Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

FALLEN594

Why does Boston always beat us out?

49 posts in this topic

I was just looking through the "tiers" thread in the Discussion forum, and a lot of the rankings had Boston higher than Philly...... Which is a shame. Im not belittling Boston at all, its a geat city, but at the same time, Philly is a larger city with more, and well-defined boroughs, Philly has the larger Metro, the second biggest mall in the country (King of Prussia) :D Places like the Art Musuem, the Barnes museum, tons of historical places such as Independence mall, Elfreth's Alley.... but once again it comes down to HORRIBLE municipal government and CRAPPY advertising :sick: The attention from National geo magazine and other places looks promising though. Its just that i love this city, everything from the smelly streets to the anceint, crumbling zoo, to the burning schuylkill(Ive heard some horror stories from rowers) and i hate it when people judge us without getting to know us. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Boston and Phila are both important cities in history at the same time that brought the country we live in today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just looking through the "tiers" thread in the Discussion forum, and a lot of the rankings had Boston higher than Philly...... Which is a shame. Im not belittling Boston at all, its a geat city, but at the same time, Philly is a larger city with more, and well-defined boroughs, Philly has the larger Metro, the second biggest mall in the country (King of Prussia) :D Places like the Art Musuem, the Barnes museum, tons of historical places such as Independence mall, Elfreth's Alley.... but once again it comes down to HORRIBLE municipal government and CRAPPY advertising :sick: The attention from National geo magazine and other places looks promising though. Its just that i love this city, everything from the smelly streets to the anceint, crumbling zoo, to the burning schuylkill(Ive heard some horror stories from rowers) and i hate it when people judge us without getting to know us. :ph34r:

To be perfectly honest sometimes bigger isn't always better, especially in regards to cities west of the Mississippi river.

Philadelphia's population is 1.5 million with a 25% poverty level. That results in 375,000 people living at or below the U.S. adjusted poverty level. Thats a load.

Boston's pop is around 600,000 with a 20% poverty level that results in approximately 120,000 people at or below the poverty level. Big difference and one of the main reasons Boston's image is so much better than Philly.

Another possible reason is geography. Boston is the center of an entire region wheras Philly is sandwiched between NYC and DC. Also Philadlephia is landlocked, conversely Boston doesn't have an eastern front that sprawls for a hundred miles and lessens real estate values. Boston much like San Francisco sits on prime waterfront real estate , which has sent their housing and office market through the roof.

I think Phillly is just as nice of a city as Boston except for the bigger ghettos. I personally think Philly's 100,000 person center city is the finest neighborhood in north america. Metro Philly lives just as well with just as nice housing and amenities as metro Boston but metro Boston gets more prestige because everything is more expensive due primarily because of its location.

300 years ago Philadelphia had the perfect defensive location to protect itself. Boston was vulnerable, NY was definitely vulnerable but Philly was tucked back 60 miles from the ocean.

Now 300 years later Philly's geographic location actually works against it. There's nothing that gives it that wow factor, most of the city is kind of flat, the rivers are just ok, nothing special. On the otherhand Manhattan is an island amongst itself that had nowhere to grow but upwards. Boston,San Fran and Chicago sit on beautiful waterfront acreage. What advantages that is in todays day and age.

I always said the city of Philadlephia should get with the army corp of engineers and flood out the ghetto sections of the city and replace them with a man made lake. Given the amount of rainfall and huge rivers we have that wouldn't be a problem. You want to see property values skyrocket, replace parts of North Philly with a 2 1/2 mile lakefront. Philadelphia changes overnight .

But don't underestimate geography in having a factor in Philadelphia's 50 year decline from 1950-2000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All good points. Also that is a very old thread, and when we started this site, there were a high percentage of members from Boston.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because Boston has a better image.

Philadelphia is a huge city and covers a very large area. North philly covers about 20% of the citys land mass. I dont understand why people have this view that outside of center city, the city is a wasteland. That bothers me as it is quite annoying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a resident of Hartford,CT I have to disagree. Philly definitely has a better image than Boston. But then again, people from around this area don't particulary care for Boston (or their sports teams). We are always seen as that unimportant city halfway between Ney York and Boston. Around here, Boston is seen as and over priced city that isn't worth nearly the amount of money required to live there (water front or not). And I also see it as a plus to be wedged in between NY and DC rather way up in a corner of the counrty where the closest thing is Cowhampshire. Philly definitely has Boston beat as far as city image goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a resident of Hartford,CT I have to disagree. Philly definitely has a better image than Boston. But then again, people from around this area don't particulary care for Boston (or their sports teams). We are always seen as that unimportant city halfway between Ney York and Boston. Around here, Boston is seen as and over priced city that isn't worth nearly the amount of money required to live there (water front or not). And I also see it as a plus to be wedged in between NY and DC rather way up in a corner of the counrty where the closest thing is Cowhampshire. Philly definitely has Boston beat as far as city image goes.

