Chicago or Philly for couple no kids

[j33]

[quote=BillyJacc;670458]

Originally Posted by MassVt

.
I really believe that you'd really like Philly compared to Detroit, Chicago, or NYC.

Now, I could probably see why someone would choose Philly over Chicago in looking to move to a larger city, but Philly over NYC? C'mon now.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by j33

Now, I could probably see why someone would choose Philly over Chicago in looking to move to a larger city, but Philly over NYC? C'mon now.

I can't really see Philly over either, to be honest, except that NYC's cost of living might be a compelling reason to choose elsewhere.

[BillyJacc]

[quote=j33;672099]

Originally Posted by BillyJacc

Now, I could probably see why someone would choose Philly over Chicago in looking to move to a larger city, but Philly over NYC? C'mon now.

LOL! I don't mean over any town but when you compare them as far as to what'd you'd like then anyplace can be chosen.

As far as NYC, we're so close to them and most of us have family up there and are usally assimilated to it by our teens and vice versa. We would go up there and visit them & they'd come down & visit us.

Nowa days a lot of my family & some friends from college have moved to or are moving to Philly because it's that same kinda vibe, also they're still an hour & a half away from there, and the cost of living is quite a bit lower.

It's funny how I run into native Nu Yawkas now living in Philly & they're buying some funky little 2bdrm rowhouse in Northern Liberties for about 220K and they're just beaming with pride because now they own a home in an up & coming area near, the water & BF bridge, and up in NY they were living in a funky waaay over priced apt. and the neighborhood was pretty rough or it was up & coming and they were already priced out of home ownership 10 years ago and now they can barely afford to pay rent on a $70k median.
But in Philly.....The're able do to just a little bit better

Now where would I live on the east coast outside of overated LA if I had a choice? NYC

[BillyJacc]

Originally Posted by Drover

I can't really see Philly over either, to be honest, except that NYC's cost of living might be a compelling reason to choose elsewhere.

Please, ........Elaborate. Why would I choose Chi over Philly?
I know quite a few people from Chi & just like Philly it has it's good & bad.
Most of us complain about LA but don't desire to return to Chi or Philly to live.

Now when I decide to live in a cold weather town and it's not NYC, then which should it be? Based on your opinion or experience? I posted just a few links so please show me some things that would make me say wow! Now that's a town I'd like to reside in.......Long term

[paytonc]

To the OP's concern about allergies: allergies are the very definition of a personal concern. I never had allergies until after I'd lived in Chicago for a few years, and I still have no idea what the triggers are. I travel for work frequently and always bring pills (which luckily for me work well), since Manhattan may set me off, but Brooklyn not. Chicago will be fully smoke-free in January, Philadelphia is today.

Philadelphia and Chicago are both surprisingly good fits for what you're looking for, but Chicago has a considerable size advantage over Philly. Philly is making great strides forward, but Chicago is already more livable (and economically healthy) today. Transit is not as big an issue as you might think, since the core neighborhoods in Philadelphia are contiguous (a tight ring around Center City) and incredibly compact -- it's more of a walking city than Chicago, and a fantastic one at that, with a seemingly endless variety of fascinating little discoveries. If weather's an issue, Philadelphia has milder winters. I'm generally more favorable towards Chicago, but can certainly understand Philly's charms.

Your situation reminds me of some new empty-nester friends I have at my community garden, who moved from Cleveland to a loft in Chicago (across from a garden -- best of both worlds) and absolutely love every minute.

As for the neighborhoods, Elmhurst is in DuPage County; think of Oakland County, only more Republican. Lincoln Square and Ravenswood (adjacent areas) often strike me as too well-scrubbed. For you -- perhaps once hippies? -- something like Rogers Park or Logan Square sounds more appropriate to me.

I'm sure you'll love the adventure wherever you go, and hopefully the city will love you back.

[untuchableface]

I'd choose Chicago just on the public transportation factor alone. You can get anywhere with the CTA, whereas in Philly public transportation is limited.

[TheProf]

I’ve lived in Philly and have been a Philly basher and feel that Chicago is my favorite big city to visit… That said, I want to give Philly a little love. Yes, there are some filth moments in Center City, even homeless’ human feces in some subway tunnels from time to time, but overall, the comment that Center City is loaded with garbage is, well, garbage. A decade or so ago, Philly started the Center City District where businesses taxed themselves to clean up streets, and it has done the job for the most part. Center City is a red hot ticket, now, with sidewalk cafes, neat little shops all over the place. And although Philly can’t match Chicago’s high-rise prowess – who can outside NYC? (and Philly had a height restriction to City Hall’s limit just 20 years ago), high-rise condos are rising at a rapid clip.

