The problem with American cities, exaggerating slightly, is that they're either ravaged dumps or playgrounds for the rich (to quote Iggy Pop). It's the urban physical manifestation of the polarization in the U.S. socioeconomic structure.
Wojtek replied
NYC certainly does not fit that model, and neither does Philly or even Baltimore. Boston comes a bit closer, but still has enough middle class left, even after MA abolished rent control.
I think the main issue is the land use, which imho can explain two thirds of US politics. Developers and car manufacturers push for the model that thrives on cheap land, cheap construction, and vast open spaces and to pursue their agenda, they kill any measure that makes cities viable. Cities with enough clout (like NYC or Philly) can resist that trend, but Baltimore is loosing its clout, as evidenced by the last gubernatorial election. I think that manifestation of the polarization in the U.S. socioeconomic structure is urban/suburban divide - cities being starved and suburbs and its truly wasteful lifestyles receiving lavish government subsidies.
================
I understand Doug's meaning here but I believe Wojtek makes an important point.
I live in Philly and spend a lot of time in NY (mostly Manhattan and Flushing / Queens). It's true there are vast wastelands of deep poverty in both of these old cities. Still, they have not been completely beaten (or turned into exclusive playgrounds for the wealthy) despite relentless effort from developers, 'white flighters', and other capitalist and racialist malcontents.
Wojtek used the word "clout" and I think that's accurate.
No one has any trouble understanding the diminished but still considerable power New York has in its region. Philadelphians on the other hand, accustomed to comparing their city unfavorably to the very close Big Apple and the tony burbs (which the foolish or pollyannish believe to be problem free), don't understand how important the City of Brotherly Love still is to the region - despite endless noise to the contrary.
Both cities can be neglected to a great extent but not allowed to die as Detroit did.
People living inside and outside of these cities have a hate / love / hate / fear / love relationship with these old ladies. Of course, New York, much more than DC, seems to be the imperial capital overwhelming us with its grandeur and glittering cosmopolitanism. And Philly, no matter how dirty it can get at times, has, as Brit film maker Terry Gilliam once put it, an "almost European aura of decaying greatness" which, along with the seemingly 100 million important bits of history that happened in town and a certain tense easy goingness (a paradox but true) along with other overlooked strengths, prevents people from giving up entirely.
DRM