstrated how difficult it was for troops to move through the city to put down a rebellion - the boulevards made this task easier.
As for what you perceive as "DC-bashing," I know I engage in what I think you would call that behavior on an ongoing basis. But I do point out that my issue with DC is not with Washington itself, which has many positive attributes and things to do, but with the Official Washingtonians who tend to dominate the city's culture - and it seems many District (and DMV) expats share my opinion of this crowd. (This includes a culinarily inclined friend of mine who was [as I jokingly called him] "one of the five white people I know who lives in Strawberry Mansion." He found a restaurant job in DC - where he was born and raised - that he absolutely loves in a city he absolutely detests. I think he would move back here in a minute if he thought he could find a similar restaurant job here, and it wouldn't surprise me at all to get a call from him in the future telling me he was hanging it up and heading to New Orleans.
Which brings me to the point Duderino made. Washington, like Brasilia and Canberra, is a city that was created de novo for one purpose and one purpose only: to be the national capital. That stymies its capacity to grow "organically" the way even other planned cities like Philadelphia, Savannah and Bath have, for that original intended function seems to crowd out most other growth paths. National capitals that were founded for some other function initially, like London, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, Cairo..., don't have that infirmity, as there are many other things besides governing the country going on in them. This difference between DC and every other American city really can't be erased.
Your generalizations about different cities are pretty accurate, Detroit doesnt disappoint because its got a widespread reputation as being dirty and unsafe so most dont have high expectations. This being said Detroit has made great strides over the last 10 years and has become considerably safer.
Speaking of generalizations that are accurate. Philly (and this is from my visiting friends) is viewed as dirty, much dirtier than cities like NYC & DC which do a better job of keeping tourist areas clean. Also people are pretty rude and actually seem proud of it. You can try to debunk me if you want but I have many workmates who think their rudeness is a Philly right of passage, but outsiders arent going to agree. I do think a better test of our progress is not how many hotels and such that are being built, but the percentage of returning visitors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennsport
Personally, I couldn't care less if some people think Philly lacks in some respect to their own desires. To rowhomecity's point, the metrics and stats paint a very different picture of what the millions of masses experience. I also see this as a positive for Philly. Just the fact that we're in these "airing your grievances" conversations means we've made the leap from a decade ago when people wouldn't even voice their complaints. I mean, you don't hear much about Detroit disappointing people.
This same topic probably exists in some form in every top-tier city's threads:
- San Diego and San Fran = "we have so many homeless, I heard from X that they'll never come here again"
- NYC = "people are so rude, I couldn't wait until my trip was over"
- Wash DC = "everyone was so stuck up and consumed with themselves, I was amazed by the indifference and rudeness"
- LA = "the city was so disconnected, I didn't expect to spend half my trip in ubers"
- etc, etc, etc...
No place (city or otherwise) is right for everyone. The fact that we're in the discussion now is pretty sweet.
And, I lived in London for a year and have a lot of issues with that city myself...
Which brings me to the point Duderino made. Washington, like Brasilia and Canberra, is a city that was created de novo for one purpose and one purpose only: to be the national capital. That stymies its capacity to grow "organically" the way even other planned cities like Philadelphia, Savannah and Bath have, for that original intended function seems to crowd out most other growth paths. National capitals that were founded for some other function initially, like London, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, Cairo..., don't have that infirmity, as there are many other things besides governing the country going on in them. This difference between DC and every other American city really can't be erased.
The District of Columbia was created wrt a 1790 compromise to appease slave holding southerners. That was the "one purpose and one purpose only".
Your generalizations about different cities are pretty accurate, Detroit doesnt disappoint because its got a widespread reputation as being dirty and unsafe so most dont have high expectations. This being said Detroit has made great strides over the last 10 years and has become considerably safer.
Speaking of generalizations that are accurate. Philly (and this is from my visiting friends) is viewed as dirty, much dirtier than cities like NYC & DC which do a better job of keeping tourist areas clean. Also people are pretty rude and actually seem proud of it. You can try to debunk me if you want but I have many workmates who think their rudeness is a Philly right of passage, but outsiders arent going to agree. I do think a better test of our progress is not how many hotels and such that are being built, but the percentage of returning visitors.
Saying "generalizations are accurate" is a bit of an oxymoron.
Where are the dirt streets in Society Hill or major parts of Old City? In NYC, particularly parts of Manhattan, it's common to see stacks of filled trash bags at curbside. In NYC scores of buildings are supposedly being rehabbed with conspicuous construction scaffolding. It's not the best of looks for our premier city. Hudson Yards does look nice though.
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.
Getting more visitors that also perceive the good to offer and more who visit note it .....
