Philadelphia is the correct answer but I don't think Boston is too far off either, with the waterfront/harbor areas and some of the architecture.

Top of the World

The Bygone. Haven’t been there since before COVID, but it’s at the top of the Four Seasons. Good views and good whiskey selections.

I always enjoy the hill at Federal Hill Park. Get a beautiful view there.

I spend time weekly in all of these except Boston, where I did spend four days in 2019. Definitely Philly.

I was talking to a guy in times square once and he asked me where I was from and I said Baltimore, his only response was “oh shit” I’m like nah bro it’s not like that lol

It’s really a lotta Philly but the size of Boston.

Blue collar. Great older housing stock. Tremendous histories. Both waterfront but not seaside

I used to call Richmond the "Baltimore of the South."

I don't call it that anymore.

I live just north of the park and also see foxes regularly. I'm sure they love the bunnies that are literally everywhere from March - November.

Philly but their infrastructure is way better.

...Fed office too? Like Dutch or Chris V?

I've lived in both places and I really don't see it. I think the vibes are completely different.

This new policy will change nothing. If people weren't electing effective leaders before, there's no reason to expect they'll start now.

None of those are comparable to Baltimore, not even DC.

Thank you, that was helpful.

I declined an interview with the city of Baltimore due mostly to...it being Baltimore. And the money being offered was low for east Coast standards. (So I was told). I've personally never been to Baltimore but the interest rates now make me nervous to sell my current home.

Appreciate your response.

If Baltimore were doing well as a city with politicians who were directly dealing with the issues at hand, I would agree with you. I understand your logic and I respect your position but I just don't agree

>There are a couple issues with that. First of all, different people's opinions vary on who is considered a good politician.

That's not really relevant. Whoever you think the good ones are, they're gone. Doesn't matter if we agree on who.

> Secondly, the bill allows for 8 years in city council, an additional 8 years as city council president and an additional 8 years as mayor. A truly good politician can stay in office for 24 years! They can also run again for whatever office they had after sitting out for 8 years.

Not a consolation prize. I'd reelect my councilperson indefinitely, but they wouldn't make a good mayor or president. Now that choice has been taken away.

I'm going to edge west and say St. Louis.

There are a couple issues with that. First of all, different people's opinions vary on who is considered a good politician. Secondly, the bill allows for 8 years in city council, an additional 8 years as city council president and an additional 8 years as mayor. A truly good politician can stay in office for 24 years! They can also run again for whatever office they had after sitting out for 8 years.

If this only removed the bad politicians, it would be great policy. Unfortunately it indiscriminately removes everyone after 8 years.

Philly is very affordable as is Richmond.

I am. Baltimore has a long history of corrution, entitlement and one party politics. That is rarely a good combination. Career politicians often have the goal of assuring their power and influence. While there have certainly been good leaders in office for many years, having the same people on city council for decades is not productive, in my opinion.

Philly also has functional transit.

[deleted]

In the 90s, Richmond. Today? DC or Philadelphia