Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanRevival
I think that's an oversimplification. Just like Philly, New York and Boston have also had historically mixed economies -- with robust blue collar and white collar industries co-existing. It's only today that these cities are essentially synonymous with "bougie" white-collar industries, and it's assumed that's how it's always been. How quickly the "mill town" past for Massachusetts has been forgotten. Similarly for the industrial prowess of New York. Anyone who's even slightly familiar with much of Boston outside of Beacon Hill/Back Bay and Downtown Crossing (and ditto for New York outside of Manhattan) would quickly realize that these cities are far more economically diverse than even current reputation suggests.
Philadelphia has indeed taken more time than other post-industrial cities to diversify itself (and the fruits of diversification have largely been found in the suburbs), but the trajectory of the city in terms of embracing the knowledge economy has never been more clear than today.
In terms of urban design, of course no American city comes close to the extremely ambitious vision and financial resources of New York, but I fail to see a "much more sophisticated" history in Boston versus Philadelphia. The most visionary project I can think of for Boston is the "Big Dig" (which was not exactly a smooth success, given the terrible taste it left in the mouths of many people). Otherwise, it's further along in revitalizing its core -- but, fundamentally, aside from more business success, Philadelphia has adopted the exact same the same urban planning principles as Boston (e.g., close-knit, mixed-use, multi-modal urban neighborhoods underpinned by continuing growth in the knowledge economy).
|
Not saying that Boston never had a working class element. Of course it did. But it never had one on the scale of Philly.
The city of Boston has always been the professional "brain" of a region with industrial elements further afield: shoes, textiles, port, fishing, etc., in the surrounding towns. But the core of Boston has been largely professional for well over 100 years. I wouldn't trade Philly for the world, but there is nothing in Philadelphia that really compares in scale and building quality with the beaux arts splendor (I know, pretentious sounding) of Backbay, Commonwealth Avenue, Fenway, Brookline, etc.
Boston has, at least since the 1890s, been the east coast's second leading financial district, insurance center, and intellectual/literary center. It remains the leading academic city nationally. It has always been an important political center.
Philadelphia was the workshop of the world and Boston could never make that claim. There are no blue collar neighborhoods in or around Boston that come remotely close to the scale of North, South, West Philly or the River Wards, or Camden. Or even the Great Northeast.
Those industrial neighborhoods hug right up against Center City on every side, and Boston has little like that. The west side of central Boston essentially morphs right into Mainline-like suburbs with virtually no transitional inner city neighborhoods.
Philly is definitely bigger, grittier, more industrial. Boston is more delicate and refined . . . and haughty.
Prev
Linear Mode
