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.
You really think the average Joe associates any of those things with Philly????
If you're going there, I'm not even sure they associate GlaxoSmithKline with the city anymore.
It's debatable that GSK itself even does so, even though it maintains a presence here and IIRC a titular headquarters. But the bulk of the executive suite IIRC is now down in the Research Triangle.
I totally concur; compact, chock full of amazing historic architecture along with a modern high-rise skyline on the other side of City Hall, mostly low-scale very approachable neighborhoods (the Paris model), the murals, amazing restaurants and bars everywhere with friendly folks still having that East Coast attitude! And with some of the best museums in the world: Philly Museum of Art, The Barnes Foundation, American Revolution, Science History, The Mütter...
SF is on the decline (I’ve visited it for 50 years 100+ times), DC is a Museum and Memorial city mostly, Boston is a great city but small in scale and mind (New England Provincialism with a capitol P). Love LA but prefer an East Coast density and scale (also without a walking dead population of homeless right dt to contend with). Seattle is fantastic but doesn’t hold a candle to Philly history. I loved Chicago, of course, (I’m an architect) but I will say after one visit each (just visited Chi-Town a few weeks ago) Philly stood out to me more as city with just more layers to it.
What city overshadows Philly that is as walkable?! I’m a walking freak. At a Manhattaner’s pace every city I go to I will walk at least 7-9 miles a day exploring it. It is nothing for me to walk from Times Square to Brooklyn over the Bridge and back. I cannot think of a city in the US that is more amenable to walking than Philly, that is, large enough to contain all of a big city’s amenities and still compact enough to traverse and explore them on foot and/or easy to find and manage transit legs. I’ve been to just about all of them in the US of consequence and feel I know enough about the handful that I haven’t (Dallas, Houston, Miami) to know that those certainly aren’t as walkable and interesting as Philly. Cities of a similar scale with those amenities, Seattle, San Francisco, Pittsburgh are great walking cities but have you traversed those steep hills? NYC of course is the epitome of a walking city but its scale is challenging for even a hard core walker like me to explore without ultimately getting into blocks of just OK high rise urban streetscape on the way to another amazing place.
I am not sure what you mean by Philly standing out more as a city with more layers to it than any of the cities mentioned, including Chicago. I would whole heartedly disagree that Philly is a better walking city than either NY or Chicago. As a now Chicagoan, I stayed in Philly for a week on business in Center City at the Marriott. Heart of the city, close to Reading Market, walking distance to the Liberty Bell and city hall. Philly appeared to be run down and dirty for most of my "walking" trips; my walking trips included a trip to the WaWa ( love their subs, props to Philly on this ) where an insane man was ripping up the store; a blood covered man stumbling down Market Street who scared the s*** out of me, homeless sleeping on sidewalks and begging everywhere, and just a really run down feel to the town. Sorry, just being honest. In Chicago, you can go for miles walking from the museum campus on the very south end of the Loop right up to Wrigley Field if you wanted to and have no problems whatsoever. There was no upscale feel to the town like the Magnificent Mile, and none of the cleanliness of Chicago.
I will give points to what Philly does best; being unique. Unique in Philly food offered and just the flavor of the city, which is a rough charm. It is not a generic city, and that is what it does best. But it is in no way in the same league as NY/LA/Chi, not by a long shot.
If you're going there, I'm not even sure they associate GlaxoSmithKline with the city anymore.
It's debatable that GSK itself even does so, even though it maintains a presence here and IIRC a titular headquarters. But the bulk of the executive suite IIRC is now down in the Research Triangle.
A few exceptions aside, I think most people tend to associate cities/regions with specific industries instead of certain companies. I didn't even know Comcast was headquartered in Philly until I moved to the region in 2015.
At the end of the day, Philly doesn't suffer from not having an especially strong association with any particular industry. Its identity is firmly established due to its history and culture.
I am not sure what you mean by Philly standing out more as a city with more layers to it than any of the cities mentioned, including Chicago. I would whole heartedly disagree that Philly is a better walking city than either NY or Chicago. As a now Chicagoan, I stayed in Philly for a week on business in Center City at the Marriott. Heart of the city, close to Reading Market, walking distance to the Liberty Bell and city hall. Philly appeared to be run down and dirty for most of my "walking" trips; my walking trips included a trip to the WaWa ( love their subs, props to Philly on this ) where an insane man was ripping up the store; a blood covered man stumbling down Market Street who scared the s*** out of me, homeless sleeping on sidewalks and begging everywhere, and just a really run down feel to the town. Sorry, just being honest. In Chicago, you can go for miles walking from the museum campus on the very south end of the Loop right up to Wrigley Field if you wanted to and have no problems whatsoever. There was no upscale feel to the town like the Magnificent Mile, and none of the cleanliness of Chicago.
I'm not as familiar with downtown Chicago, but you pretty much demonstrated exactly what that poster meant by more layers. You can get a variety of vibes/scenes in Philly's urban core from Benjamin Franklin Parkway to Independence Mall to Rittenhouse Square to Chinatown to Old City to South Street to Penn's Landing and so on. I don't expect big cities to have homogenous, completely sanitized urban cores; you're going to have some of those seedier elements present and no, Philly's entire urban core isn't rundown with homeless folks running rampant...far from it. Seems like you never strayed too far from where you were staying and based your characterization of the entire city on those few incidents.
Quote:
I will give points to what Philly does best; being unique. Unique in Philly food offered and just the flavor of the city, which is a rough charm. It is not a generic city, and that is what it does best. But it is in no way in the same league as NY/LA/Chi, not by a long shot.
What "league" are you referring to here? If we're still talking about how easy or 'pleasant' it is to experience the city on foot, then I can see the rationale for NYC and Chicago being better. LA? No.
I was about to say that Baltimore was knocking. Philly's perception has improved. When I was growing up in the DC area, it was seen more or less as "should we visit BMore or Philly" and as a kid usually BMore won out due to the national aquarium and waterfront but nowadays BMore's has gotten worse while Philly's has improved.
Baltimore hasn't really gotten worse, it just hasn't gotten better.
I was about to say that Baltimore was knocking. Philly's perception has improved. When I was growing up in the DC area, it was seen more or less as "should we visit BMore or Philly" and as a kid usually BMore won out due to the national aquarium and waterfront but nowadays BMore's has gotten worse while Philly's has improved.
I've not been there (Philly) and my impression is largely based on what friends experienced and what I see on TV or sports. It hasn't been awful, but I have not been inspired to visit and I'm a history buff and usually hit those historical places. I was in West Chester for a wedding, not too far out, but chose not to add a day to visit the city.
I've not been there (Philly) and my impression is largely based on what friends experienced and what I see on TV or sports. It hasn't been awful, but I have not been inspired to visit and I'm a history buff and usually hit those historical places. I was in West Chester for a wedding, not too far out, but chose not to add a day to visit the city.
If you're a history buff, I'd think that simply having knowledge of Philly's historic status would be all the inspiration you'd need to make a visit if given the chance. When I was living across the river in South Jersey a few years ago, a friend of mine came from north Jersey to visit one weekend and we decided to go to Philly to grab a bite to eat which then led to us checking out something in Center City (I forget). It turned into an all-day exploration of a nice chunk of Center City on foot during a sunny summer Saturday which is to date the best such experience I've ever had, and I love to explore cities on foot as a visitor or new resident. What was especially nice about it is that I was able to discover historic districts and buildings that I didn't even know about just by exploring and wandering such as Jewelers' Row.
If you ever get the chance to visit again, you'd be doing yourself a disservice by not doing so.
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.