As someone noted, a lot of hip New Yorkers are moving here and commuting to the Apple because living costs are reasonable, and downtown is lively.

PUBLIC TRANSIT? I also disagree that Chicago is hands down better. The el is better known – in part b/c it’s so damn visible and stars in any film or TV show about the city (and usually they exaggerate making it look like every Chicagoan rides the el, which is far from true). At 1st glance, Philly has only 2 true subway lines, Broad Street and Market-Frankford, but that’s deceiving. 5 subway surface lines zip from the center of town to west Philly (with numerous stops in and around UPenn and vibrant (and beautiful) University City). The PATCO Hi-Speed Line (think quasi subway-commuter rail and automated like DC Metro—I think PATCO may have been the 1st of those types, actually) into south Jersey interconnects with the subway. Regional Rail, actually the 2 converted commuter systems, is fully electrified and looks, and in some ways acts, like a regional rapid transit, although it is infrequent, every hour, on most lines like commuter trains. But where lines share the same tracks and on a few busy lines, its every half hour off peak and every few mins during rush. What’s more, unlike Chicago’s excellent Metra (which is practically all diesel), the Center City Commuter Tunnel actually linked the 2 major systems so the whole system is interconnected – you can ride thru one side of the suburban network to the other – in Chicago, Metra ends at 4-5 terminals so burb-to-burb commuting requires a lot of transferring using CTA (been there done that) and in those traditionally vicious winters (much worse than mild Philly)?…don’t ask. Oh yeah, and did I mention you can hop a regional rail line for a direct connection to NYC? This is supplemented by Amtrak’s Acela, Metroliner and regular high-speed rail serving the entire Northeast Corridor. I used to regularly hop a commuter train for New York 2 blocks from my Mt. Airy house.

Philly’s SEPTA is more centralized. At the City Hall-Suburban Station complex in the center of town, one can connect with most any train to any part of the region. Given Philly’s more compact nature (blocks are much shorter than Chicago), and diversity/extensiveness of rail services, I’d actually pick SEPTA over CTA, esp given the el’s dire straights right now. And as rundown as some SEPTA can be, some CTA subway tunnels, and old wooden el stops, are among the worst transit stops I’ve ever seen. Add to that the fact Philly has so many different transit modes, including trolley buses, an interurban and diesel light rail – BOTTOM LINE: Philly transit trumps Chicago’s CTA/Metra.

TRAFFIC? Fuggiddaboudit. Philly wins hands down. Chicago, though having more freeways, has some of the worse traffic in the nation.

LIVING – OK, Philly has a deserved rep for trash/bombed out conditions in a number of in-city neighborhoods, although North Philly is gentrifying fast. But PHILLY TRUMPS CHICAGO in terms of residential diversity/quality home living within the city limits. No, I’m not talking about Lake Shore Drive. But Chicago can’t match home districts like Mt. Airy (ironically, Chicago’s Oprah once said this is the best big-city residential neighborhood), East Falls, Chestnut Hill (flat out mansions and country estates). These areas are woodsy to being downright semi rural and peaceful right in the city.

Yes Chicago’s a great architecture city… but Philly’s not? Philly is the only big city I know of, aside from possibly Boston, that has a European feel to it, given the old cobblestone, narrow streets; the often gingerbread type row architecture and little shops and walkup apartments. Chicago, great though it is, doesn’t have that. Then there’s classic, quirky neighborhoods like Manayunk, which clings to a hillside, with curving narrow streets, like an ancient mill town but has a lively restaurant/entertainment walking district. Chicago has nothing comparable.

As a side note, Chicago’s lakefront is great, but the city has no match for Philly’s Fairmount Park – the largest in-city muni park in the world. There are areas in Germantown, Mt. Airy and Chestnut Hill that are as forest-y and secluded as national parks. The only areas to find quality residential, stand-alone housing in Chicago are the smallish Hyde Park-Kenwood and Beverly Hills (and practically all the lots in these areas are small – nothing like what you find in Philly’s Chestnut Hill, Mt. Airy, East Falls or even Wynnfield. QUALITY OF RESIDENTIAL LIVING: Advantage Philadelphia.

