# Philadelphia- Next Chicago or Next Detroit



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

Detroit recently had the most housing starts of any SE Michigan city. 

In otherwords....if Philly becomes the next Detroit or the next Chicago.....


it will be improving and strengthening.....as it has been doing for some time.


----------



## skymann (Mar 1, 2005)

I've been to Philly and Chicago and they are very different cities. 
Philly had great historical Georgian districts and reminded me more of Boston than Chicago. The city centre is very urbane and attractive, with some beautiful squares and buildings. I never saw anything that came close to this in Chicago,because Chicago isn't that old. However, the scale of Chicago is more NYC than Philly. Chicago is clearly in a different league to Philly as a business city. I liked both, but they are totally different. Philly is more comparable with Boston, San Fran or Seattle. Chicago is in a bigger league with NYC and LA.
Detroit, I have never been to, so I can't comment. Does seem to get a bad press though. In England we know it for its music (not just Motown) and cars.


----------



## PhillyPhilly90 (Aug 12, 2005)

skymann said:


> I've been to Philly and Chicago and they are very different cities.
> Philly had great historical Georgian districts and reminded me more of Boston than Chicago. The city centre is very urbane and attractive, with some beautiful squares and buildings. I never saw anything that came close to this in Chicago,because Chicago isn't that old. However, the scale of Chicago is more NYC than Philly. Chicago is clearly in a different league to Philly as a business city. I liked both, but they are totally different. Philly is more comparable with Boston, San Fran or Seattle. Chicago is in a bigger league with NYC and LA.
> Detroit, I have never been to, so I can't comment. Does seem to get a bad press though. In England we know it for its music (not just Motown) and cars.


You are right with Chicago being in a different league and comparable to NYC and LA. But the thing is...why is Philly comparable to Boston, SF, or Seattle? Maybe in skyline but not the city size. Philly's alot bigger than all of them, not bigger but ALOT bigger. Philadelphia's scale is between SF and Chicago...btwie the size of SF but half the size of Chicago. I hate it when people compare Philly to smaller cities.


----------



## Jules (Jun 27, 2004)

^I think he means the city as a whole, not just population wise. I personally would group Philly with NY, LA, and Chi.


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

Toronto10 said:


> What is your opinion of the future of Philadelphia?
> 
> To me it seems it's straddling the fence on the extremities of success and failure. From what I hear Center City is about to go on a Chicago type building boom, 36 new 20+ story towers in the next 3 years, yet the city is consistently losing people to white flight(1950) white population 1,800,000- (2000) white population 800,000 and the murder rate is abysmal.
> 
> What is the future of this baffling city?


Where do you get your data from? You seem to be making #s up about the white flight.


----------



## UrbanSophist (Aug 4, 2005)

skymann said:


> I've been to Philly and Chicago and they are very different cities.
> Philly had great historical Georgian districts and reminded me more of Boston than Chicago. The city centre is very urbane and attractive, with some beautiful squares and buildings. I never saw anything that came close to this in Chicago,because Chicago isn't that old. However, the scale of Chicago is more NYC than Philly. Chicago is clearly in a different league to Philly as a business city. I liked both, but they are totally different. Philly is more comparable with Boston, San Fran or Seattle. Chicago is in a bigger league with NYC and LA.
> Detroit, I have never been to, so I can't comment. Does seem to get a bad press though. In England we know it for its music (not just Motown) and cars.


Well, I think the point in this thread was in terms of "success story". 

The question would be better phrased: Will Philly become another success story comparable to that of Chicago or another disaster comparable to that of Detroit?

However, I don't think the question is fair to Detroit. In fact, another question should also be asked: Is Detroit the next Philadelphia?


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

Philadelphia has an intact dense vibrant core. The 3rd largest downtown in the country in terms of residential population.

I don't know why it is being compared to Midwestern cities. Philly is something in between NYC and Boston in terms of architecture, aesthetics, density and population.

The areas which lost population are on the fringes. In Detroit it is the center which lost everything to the burbs..

The question should be . St. Louis..the next Chicago or next Detroit.