Well put. Having gone to college in "Cowhampshire", I have to agree that Boston doesn't have such a good image among New Englanders. In fact, I get the sense that many see Boston as being a crime-ridden blight on thier landscape (not that it is crime-ridden, but New Hampshirites see it as being so - I guess its all relative).

Boston is an odd city. It has the whole college preppy plus yuppie atmosphere and then the rest of the city is very provincial and by provincial I mean something akin to an urban Appalachia. Alot of the people there seem to have never left their neighborhood and don't take too kindly to outsiders moving in. Of course other east coast cities have that too but it seems to be more pronounced in Boston. Boston seems to be more separate and apart - perhaps because of their location at the NE tip of the county where they are the last major city before you hit the Ocean or Canada.

I think Boston's reputation stems from people who go there during college (or who want to go there for college) and I've heard its a great college town. It also stems from the yuppies who frequent only places like Newbury Street and never venture into "Southie". Then there are the tourists who see Fanueil Hall and think that that's representative of the city. Philly would never get as good of a reputation from these groups. As a college town, its not in the same league as Boston (or Pittsburgh for that matter) since the colleges and universities are spread apart from each other so there isn't one neighborhood with critical mass. Maybe West Philly with Penn and Drexel but even there the critical mass isn't there (though that area is improving by leaps and bounds). As far as yuppies are concerned, I actually think Philly has much more to offer (better restaurants, more entertainment options, etc.) by virtue of it being a bigger city and being infleunced greatly by NY but, unlike Boston, there isn't this one yuppified area that's separate and apart from the rest of the city. Center City is *the* yuppie area but its also Center City meaning that people of all walks of life go there. So for the yuppies who are looking for their own environment (like Georgetown in DC), I can see why they might prefer Boston. As for the tourists, historiclaly Boston has marketed itself to tourists more than Philly. However, that seems to be changing and I think Philly actually surpassed Boston in tourism last year.

I think its because of all these factors that Boston gets more curb appeal. However, often times people who actually have lvied in both cities prefer Philadelphia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought the Palisaides Mall in NY was the second biggest, go figure. Anyways, both cities are great cities, some just excel better in some areas than others do. Having been to both more times than I can count, they are vastly different cities despite their equal historical importance (in my opinion). To say one "beats" the other wouldn't exactly be true, they both have extensive strangths and weakness'. Oh, and BTW, not all of Hartford hates Boston's teams, just the Bruins ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Boston writes the history text books. We were discussing in the Providence section why the Boston Tea Party is such a BFD when Rhode Island's Burning of the Gaspee happened first. It's becasue Boston firms have traditionally written this country's textbooks. If Philly had had a big publishing industry in the last century, national opinion may be very different and Philly's profile may be very much higher today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boston writes the history text books. We were discussing in the Providence section why the Boston Tea Party is such a BFD when Rhode Island's Burning of the Gaspee happened first. It's becasue Boston firms have traditionally written this country's textbooks. If Philly had had a big publishing industry in the last century, national opinion may be very different and Philly's profile may be very much higher today.

Heh, that didn't help Hartford, we had a huge Publishing Industry, that's why Mark Twain moved here in the first place. But I see your point...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boston writes the history text books. We were discussing in the Providence section why the Boston Tea Party is such a BFD when Rhode Island's Burning of the Gaspee happened first. It's becasue Boston firms have traditionally written this country's textbooks. If Philly had had a big publishing industry in the last century, national opinion may be very different and Philly's profile may be very much higher today.

I never thought about that, but you're right. I think much of why NYC gets so much attention today (completely disproportionate to their size) is that the nation's publishing and media are all centered in NYC.

Anyway, Philly did and still does have a major publication industry. The difference, however, is that much of it was more lower profile (Curtis, Lippincott, etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philly should do more to work as an alternative to NYC's big industries this has done wonders for suburan CT luring GE and others out to the countryside, although CT and the NJ hills are much closer to Wall Street and Park Avenue, I can see Philly not only luring some of NYCs excess but also the DC/Baltimore industries to surburban Philly.

This is a great subject!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always said the city of Philadlephia should get with the army corp of engineers and flood out the ghetto sections of the city and replace them with a man made lake. Given the amount of rainfall and huge rivers we have that wouldn't be a problem. You want to see property values skyrocket, replace parts of North Philly with a 2 1/2 mile lakefront. Philadelphia changes overnight .

And here I thought I authored most of the silly comments on this site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philly should do more to work as an alternative to NYC's big industries this has done wonders for suburan CT luring GE and others out to the countryside, although CT and the NJ hills are much closer to Wall Street and Park Avenue, I can see Philly not only luring some of NYCs excess but also the DC/Baltimore industries to surburban Philly.

This is a great subject!

