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.
OK obviously I'm just a touch biased. If we're assuming that "money's no object" and winter is your friend then one could definitely make a case for Boston. Compared to Philly, its nicer neighborhoods seem more plentiful and cohesive. The flipside of that, like many "successful" cities, is that as more neighborhoods get gentrified, they become more expensive and longtime lower-to-working class residents get pushed out. And do they still have that crazy apartment broker deal where you essentially have to shell out the equivalent of four months rent (the broker gets one month) to find a place? I am jealous of their inexpensive "T" train system, though. And it's the "capital of New England".
On the other hand, Philly is relatively inexpensive by Northeast standards. Granted, the high number of challenged neighborhoods (compared to Boston) may factor into that. But it's also sandwiched between the capital of the free world (DC) and the capital of everything else (NYC) so its merits are often overlooked. All four seasons are pretty evenly distributed there. And while the Celtics, recent slump aside, are clearly better than the Sixers... at least the Eagles are still in the playoffs. And while the Red Sox spent themselves into luxury tax.... well, you know.
Basically, Boston would be a pleasant place for me to visit in the summer but it's just too darn cold for too darn long for my tastes. Philly's not quite as flashy but your money goes relatively farther and the job market is diverse enough if never quite booming overall. I still pick Philly!
And to Ad-Rock, Mike D or whoever you're supposed to be... yeah Philly has its spots that might rival some of Detroit... but, with all due respect, Philly is in a lot better condition.
But I'll tell you something, if I were an artist or someone running a home business, I'd consider Detroit. Your cost of doing business will never be lower. I bet the artists are already there. Get in now before the GLBT community comes and spiffs it up for the yuppies.
No prob ogre. I "3rd" the opinion that skylines don't really make the city, though they can help visually impress. Afterall, Philly's most boring section IMO is where the tallest skyscrapers are grouped together - (West Market etc).
Good to see this post, Ajax. When you weren't back on yesterday, I was hoping I hadn't inadvertently bullied a new member into losing interest in the forums here. These threads can be interesting if people get into interesting details about the places in question, but all the bashing that these kinds of threads can degenerate into is not good.
Agreed that skylines do add to a city's aesthetics, and also that there is more to a nice skyline than the height of the buildings. Nice architecture is important. So is some proportion and balance between the buildings. Offhand I don't know where I saw this, but somewhere a while back, speaking of one of the cities this thread is discussing, I saw a picture of the prospective Boston skyline with a proposed skyscraper that is about twice as tall as most of the other downtown skyscrapers. Now, word has it that the building might never actually go up, because the FAA has supposedly objected to having a building 1,100, 1,200, 1500 feet tall, or whatever it's supposed to be, in the downtown area, which is close to the airport, but if you look at that picture, it seems that if the building were to be built it would look just plain weird standing alone among other buildings so much shorter. I guess there has to be a first one if a city is going to have a new generation of super-tall buildings, but that picture did give some idea of how it can wreck the appearance of a skyline if the buildings don't look right together.
Boston. I adore that city. The history, architecture, food, people (YES, PEOPLE) are top notch. COL is decent too (from my frame of reference). If I had to move somewhere else in country it would be my first choice.
I had a chance to visit Philly over Thanksgiving. It's a gritty and grimey city, but kind of reminded of my hometown Chicago in a lot of ways. So for that reason I have to go with Philly over Boston. Also it's close to DC and NYC. You can't beat that. Boston's not a bad city, but just seems kind of blah to me.
Boston. I adore that city. The history, architecture, food, people (YES, PEOPLE) are top notch. COL is decent too (from my frame of reference). If I had to move somewhere else in country it would be my first choice.
i hope that's a joke. philly is more disgusting that detroit, but i still like it.
i'd take all northeastern cities, because of the mindset.
Oh yea? how is Philly more disgusting than Detroit?
Jersey STINKS. Everytime I'm on that turnpike its reaks.
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.
If we're assuming that "money's no object" and winter is your friend then one could definitely make a case for Boston. Compared to Philly, its nicer neighborhoods seem more plentiful and cohesive. The flipside of that, like many "successful" cities, is that as more neighborhoods get gentrified, they become more expensive and longtime lower-to-working class residents get pushed out. And do they still have that crazy apartment broker deal where you essentially have to shell out the equivalent of four months rent (the broker gets one month) to find a place? 
I am jealous of their inexpensive "T" train system, though. 
And it's the "capital of New England".
And while the Red Sox spent themselves into luxury tax.... well, you know. 