----------



## UrbanSophist (Aug 4, 2005)

nah


----------



## svs (Dec 5, 2005)

Philadelphia is very much like Boston, a diversified city with a colonial base and rich pre 1800 history mixed with distinguished Universities (Penn And Temple), and a good mix of museums and parks. (Actually Philly probably has a better group of museums and parks than Boston does.) Each city also has a strong Italian flavor (North end vs. South Market), and a fine symphony orchestra and opera company. They both even have that Ben Franklin connection.) It has always been something of a surprise to me why most Americans tend to favor Boston over Philly as a place to visit. So Philly has its share of run down neighborhoods, every big city does, Boston is probably farther along in terms of gentrification, but Philly will get there as well. Every mature city has a history of build out decline of the city center and rebirth. You can see this pattern of growth all over the country.

These types of threads are getting somewhat obnoxious. Every city is the same and every city is unique. Philly will probably never get as large as Chicago or face the problems of Detroit, a one industry town not competing as well as it should in a global market. Comparisons should be at least partially based on some appreciable similarity.


----------



## *Sweetkisses* (Dec 26, 2004)

^ Hmm... .Good post. I can't believe this thread is still going on though.


----------



## UrbanSophist (Aug 4, 2005)

*Sweetkisses* said:


> ^ Hmm... .Good post. I can't believe this thread is still going on though.


My fault... I was roaming through old pages and I saw this one and brought it back (along with a few others).


----------



## Cruces1 (Jan 7, 2005)

Toronto10 said:


> yet the city is consistently losing people to white flight(1950) white population 1,800,000- (2000) white population 800,000 and the murder rate is abysmal.







polako said:


> Where do you get your data from? You seem to be making #s up about the white flight.



^Those numbers look pretty legit.^

Philadelphia is a mish mosh of a 1/2 dozen different cities. 

Soceity Hill-Olde City=Boston 
West Market= mini Manhattan
Rittenhouse Brooklyn Manhattan
University City=Cambridge
SWPhilly= Houston
North Philly= urban decay- you name the city
Manayunk=Pittsburgh
MT Airy Chestnut Hill= Chestnut Hill Mass.
Parts of NE Philly = Lexington Kentucky
Wissahickon Valley= If you didn't know any better you would think you were in the middle of the rocky mts or deep in the heart of Vermont.


----------



## Guest (Feb 27, 2006)

^^Wow, you really know the city well. :shocked:


----------



## Cruces1 (Jan 7, 2005)

I'm not so sure about that.


 And next year the Delaware Riverfront will look like a little slice of Las Vegas.


----------



## Illadelph (Dec 3, 2005)

skymann said:


> I've been to Philly and Chicago and they are very different cities.
> Philly had great historical Georgian districts and reminded me more of Boston than Chicago. The city centre is very urbane and attractive, with some beautiful squares and buildings. I never saw anything that came close to this in Chicago,because Chicago isn't that old. However, the scale of Chicago is more NYC than Philly. Chicago is clearly in a different league to Philly as a business city. I liked both, but they are totally different. Philly is more comparable with Boston, San Fran or Seattle. Chicago is in a bigger league with NYC and LA.
> Detroit, I have never been to, so I can't comment. Does seem to get a bad press though. In England we know it for its music (not just Motown) and cars.



Philadelphia was the nations financial center up until the mid 19th century and one of the leading financial centers and manufacturing cities up until the mid twentieth century. Alot of companies left Philadelphia for the Mid West and West Coast.. Philadelphia has fallen from the rafters and now it's flying high on it's wing tips.. Boston and NYC have also shared in this rich history. Business wise NYC is the king of the Hill.. L.A., Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston, Boston, Detroit, San Fran, etc.. all are fighting for their share of the American pie.. From Philadelphia Cream Cheese, Bryers Ice Cream to Oil Refineries, etc.. Philadelphia will only be Philadelphia and can only try to repeat it's history.. 

Let's see Chicago has 1.3 million more people than Philadelphia.. NYC Has over 5 million more people than Chicago and L.A. Has roughly 1.2 million more people than Chicago.. All of these great cities have more population than the other so size is kind of irrellevent.. With Philadelphias competition with it's suburbs and D.C., Boston, Baltimore and NYC and still being the 2nd largest city on the east coast is rather mind boggling..