SUBURBS. Chicago’s generally are totally bland, flat with boring, unadorned, block-ish housing. From Park Ridge to Schaumburg to Naperville to River Stream. I can’t tell the friggin’ difference. In Chigagoland, you’ve seen one you’ve seen them all. (btw, my hometown Cleveland thoroughly trumps Chicago suburbanwise, too)… The only reasonably unique, character close in burbs in Chicago are Evanston and Wright’s Oak Park. The real rich burbs, like Lake Forest and Barrington are 25 miles from the Loop. Philly, meanwhile, has some of the most quaint and character-rich suburbs anywhere. The woodsy nature, old architecture and walking nature make them highly desirable. And thanks to SEPTA’s old commuter rail system, on which many of these burbs were built along, these towns have quaint, walking-oriented town centers centered around the train station. There Main Streets with lots of shops and mixed use developments. Philly has some suburban sprawl – mainly in South Jersey (which is newer and more Chicago/Sunbelt sprawl), but most older Philly burbs of the type described, above, have lots of breathing space between. Many were developed before the auto and are highly centered. Again, Philly’s European feel extends to many of its burbs.

INDEED, OVERALL, PHILLY IS WALKING CITY USA… Chicago, while having many walking areas, is much more a car region because of the great engulfing nature of its big, flat city/suburban blocks…

So you see, there’s a lot to recommend Philly – it may be, overall, a better city in which to live, for a young couple, like you, with no kids (or with them)... while Chicago, a better city to visit.

[hey_john_60657]

I grew up in and around Chicago and only 2 years ago moved to NY. I haven't been to Philly yet, so this will be a one-sided answer. Chicago is a great city for someone relying on public transportation and someone looking for a big city with a midwest attitude. Smoking-wise, my friends tell me Chicago will be going smoke free (bars) in January. They've already banned smoking in restaurants, that I've noticed at least. I visit a lot as everyone I know is there. As far as neighborhoods go I would consider the Bucktown-Wicker Park area, Lincoln Sq, Uptown, and Logan Sq. Suburbs if you really are interested in it are Oak Park, Forest Park, and Evanston. All of the places in the city and burbs I've mentioned are services by the el system. Berwyn is just south of Oak Park, but it's a city you may need a car to get around otherwise you will be using a bus to get to the el or Metra (suburban train system). Outside of the 3 burbs I've recommended, all other burbs are services by the Metra and are mostly single family homes.

[Lookout Kid]

Philly: Beautiful east coast urban residential architecture, including neighborhoods of charming rowhouses, narrow walkable streets, and wonderful parks. The downtown is more interesting than most American cities, but isn't a real destination. There are some really beautiful buildings and architectural masterpieces downtown, but the real beauty of the city lies in the residential areas, I believe.

Chicago: A really huge bustling downtown which compares to nothing else in the U.S. short of New York. Many residential blocks are beautiful and dense, but many are not. And a lot of the great neighborhoods have been mucked up with really terrible condo construction. Yet there is a critical mass of middle class residents who aren't going anywhere any time soon. It really feels like the north side has permanently turned the corner, and huge swaths of the city feel safe--not just isolated neighborhoods.

In terms of public transportation, both cities offer a lot more than a typical American city. Neither one is as well-served as NYC, but most cities don't even have more than a couple of train lines.

To me, Chicago just feels like its had a lot more investment and economic activity over the years. I do know that a lot of New Yorkers are moving to Philly, but it just isn't buzzing with economic activity like Chicago. And the gentrified area of Chicago is MUCH larger than the gentrified area of Philly.

[ytlh]

I grew up in the near suburbs of Philadelphia (but spent a fair amount of time in the city), with a brief stay again when I was an adult. I also lived in the city of Chicago for several years. I think that both options are good choices, but I have to say that I think that Chicago is the superior one on most accounts. One exception is the natural surroundings and accessibility to hiking outside of the city, which is far better in Philadelphia, which is in a much prettier natural environment. Inside the city, although Philadelphia's Fairmont park is far larger than Chicago's city parks, there are fewer areas of it that I feel safe using, although this may partly be familiarity.

Chicago really has the advantage of size going for it. It has a large number of safe, walkable, bustling city neighborhoods, all with different character. After almost six years living there, I felt that I had barely scratched the surface of getting to know what the city has to offer. Both cities have plenty of museums, free festivals, and architectural sights, but Chicago has more. Pretty much any summer weekend you are going to find a huge, free festival in Grant Park (right next to downtown).

Large areas of downtown of Chicago feel very safe to me at night. In contrast, while I used to go to night classes in downtown Philadelphia, I felt much less comfortable there. The streets are in general less busy and less well lit. There are far fewer people who are not homeless at night on the streets in downtown Philadelphia versus Chicago.

One thing to watch out for in Chicago is the public transit in the particular neighborhood you choose. In general, I think the transit system is great (and I never had a car when I lived there) but it serves the city unevenly.

Anyhow, I don't think you will go wrong with either choice-good luck!