As far as historical cities go...would you put Philly on top...and if not, what other city? (Philadelphia: homes, area)

[Tiger Beer]

As far as historical cities go...would you put Philly on top...and if not, what other city? And why?

Thinking particularly of largely built cities, with a large amount of their buildings still in place, etc.

[orrmobl]

I would probably put Boston on top just because of the historical significance of the Boston Tea Party, Paul Revere's Ride, etc...great town!

[bryson662001]

I would put Philly on top for the number of historic sights and incidents, certainly more so than Boston.....for what it's worth. Boston was on the sidelines compared to Philly which was at the center of everything.

[FindingZen]

Philly is where the nation was born, essentially. For that reason alone, I would put it at the top. Boston certainly has its major contributions as well. Each city has plentiful historic landmarks.

[thesixth]

In the US, Philadelphia & Washington, DC are pretty good. World wide, London, & Rome are hard to top.

[FindingZen]

Originally Posted by thesixth

In the US, Philadelphia & Washington, DC are pretty good.

Oh yeah... I suppose DC has its merits too.

[a75206]

Originally Posted by thesixth

In the US, Philadelphia & Washington, DC are pretty good. World wide, London, & Rome are hard to top.

For a Eurocentric worldview, yes. A lot of world history also happened in capitals of Asia and Middle East. I'm not even religious, but I'd think Jerusalem has a ton of history and historical significance stretching out over a long time. New Delhi sits on the site of six older cities with some structures going back a long long time in history and built by locals as well as invaders.

And if you're putting London, why not include Paris? Paris is on par with London on pretty much everything.

[TheCity]

Originally Posted by Tiger Beer

As far as historical cities go...would you put Philly on top...and if not, what other city? And why?

Thinking particularly of largely built cities, with a large amount of their buildings still in place, etc.

I believe this topic will be argued forever.

In my opinion, I consider it a four way tie between DC, Philly, NYC and Boston.

[maf763]

Washington didn't really play any significant role until after colonial times, the Revolutionary War, and the adoption of the Constitution. I'd put Boston and Philadelphia as most historical in the US. If we're taking world history, no American city comes close.

[helo-flyer]

For the sake of argument, if we limit the discussion to American cities several come to my mind (I've limited the list to cities I've actually been to) including Philly, Boston, NYC, DC, Annapolis, Charleston, Savannah, and St. Augustine...

Charleston, and Savannah are obviously older souther towns. Very cool to visit for a northerner looking for that old ante-bellum feel. St. Augustine is fun as well. Its claim to fame is being the oldest settlement in the US. Now the town is very touristy but still worth seeing. While interesting, when talking about historical significance they have a tough time measuring up to other towns up North.

As you head further North into Maryland, Annapolis is a gem of a city. Its downtown area boasts the greatest number of colonial homes in the country as well as the Naval Academy. Also lays claim to being a national capital for a short time. DC is nearby and it significance is fairly clear, however, as others point out, DC was undeveloped during the colonial era and was basically a backwater town until late in the 19th Century.

The meat of the argument is between Philly, NYC, and Boston. To start, Philly is about 60 years younger than both NYC and Boston, however, by the time of the Revolution, it was the largest colonial city. That fact, coupled with its relatively central location made it the easy choice for national conventions. Its use for national conventions is really the only reason its in the argument. However, the significance of those conventions basically vault it to the top. So many of our countries first formative steps were made here.

NYC dates to the 1620s, but the sheer meteoric growth of Manhattan seems to have wiped much of that off the map. Maybe its more a problem of not looking hard enough, or just the exhaustion of the hustle and bustle of the city, but I never found quite as much as you would in Philly or Boston... Boston is easily Philly's biggest rival in this discussion. It was basically the hotbed of revolution, and to this day has kept much more of an older gentrified feel than Philly, but I think its hard to argue with Independence Hall and America's "most historic square mile."

Before I finish I do need to say that being from Philly I'm a bit prejudiced, not only that but I focused my argument squarely on the 18th Century, which not only shortchanges a huge swath of the history of our nation, but also completely takes DC out of the discussion immediately. Theres a hell of a lot of history there, but its just not quite as old. i.e. "I have a dream." However, when taking into account the historical significance of cities in our nation, no one can top (maybe tie) Philadelphia.

I would probably put Boston on top just because of the historical significance of the Boston Tea Party, Paul Revere's Ride, etc...great town!

...Significant like say... the Constitutional Convention?