----------



## Guest (Feb 27, 2006)

When people *desire* to live in a big city such as New York, Chicago, L.A., etc., that makes a statement about the city itself.


----------



## *Sweetkisses* (Dec 26, 2004)

Cruces1 said:


> ^Those numbers look pretty legit.^
> 
> Philadelphia is a mish mosh of a 1/2 dozen different cities.
> 
> ...


Hey, thats a pretty cool analogy! It's true too.


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

Rittenhouse is one of the best neighborhoods in Philly. I think Rittenhouse Park is one of the best urban square parks out there. I just love that park. I used to live on 21st and Delancy for 6 years. I also live on Chestnut and 20th for 1 year aswell.


----------



## Guest (Feb 27, 2006)

Rittenhouse Square?
Yes, nice neighborhood indeed.

For some reason, when I think of Rittenhouse Square, I think of City Hall Park (New York).


----------



## Killadelphia (Feb 10, 2005)

Cruces1 said:


> Philadelphia is a mish mosh of a 1/2 dozen different cities.
> 
> Soceity Hill-Olde City=Boston
> West Market= mini Manhattan
> ...


I agree with many of these but yeah... you can only be _so_ accurate.


----------



## LLoydGeorge (Jan 14, 2006)

spyguy said:


> Who the really cares? This thread is basically useless now that it is filled with all this off-topic "1600's housing" talk.


But it was flawed at the outset. If it were titled, "Will Chicago become the next Philadelphia," Midwesterners would have gone ballastic.


----------



## ReddAlert (Nov 4, 2004)

LLoydGeorge said:


> There are at least 5 and probably about 10 buildings in NYC from the 1600's. I'm from NY, and you're from Wisconsin. I think that I'm more knowledgeable about my own city.


The oldest building in NYC is some farm house in Brooklyn...probally not even known by most New Yorkers. I could see you bragging if these buildings were like the Cologne Cathedra or the Tower of London--but they are not. Like chicagogeorge said--no American city is old. Probally much of the housing and buildings in London or Paris are not as old as they seem...what, with all the wars, fires, and crap built in the 20th century.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

chicagogeorge said:


> Ok to end this old city debate once and for all. *NO AMERICAN CITY IS OLD! NO AMERICAN BUILDING IS OLD!*
> *
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## LLoydGeorge (Jan 14, 2006)

ReddAlert said:


> The oldest building in NYC is some farm house in Brooklyn...probally not even known by most New Yorkers. I could see you bragging if these buildings were like the Cologne Cathedra or the Tower of London--but they are not. Like chicagogeorge said--no American city is old. Probally much of the housing and buildings in London or Paris are not as old as they seem...what, with all the wars, fires, and crap built in the 20th century.


Midwesterners are really demonstrating a form of ***** envy with respect to their lack of history vis-a-vis the Northeast.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

ReddAlert said:


> The oldest building in NYC is some farm house in Brooklyn...probally not even known by most New Yorkers. I could see you bragging if these buildings were like the Cologne Cathedra or the Tower of London--but they are not. Like chicagogeorge said--no American city is old. Probally much of the housing and buildings in London or Paris are not as old as they seem...what, with all the wars, fires, and crap built in the 20th century.


Ah, Redd.. you were a whole lot keener on old American architecture when 
you thought that Victorian church was from the 1400's... you can be proud
of your oldest American architectural history, even if it is not necessarily in
your own city. How can you not be proud of the architectural record of NYC?!?! From humble farmhouse in the mid 1600's to what it is today... 
quite an accomplishment! And, look what Chicago has done since, say...
1836... not too shabby!! :cheers:


----------



## ReddAlert (Nov 4, 2004)

Taller said:


> Ah, Redd.. you were a whole lot keener on old American architecture when
> you thought that Victorian church was from the 1400's... you can be proud
> of your oldest American architectural history, even if it is not necessarily in
> your own city. How can you not be proud of the architectural record of NYC?!?! From humble farmhouse in the mid 1600's to what it is today...
> ...


lol, yeah. That church is from the 1400's though. St. Joan of Arc Chapel--it houses the stone that Joan of Arc kissed after she prayed. The stone is actually colder then the rest of the stones surrounding it--or so everyone says. Pretty cool no?


