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'm bias and I pick Philly. Boston is already pretty much at the point where it can't get any better. Philly has so much potential, great bones, and it'll take someone with a vision ( Nutter) who can/ will transform it into an even more enjoyable city.
Ever think of going into politics? On second thought, maybe our government would be in better shape if we had fewer politicians engaging in spin doctoring. A politician could hardly put more of a deft spin on things than this. Apologies if I've misinterpreted, but it appears that what you're saying here in effect is that (in your opinion) Philly is the better city because (in your opinion) it's worse, which gives it more room to get better. Hmmm.
Quote: A number of people have been mentioning the size of these cities, and even though I don't believe comparing Boston to Philly is like comparing apples and oranges, I'd like to get the numbers out there for reference:
City Proper; Urban; Metro (MSA); CSA
Philadelphia: 1.45 million; 5.15 m; 5.82 m; 6.38 m
Quote:Yes, Philly proper is bigger, but if you included enough of Boston's inner suburbs to equal Philly's total square miles, the population would be roughly the same. Several of these inner suburbs, such as Cambridge and Quincy, are just as "urban" and sophisticated as Boston itself, and are part of the same (easy to use) mass transit system.
To further complicate things by adding to the info Ainulinale provided, according to the U.S. Census Bureau here are the two cities' Urban Area populations (rounded to nearest 0.1 million):
Boston: 3.9 million
Philadelphia: 3.6 million.
Which city's overall "greater" area has the larger population seems to vary depending on how this is measured. And in fact it is true that a similar land area to Philly's in the urban core that includes Boston has a similar population to Philly's (I checked it out).
It seems that as metropolises, or broader centers of population, beyond the artificially imposed boundaries of the cities themselves, these two cities are very similar in size, which is the feeling I have gotten from having been in both cities. It appears that the difference between the populations of the cities proper has more to do with the vagaries of history, what the local politics were at the time these cities had their greatest growth, which one annexed more or less of its surrounding densely populated core, and the like, than any substantial difference in the size of the two as overall population centers or metropolises. In fact, these two cities in comparison provide a prime example in favor of the case--advocated in a number of posts on this forum--for considering metro area population as a more accurate indicator than principal city population of a city's true size.
Oh yeah, as for my two cents on comparing the two, well, I like them both, but some of their pros and cons are different. Some amenities are the same or similar for both cities, such as history, long-established and highly regarded cultural venues, and their both being old-style cities with classic architecutre and densely packed, vibrant cores. Both are big centers of higher education, though Boston even moreso than Philly. An earlier post said Philly lacks any attractive natural features, and described Philly as "landlocked," but this is not entirely true, since the Delaware River flows past and offers a very attractive view. However, Boston's combination of river and ocean views is hard to beat. Boston also offers closer proximity to a greater variety of natural scenery, and opportunities for outdoor recreation. On the other hand, Philly betters Boston in one factor relating to the cities' natural settings, since it has somewhat milder and shorter winters. As for crime, make no mistake, Boston has its bad neighborhoods, but for the most part they are not located adjacent to downtown. Still, the numbers say Philly's crime rate is higher. The numbers also say that Philly's cost of living is lower, and that's no small factor.
Looks like a tossup. Or more likely a question of which city's pros and cons work best for a given individual. As I said at the start of this post, I like both cities.
An earlier post said Philly lacks any attractive natural features, and described Philly as "landlocked," but this is not entirely true, since the Delaware River flows past and offers a very attractive view. However, Boston's combination of river and ocean views is hard to beat. Boston also offers closer proximity to a greater variety of natural scenery, and opportunities for outdoor recreation.
The Delaware River at Philadelphia is 3/4 of a mile wide then you have another 60 miles of uninterrupted real estate until you get to the Atlantic Ocean. Meanwhile Boston sits right on the Atlantic Ocean eliminating 50% of its potential real estate. Hence real estate close to Boston is like gold which causes an enormous economic windfall. Its not the harbor + ocean views(although its a nice accessory) that makes Boston one of the most expensive markets, its the fact that half of their available real estate is under water. Ditto SF,SEA,CHI,NYC, and to a lesser extent DC.
Philadelphia didnt have that luxury, there was no aquatic barrier to help keep the population somewhat contained.The Wasps/Irish/Germans headed west, the Jews/Eastern Europeans headed north,the Italians/Irish headed a couple miles east to South Jersey.They fled in every direction with quickness because it was easy. Obviously If Philadlephia had an ocean or gargatuan lake to its immediate east it would have made sprawl much much tougher helping to keep the working class neighborhoods of Philadelphia healthy and vibrant.
Philadelphia didnt have that luxury, there was no aquatic barrier to help keep the population somewhat contained.The Wasps/Irish/Germans headed west, the Jews/Eastern Europeans headed north,the Italians/Irish headed a couple miles east to South Jersey.They fled in every direction with quickness because it was easy. Obviously If Philadlephia had an ocean or gargatuan lake to its immediate east it would have made sprawl much much tougher helping to keep the working class neighborhoods of Philadelphia healthy and vibrant.
I understand your overall point, but I don't think that necessarily means that other cities -- New York and Boston, in particular -- didn't have the white ethnic flight to the extent that Philadelphia had. From what I understand, Boston neighborhoods such as Mattapan and Roxbury underwent the same sort of decline that one could find in North and West Philadelphia. The same could be said for many neighborhoods in Brooklyn. Basically, I don't think the geography played too much a role. Many immigrants saw living in cities as a necessary evil for employment purposes, and when they found the means to leave; many did. It is only in the past 15-20 years have American cities gained a new-found respect and focus in our society. Older major immigrant metropolises like Boston, New York, and Chicago are ahead of the curve in gentrifying themselves after years of neglect -- and as a member of their urban genre, Philadelphia really isn't too far behind.
Philly - its taller, darker & grittier. i like my cities dirty
You make me larf. How many times I've gone to bed after yclepting ye Bat Signal in ye skye avaunt City Hall.
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.
On second thought, maybe our government would be in better shape if we had fewer politicians engaging in spin doctoring. A politician could hardly put more of a deft spin on things than this. Apologies if I've misinterpreted, but it appears that what you're saying here in effect is that (in your opinion) Philly is the better city because (in your opinion) it's worse, which gives it more room to get better. Hmmm.
