Quote:
Originally Posted by skyscraper
I am the one who accused her of being anti-Philly and having a pro NY bias. It's not conspiracy nonsense, it's my opinion. I've been reading her column for years, and while I cannot call to mind every single article she has written, you have to admit that most of her articles are pretty negative about Philadelphia. When she does write about New York, she does so glowingly as though nothing that happens there can ever be wrong, especially when comparing the two cities.
I am sure you will be able to find specific examples to refute this, but overall that is the slant she takes.
|
With all due respect, you are out to lunch on this.
She's not a cheerleader. It isn't her job to talk up Philly. It's literally her job to be critical of the city and development within it. I don't even begin to get the NY stuff, she's only very rarely written about NY, and your take on that suggests more concerning your biases rather than hers.
Inga's writing for a very narrow audience of politicians, planners, business leaders, developers, architects, real estate folks, urbanists, and skyscraper geeks. The average Joe may give her articles a cursory read before they flip to the sports pages, but that's about it. I fully appreciate her criticism, even when I disagree with it, because it helps the politicians, planners, business leaders, developers, architects, real estate folks, urbanists, and skyscraper geeks think more deeply about the challenges the city faces, to imagine other possibilities, and to arrive at better solutions.
Everything she writes - EVERYTHING - is with a clear aim to promote a more dynamic urban environment. I don't always agree with her conclusions, but I appreciate her POV nonetheless.