----------



## UrbanSophist (Aug 4, 2005)

ReddAlert said:


> lol, yeah. That church is from the 1400's though. St. Joan of Arc Chapel--it houses the stone that Joan of Arc kissed after she prayed. The stone is actually colder then the rest of the stones surrounding it--or so everyone says. Pretty cool no?


How is it from the 1400s?


----------



## ReddAlert (Nov 4, 2004)

LLoydGeorge said:


> Midwesterners are really demonstrating a form of ***** envy with respect to their lack of history vis-a-vis the Northeast.


Im not envious of anything--I am just saying that you shouldnt be bragging about all the really old builidngs in NYC. If I can count them with my hands--then your city aint old like those in Greece, the Middle East, or Asia.


----------



## ReddAlert (Nov 4, 2004)

UrbanSophist said:


> How is it from the 1400s?


moved from France of course to the Marquette University campus.


----------



## LLoydGeorge (Jan 14, 2006)

ReddAlert said:


> Im not envious of anything--I am just saying that you shouldnt be bragging about all the really old builidngs in NYC. If I can count them with my hands--then your city aint old like those in Greece, the Middle East, or Asia.


There are probably close to a thousand pre-Civil War buildings in NYC. You must have a lot of hands.


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

Philadelphia is in the middle of economic and politcal power on the Boston-NYC-Washington axis. This alone will keep it the amazing city that it is.


----------



## LLoydGeorge (Jan 14, 2006)

DonQui said:


> Philadelphia is in the middle of economic and politcal power on the Boston-NYC-Washington axis. I this alone will keep it the amazing city that it is.


I agree.


----------



## ReddAlert (Nov 4, 2004)

LLoydGeorge said:


> There are probably close to a thousand pre-Civil War buildings in NYC. You must have a lot of hands.


I thought we were talking about buildings in the 1600's and under?


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

ReddAlert said:


> lol, yeah. That church is from the 1400's though. St. Joan of Arc Chapel--it houses the stone that Joan of Arc kissed after she prayed. The stone is actually colder then the rest of the stones surrounding it--or so everyone says. Pretty cool no?


Well, that is pretty cool, Redd! I admit I thought it was a Victorian
"neo" style. Very cool museum piece and I did not know it was in Milwaukee!
One more reason (besides beer) to go there!! :cheers:


----------



## Illadelph (Dec 3, 2005)

For all of those American History Enthusiast check this out... 

Following are videos of the Revolutionary War re-enactment held in Whitpain Township, Pennsylvania. They are made available in a variety of file formats

http://membrane.com/philanet/Philadelphia/American_Revolution.html


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

I'll up the ante. I am also interested in American furniture from the 1700's, and
how it is similar/different to that of (mostly) England, but also sometimes France.
Sure there are lot's of souls out there who say it won't hold a candle to a genuine
piece of Chippendale, but I think it is every bit as interesting and important. The
best stuff I have seen is in the Whitehouse.


----------



## LLoydGeorge (Jan 14, 2006)

ReddAlert said:


> there isnt that many of those very old buildings in NYC....not enough to brag about anyway. And besides, Milwaukee has an older building than any in NYC. Beat that. 1400's, one of the oldest buildings in the Western Hemisphere...


I was limiting my discussion to structures that were originally created here. The Cloisters Museum in upper Manhattan consists of 12th century clositers that were moved to NY from France and re-assembled on a hill overlooking the Hudson. There's also a 4,000 year old obelisk in Central Park that the Egyptians gave to NY in the 1800s.


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

But the fact remains, *LloydGeorge*, that the majority of what was New York in the 1600's and 1700's was effectively re-developed in the 1800's and again in the 1900's. Sure there are a handful of surviving structures that date back to New York's earliest history, but structure by structure the city was continually rebuilt throughout the centuries. There is no neighborhood left in all of New York where even half the housing dates back to before the civil war.

