Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Chicago blows philly out of the water CBD wises if that's what you talking about , but Chicago doesn't have " walk up's all over the city " ( San Francisco Cali ) is the second most urban area in the United States 800,000 to 900,000 people in a 46.9 square miles area and on top of that it's architecturally dense and urban to. Los Angeles will be more architecturally urban and dense as compared to Philly and Chi Town in 30 to 40 more years " hit me up in 40 years' LOL.
This is true, I might argue about the latter parts, but...not now.
If you consider a growing metro area of 629,000 folks small: FAIR:
So, I was right about the urbanity and distance between Newark, Delaware and Trenton (see Post 620). If you haven't made the drive, you should do it as it appears you are unfamiliar with the southern reaches of Philly's metro area.
I've been in that area it's not that big. Chicago isn't just north and south it's developed in all directions other than the lake covering way more area with urban development.
Chicago's urban density goes beyond downtown as far as 13-14 miles towards Evanston and as far away towards I-294. Philly doesn't stretch that far. You go north (toward Allentown) or west (to Harrisburg) you hit lots hills, dairy farms and trees. Go past Camden pockets of small town atmosphere like development and more trees towards the NJ turnpike. It's no where as developed like northern New Jersey to NYC by any means. Chicago's urban density goes much further out due to having a much larger urban population than Philly if you where to go beyond both city centers. You got North Philly but that's all.
Also Chicago has two airports larger and much more busier than Philly that are further out surrounded by a lot more development with 2 extensive CTA train lines with higher ridership.
I agree that the Northside traveling all the way up to Evanston is very urban and much larger than Philly. However, my point is, Chicago also has large swaths of suburban looking areas that go on for miles and miles that you will not find in Philly or any east coast city. Cicero and Pulanski (near Midway) are two examples that stretch for miles going south. They look like east coast suburbs with wide blvd, strip malls and parking lots. I'm not saying Philly doesn't have any suburban looking areas because all cities do but they aren't as large as Chicago's. So when someone says Chicago is more urban than Philly over a larger area, they are also forgetting that Chicago is more suburban looking over a much larger area too. You can't forget about the Southside!
While Chicago has a bigger core, Chicago is also more suburban looking overall.
Philly is dominated by rowhouses, while Chicago is dominated by bungalows. There are very few rowhouses in Chicago.
Even in Chicago's densest non-downtown areas (Lakeview and Lincoln Park), there are suburban style homes with yards a few blocks inland from the lake. You won't find this near Center City Philly.
I've been in that area it's not that big. Chicago isn't just north and south it's developed in all directions other than the lake covering way more area with urban development.
I have never said Chicago is not developed in all directions. Logically a metro of 9.5 million is going to be larger than one of 6 million. That said, this bolded claim about Philly is flat out wrong:
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanologist
Chicago's urban density goes much further out due to having a much larger urban population than Philly if you where to go beyond both city centers. You got North Philly but that's all.
Sorry, but based on your posts in this thread, I don't really believe this:
Quote:
I been in both cities hundreds of times over the years I know.
The only way this could be true is if you had your eyes closed each time you were here.
I love my city but Chicago always impresses. To me, nothing defines urban density quite like 'The Loop'. Also Chicago's south side ghetto is more hardcore than Philly (hard to achieve, I know) so even from that perspecitive Chicago has Philly beat.
When it comes to urban-feeling downtown, Chicago still towers above the rest.*
I agree that the Northside traveling all the way up to Evanston is very urban and much larger than Philly. However, my point is, Chicago also has large swaths of suburban looking areas that go on for miles and miles that you will not find in Philly or any east coast city. Cicero and Pulanski (near Midway) are two examples that stretch for miles going south. They look like east coast suburbs with wide blvd, strip malls and parking lots. I'm not saying Philly doesn't have any suburban looking areas because all cities do but they aren't as large as Chicago's. So when someone says Chicago is more urban than Philly over a larger area, they are also forgetting that Chicago is more suburban looking over a much larger area too. You can't forget about the Southside!
Nice image cherry-picking -- the first being warehouse and manufacturing district (Gee, I wonder why it looks so open?? ) so far out on the edge of the city that the suburbs are literally 2 blocks away, and the second actually reinforces the point I made in my previous post -- an area that "looks suburban" to you because of your preconceived ideas of what "urban" looks like, when in reality the neighborhood in your second link is over 15,000 people per square mile, which is at least as dense or denser than Kensington. How many Philly neighborhoods that are 9 miles away from Center City are that dense? Can you even go 9 miles in any direction from Center City and still be inside the city limits?
Let's examine this claim in particular a little more closely:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC's Finest
I agree that the Northside traveling all the way up to Evanston is very urban and much larger than Philly. However, my point is, Chicago also has large swaths of suburban looking areas that go on for miles and miles that you will not find in Philly or any east coast city.
I beg to differ -- I can play the "selective imagery" game too:
While Chicago has a bigger core, Chicago is also more suburban looking overall.
Philly is dominated by rowhouses, while Chicago is dominated by bungalows. There are very few rowhouses in Chicago.
Even in Chicago's densest non-downtown areas (Lakeview and Lincoln Park), there are suburban style homes with yards a few blocks inland from the lake. You won't find this near Center City Philly.
At lot of what look like "homes" to East Coasters are actually 2- and 3-flats. To use your example of "a few blocks inland from the lake," I'll do you one better and use examples of neighborhoods that are 2 or 3 miles inland from the lake: Logan Square, population density 25,000 per square mile; Avondale, 21,000/sq.mi; Albany Park, 30,000/sq.mi; Lincoln Square, 17,000/sq.mi; West Rogers Park, 21,000/sq.mi, etc.
I think Baltimore would be a much better comparison
Chicago is larger. The urban parts of both are both very urban. Both have urban aspects that extend considerably from the city. Chicago is larger and feels like a larger urban area, likely because it is larger. On which is more urban, both are extremely urban by US standards; neither feels more or less urban to me; especially in their core and adjacent areas. They have different constructs but again both urban
Chicago all the way, its 30% larger, not fair for Philly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) so far out on the edge of the city that the suburbs are literally 2 blocks away, and the second actually reinforces the point I made in my previous post -- an area that "looks suburban" to you because of your preconceived ideas of what "urban" looks like, when in reality the neighborhood in your second link is over 15,000 people per square mile, which is at least as dense or denser than Kensington. How many Philly neighborhoods that are 9 miles away from Center City are that dense? Can you even go 9 miles in any direction from Center City and still be inside the city limits?