I'm not sure as a city why we would want to lure businesses to our suburbs. That might only work to strengthen the burbs who currently hate the city. As for Philadelphia its self, our taxes are just slightly below NYC's. It's hard to lure businesses to a lesser city for the same cost. IMO the story lies in the taxes. Also I think if you rewrote the current tax breaks given to new construction and placed them on rehabs you'd see the city turn over in 5 years. But as a politician, say Blackwell or Street who cater to the poor and uneducated what is my incentive to usher them out of the city?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here I thought I authored most of the silly comments on this site.

Lake Wallenpaupack? It's a man made lake, built 100 years ago without modern machinery. It was created from damning a creek 10 feet wide. Today its humongous, 1/3 the size of Philadelphia. Land values increased 1000 percent in the year after it was created.

Springton Lake in Media used to be a 2 mile section of Crum Creek, a 5 foot wide meandering stream. It was damned and a resevoir created. Home's start at $3.5 million dollars on this Lake.

Will anything like these happen in Philadlephia? Of course not, leadership is too stupid and the poor communities in Philadelphia would never allow land value to increase.

Silly idea in Philadelphia? Absolutely

Silly idea to a modern city with a vision for the future? No

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Lake Wallenpaupack? It's a man made lake, built 100 years ago without modern machinery. It was created from damning a creek 10 feet wide. Today its humongous, 1/3 the size of Philadelphia. Land values increased 1000 percent in the year after it was created.

Springton Lake in Media used to be a 2 mile section of Crum Creek, a 5 foot wide meandering stream. It was damned and a resevoir created. Home's start at $3.5 million dollars on this Lake.

Will anything like these happen in Philadlephia? Of course not, leadership is too stupid and the poor communities in Philadelphia would never allow land value to increase.

Silly idea in Philadelphia? Absolutely

Silly idea to a modern city with a vision for the future? No

I really don't even know how to have an honest discussion based on the idea of flooding out north and west philadelphia. Philadelphia would become and island bounded by the delaware and skulykill rivers. This is your solution to the cities problems, to flood the poorer neighborhoods. This takes eminent domaint to a new level.

If it's just our city failing leadership in the way of progress, could you give me an example of some of the great leadership which has done anything remotely like this anywhere in human history? Oh and I'm not talking about a NYC vacation area in the rural hills of the northeast PA or a tiny suburb either.

A better solution might be to just build along the two rivers we already have. That way it wouldn't flood our island everytime it rains. :)

On another note, something close to 70 percent of the counties ground water no longer exists. We remove far more water from the ground than we put back in. Part of the reason the LEED program was created is for this very reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Admittedly the idea is way outside the box and I stated it will never happen .That being said, I wasn't suggesting entirely flooding out North and West Philadelphia. Merely a small section to spur development, act as a buffer zone to critical neighborhoods, and increase land value of the city as a whole. Ride through Mantua or Logan one day and honestly tell me if anything in that neighborhood is worse saving, its unsalvageable. Would you rather have an arboretum or small lake there; or block after block after block of dilapidated boarded up decaying homes?

The amount of decaying neighborhoods in Philadelphia is absolutely insane. This city in fact does need to start looking outside the box for answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Evergrey, what do you think Philadelphia should do?

I think that with all of the development that is happening on the Temple, UPenn and Drexel campuses will help to revitalize the areas that are surrounding them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take a trip through the area now called graduate hospital, northern liberties or fishtown, 10 to fifteen years ago they were war zones. People in Port Richmond used to laugh at what a crap hole fishtown was. There is an entire market rate development in brewery town!! Brewerytoen is a war zone just ask the people of Fairmount who get robbed on almost a daily basis by youths who run to safety above girard. Like sweetkisses said Penn has transformed an entire section of the city by its self. People are talking about strawberry mansion being the next hot spot. It's close to the park and center city. It's also one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the city.

As I said before, take away the tax break on new development and give it to the rehabbers. You will see entire neighborhoods of blight go away over night. But I do agree with you that it will be difficult to do because certain politicians would loose their jobs if they no longer had the poor to prey on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe a lot is to blame on Pa politics. The state and city is awash in corruption. The second highest paid legislators in the nation after California, and just voted for another pay raise. Philly is right between NY and DC. It should be a boom town but still struggles with antiquated infrastructure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boston spent how many billions of dollars for the big dig. Just think what Philly could have done with that. Like dropping I95 underground between the Ben franklin Bridge and Washington Avenue. This would allow a grand park space or a "Champs Elysee" type boulevard above and extend the city grid toward the waterfront. Boston has their politicians working for them. What are ours doing? Casinos? We know where that money will be really going, eh Ed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great find ritamik,

Philadelphia really does have a blossoming art scene, it has so many resources and potential I am glad to see it finally coming into it's own!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how this is a surprise. IMO Philly's always been a major art city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^I think though that finally it is being recognized by the east and west coasts for superior art. You are right though sweet, Philadelphia has long been a top art center!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.