That is unless you want to tell me that New York still looks like this:


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

Taller said:


> chicagogeorge said:
> 
> 
> > Ok to end this old city debate once and for all. *NO AMERICAN CITY IS OLD! NO AMERICAN BUILDING IS OLD!*
> ...


----------



## LLoydGeorge (Jan 14, 2006)

hudkina said:


> But the fact remains, *LloydGeorge*, that the majority of what was New York in the 1600's and 1700's was effectively re-developed in the 1800's and again in the 1900's. Sure there are a handful of surviving structures that date back to New York's earliest history, but structure by structure the city was continually rebuilt throughout the centuries. There is no neighborhood left in all of New York where even half the housing dates back to before the civil war.
> 
> That is unless you want to tell me that New York still looks like this:


What you're saying is true of all cities. The percentage of buildings from the 1600's and 1700's in London or Paris is smaller than the percentage of buildings from the 1800's and 1900's. Because cities in Europe and America boomed in the 19th and 20th Centuries, older structures were replaced. 

However, there are neighborhoods in NY where half or nearly half of the structures are Pre-Civil War. The West Village is one, Brooklyn Heights is another.

Nonetheless, other than NY, Boston, Philly and maybe Charleston, no US city has buildings from the 1600's or 1700's. Midwestern cities might have a limited handful of pre-Civil War structures. Chicago had a few thousand people when it was founded around 1840. How many pre-Civil War structures does Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, etc. have? I'd be surprised if there were more than 5 in each city. By contrast, in NY, there are 1,000's.

Once again, back to my point re: this thread. Philly should not be compared to Chicago. As I noted, if someone started a thread entitled, "Will Chicago become the next Philadelphia," Midwesterners would go nuts about the alleged offense to their capital. 

P.S.:


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

Actually one could find a hell of a lot more than five pre-civil war buildings in Detroit, however I'm not going to act like the city is brimming with them (as you are doing for New York). Fort Wayne, which was built in 1844 (to replace an older fort from 1796) in Southwest Detroit alone has at least five buildings that date from before the civil War. Corktown, which in the 1830's became Detroit's first ethnic neighborhood has quite a few structures that date from its beginning. Hell, my suburban Detroit city has more than 5 pre-civil war buildings. Two of the houses on my block date from before the civil war.

But again, just like in New York most of what was standing in Detroit in the 1830's-1860's has long since been replaced by newer and larger buildings.


----------



## Jay (Oct 7, 2004)

philly and miami are becoming the new chicago's of the US, Philly would have to move way back to be a detroit.


----------



## UrbanSophist (Aug 4, 2005)

edit.


----------



## Giant (Mar 6, 2006)

Philadelphia has the worlds tallest load masonry building city hall and the first modern skyscraper in the U.S. Fully airconditioned 1930's...


----------



## ReddAlert (Nov 4, 2004)

Taller said:


> Well, that is pretty cool, Redd! I admit I thought it was a Victorian
> "neo" style. Very cool museum piece and I did not know it was in Milwaukee!
> One more reason (besides beer) to go there!! :cheers:


lol, you and me both! I personally have not seen this chapel either, I just know about it.


----------



## ReddAlert (Nov 4, 2004)

LLoydGeorge said:


> Nonetheless, other than NY, Boston, Philly and maybe Charleston, no US city has buildings from the 1600's or 1700's. Midwestern cities might have a limited handful of pre-Civil War structures. Chicago had a few thousand people when it was founded around 1840. How many pre-Civil War structures does Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, etc. have? I'd be surprised if there were more than 5 in each city. By contrast, in NY, there are 1,000's.
> 
> .:


We have more than 5....at least 20-25 of them. And no kidding there would be more in NYC--considering it is an East Coast city. 

http://people.msoe.edu/~reyer/mke/birth.html
 Check out this site. It shows the prominent pre-Civil War buildings, I am sure there are more than whats listed. Some of our pre-Civil War buildings are quite beautiful and rich in history.


----------



## Dampyre (Sep 19, 2002)

LLoydGeorge said:


> A city that's 400 years old is old. People in Europe consider 400 year old buildings to be old. They consider 200 year old buildings to be old. I lived there, and I know.
> 
> Moreover, by your logic of using Athens as a yardstick, buildings in London are "new".
> 
> ...


What's with these Philly attitudes? It's 2006 and the past is the past. It's too bad you guys can't find anything to boast about TODAY.


----------



## Dampyre (Sep 19, 2002)

Jo48 said:


> philly and miami are becoming the new chicago's of the US/QUOTE]
> 
> In what way?


----------



## ChgoLvr83 (Aug 1, 2004)

LLoydGeorge said:


> Once again, back to my point re: this thread. Philly should not be compared to Chicago. As I noted, if someone started a thread entitled, "Will Chicago become the next Philadelphia," Midwesterners would go nuts about the alleged offense to their capital.


This is THE perfect example of one person, who obviously did not read the first page, take a thread and running it into the dirt. LLoydGeorge, back to the original point, the intent of the thread was to ask peoples opinion (and this is my take so someone else correct me if Im wrong) on whether Philadelphia and its metro region could maintain economic gain and its residential/office boom (Chicago) or to keep it short, have all great potential seem to go to waste and decline (Detroit, at the moment. I have high hopes for Detroit). It had absolutely NOTHING to do with comparing the two cities and if you read anything other than the title of the thread you'd know that. And youve done a great job shoving your view down everyone else's throat and I esp love the condescending way you go about doing it. You like Philly over Chicago, GREAT, now can you shut up about it because you have managed to derail this thread long enough. 

P.S. (  ) - Is it a coincidence that youre a New Yorker cutting down Chicago? Except, to me, youre being quite passive-aggressive. And dont let the name fool you, Im born and raised on the East Coast (DC with very strong ties to NYC). Just wanted to put that out there before you tried to dismiss my post as me being a bitter Midwesterner, although you do a good job at dismissing original posts anyway. Later.


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

"What's with these Philly attitudes? It's 2006 and the past is the past. It's too bad you guys can't find anything to boast about TODAY."

Actually there is plenty to boast about today but that should be discussed in another thread. The past is what lures people here. The past is what lures people to Rome and Istanbul. Philly is a city for history buffs looking for old world character. We are not some sleepy colonial Williamsburg either. This is an incredibly modern and cosmopolitan city going through a major boom thanks to relocating New Yorkers and location.

A better thread would have been..St. Louis, the next Detroit or the next Philadelphia...or Newark, the next Detroit or next Philadelphia. Philly is a huge city no doubt, but Chicago is the apex of an entire region whereas we are the second largest in the Bos/Wash corridor (Detroit is #2 in the midwest as well). 

I am still perplexed why someone would actually think Philadelphia is that bad off as a city. I too have high hopes for Detroit but unfortunately most of Detroits wealth is in the burbs. In the Philly metro the most expensive places are still in the city or on the Main Line. Philly did not have a love with the wrecking ball during the 60's and 70's. The auto industry screwed Detroit by slicing it up with highways and knocking down entire blocks to build parking garages..and buying out their transit systems forcing people into cars which brought them out to the burbs. Detroit is actually more like LA in this sense. Philly is a multi-industry city with a little bit of everything. One failed industry won't bring it down.

Detroit will come back when the highways are gone and pedestrians fill up the place. People in Detroit don't walk thanks to the big 3.
*


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

Dampyre said:


> What's with these Philly attitudes? It's 2006 and the past is the past. It's too bad you guys can't find anything to boast about TODAY.


uke:


----------



## ChgoLvr83 (Aug 1, 2004)

philadweller said:


> A better thread would have been..St. Louis, the next Detroit or the next Philadelphia...or Newark, the next Detroit or next Philadelphia. Philly is a huge city no doubt, but Chicago is the apex of an entire region whereas we are the second largest in the Bos/Wash corridor (Detroit is #2 in the midwest as well).


I agree completely with what you said on the side of history but Im not understanding in the slightest why the title couldnt remain what it is. What does location have to do with how well or not the city manages itself? There are so many factors outside of location of a city as to how its future is played out. I just dont think location should be or is a major factor as it once was when cities were establishing themselves. If Philadelphia manages and promotes itself properly, people will take notice and take advantage of the situation (something I think both Chicago and Philadelphia arent doing the best of even with todays boom). Am I offbase in my thinking? Am I missing something? It feels like to me Philadelphia automatically sells itself short because because its between NYC and DC and while it doesnt hurt to be between those great cities, I say **** em and prosper.


----------



## Giant (Mar 6, 2006)

ChgoLvr83 said:


> It feels like to me Philadelphia automatically sells itself short because because its between NYC and DC and while it doesnt hurt to be between those great cities.



No, Philadelphia just keeps it real we acknowledge other cities and what they have done for us americans.. Philadelphia is the greatest city in the world to Philadelphians and other people that have visited the city.. Philadelphia is always creating history from being the origin of the U.S.A. to implementing the largest WIFI CITY Network in the World.. It's a city that's always reinventing itself and confident enough to acknowledge other great cities without having an inferiority complex or be jealous or bitter for no apparent reason.. This city is the 2nd largest city on the East Coast and the fifth largest city in the U.S.A. It could do a little better Financially and be the #1 financial center in the U.S. again but that will not happen anytime soon.. It's still one of the largest financial centers in the U.S. PHILADELPHIA DOES NOT SELL ITSELF SHORT FOR BEING BETWEEN NYC AND DC.. Those cities are the cities we go to visit and where some of us work or vacation it's a whole different vibe but all good...


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

philadweller said:


> I am still perplexed why someone would actually think Philadelphia is that bad off as a city.


Imagine what the stereotypical view of Philadelphia is and then multiply that by 10 and you'll have Detroit. You wonder why people hold such views of Philadelphia, but then you turn around and use the same logic in describing what you think Detroit is. About 30% of both Philadelphia and Detroit residents earn over $50,000 a year, so while it is true that Detroit lost much of its wealth to the suburbs, the same can be said for Philadelphia. Granted, even in Chicago less than 40% of households earn over $50,000 a year.


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

Giant said:


> No, Philadelphia just keeps it real we acknowledge other cities and what they have done for us americans.. Philadelphia is the greatest city in the world to Philadelphians and other people that have visited the city.. Philadelphia is always creating history from being the origin of the U.S.A. to implementing the largest WIFI CITY Network in the World.. It's a city that's always reinventing itself and confident enough to acknowledge other great cities without having an inferiority complex or be jealous or bitter for no apparent reason.. This city is the 2nd largest city on the East Coast and the fifth largest city in the U.S.A. It could do a little better Financially and be the #1 financial center in the U.S. again but that will not happen anytime soon.. It's still one of the largest financial centers in the U.S. PHILADELPHIA DOES NOT SELL ITSELF SHORT FOR BEING BETWEEN NYC AND DC.. Those cities are the cities we go to visit and where some of us work or vacation it's a whole different vibe but all good...


Giant....thank you, thank you, thank you...for doing the unspeakable here ont he skyscraper board: having the "nerve" to suggest that your city stands up very nicely among its own citizens and doesn't need to be compared to NYC, DC, Chgo, or any other city to determine its greatness.

I know that goes totally against the conventional wisdom of so many forumers who think a city's greatness can only be gained by 
*comparing to other cities* in some kind of obscene meat market where each city hangs on a hook and is dissected to its most minute fault by outsiders.

Meanwhile, Giant, you have arrived on a little known fact: it is far more relevant to a city's greatness what the residents of a city think of it than what outsiders think of it. 

One city does not, and never will cast a shaddow over another. That's self-congratualtory bull shit.


----------



## elkram (Apr 1, 2006)

Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago: these cities are too different from one another to be lumped into one category. Philly will be fine -- I wish I'd spent more time exploring it.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## PhilippeMtl (Aug 17, 2005)

Does the favourite sport of Torontians is Detroit bashing?


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

Basically. Canadians in general like to take pot-shots at the U.S. every chance they get. Detroit just happens to be the easiest target for them.


----------



## jmancuso (Jan 9, 2003)

> Philadelphia? Next Chicago or Next Detroit


neither, it's still philly.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

PhilippeMtl said:


> Does the favourite sport of Torontians is Detroit bashing?


Say whaaa? :weird:
Where did that come from?


----------

