U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Chicago MSA vs Philadelphia MSA: Most bang for your buck?
Chicago MSA 90 54.55%
Philadelphia MSA 49 29.70%
Too close to call 26 15.76%
Voters: 165. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-09-2011, 07:05 PM
 
Location: New York City
4,892 posts, read 4,526,730 times
Reputation: 2213

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MassVt View Post
Chicago's location would be much worse if it didn't have Lake Michigan on its doorstep. But since it does, it contributes quite a bit to Chicago's attractiveness.

The problem with this comparison is its premise. Chicago really functions as the NYC of the Midwest, so it would be more appropriate, in my opinion, to compare NYC with Chicago, and rate the attractiveness of their respective surrounding cities ( Indy, St. Louis,Detroit, Milwaukee vs. Philly, Balt, DC etc.)
Some will say the the Northeast wins this easily, but I'm not entirely convinced of this, esp if you want to throw in a nice college city like Madison, WI into the mix. If you travel between Chicago and St. Louis, or between Chicago and MSP, you'll see a lot of corn fields and dairy farms, but if you travel between NYC and DC, you'll see a lot of urban blight, so take your pick..
That is really not accurate. The urban blight is isolated to sections of each of the eastcoast cities. The bos/Wash corridor is the wealthiest section of the nation.

And also if that is your sneaky way to say that philly is urban blight then you are truely mistaken, if that was not your intention then it was just my misunderstanding.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-09-2011, 07:08 PM
 
Location: New York City
4,892 posts, read 4,526,730 times
Reputation: 2213
Chicago's Finest, i never said philly was the king of its region. And its funny how your comparing chicago and NYC. Chicago and philly are much more comparible than NYC. And i still say tie for the beaches.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2011, 07:59 PM
 
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,530 posts, read 9,804,758 times
Reputation: 2365
I'm pretty sure Chicago is a bit cheaper and I feel that it has as much, if not more, to offer than Philadelphia (except history....Philly has an edge there).

Chicago for me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 10:46 AM
 
Location: Center City
6,571 posts, read 7,324,334 times
Reputation: 8655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago'sFinest View Post
Scottie, beem me up and pass me the angel dust. You are out of your PCP feasting mind, if you tie Chicago's beaches with Philly's. And first of all, Philly isnt even the king of its region. Philly is more like Boston and DC. Chicago runs the Midwest, second/third cities are NEVER similar in ALL aspects to kings of the regions like NY, CHI, LA.

Then you compared driving 2 hours to a beach in dirty New Jersey to living ON Lake Michigan. How does that tie with Chicago? If you have to leave your city to go to the beach then that automatically disqualifies you from being as good as Chicago. You're smoking crack to even compare Philly beachs to Chicago and saying it's a tie.
Seems a bit of an odd post. The OP is looking to compare cities where they are considering living, not self-proclaimed "kings" crowned by others. Further, while I do find Lake Michigan more scenic than the Delaware River, I too prefer the beaches easily accessible to Philadelphians to the great lake beaches. (Does this also subject me to accuations of drug use?). Not only the beaches of NJ (which are very clean), but also the great beaches of Delmarva, two of which topped the most recent list of cleanest beaches in the US: Cleanest and Dirtiest U.S. Beaches 2011 - ABC News
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 11:01 AM
 
Location: The City
21,959 posts, read 30,867,360 times
Reputation: 7495
These are the beaches that most would consider the Philadelphia Beaches - anywhere from 60-90 minutes from Center City so yes proximity is better Downtown Chicago but for the volume and quality of beaches (especially beach feel and scene)sorry nothing on any of the Lakes compares to salt water beaches - there is a significant difference.

Cape May Beach 2010 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bepa/4715357392/ - broken link)

marina | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/30306110@N02/2840649202/ - broken link)

Kite Over Avalon, NJ | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wind-watcher/3793432763/ - broken link)

Ocean City, NJ | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/28604918@N00/3853549051/ - broken link)

Ocean City NJ Boardwalk | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/89903901@N00/4894800629/ - broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 07:27 PM
 
Location: Chicago
38,691 posts, read 86,939,542 times
Reputation: 29356
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm02 View Post
Seems a bit of an odd post. The OP is looking to compare cities where they are considering living, not self-proclaimed "kings" crowned by others. Further, while I do find Lake Michigan more scenic than the Delaware River, I too prefer the beaches easily accessible to Philadelphians to the great lake beaches. (Does this also subject me to accuations of drug use?). Not only the beaches of NJ (which are very clean), but also the great beaches of Delmarva, two of which topped the most recent list of cleanest beaches in the US: Cleanest and Dirtiest U.S. Beaches 2011 - ABC News
I pray the pormanteau "Delmarva" hasn't caught on. Sounds like the name of a past-her-prime prostitute or something.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 09:10 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 23,813,219 times
Reputation: 5617
Philadelphia is easily the better location, but it isn't Chicago... I think Chicago is a more premier city with more to offer for day to day living. Not that Philadelphia isn't great, it is...
I am much more subtle in my tier distinctions though, Chicago is the 2nd best urban metro experience in the U.S. behind NYC IMHO, if you are into that. Now, if you are making a ton in Philly and can get away, then why not just go to New York, it is sitting right there. I have never lived in Philadelphia, only visited, but I have mapped out a bit of it and the Chi Metro just offers significantly more options and things to explore (if you actually explore the metro) you can drive over 2 hours and still be in the Chicago Metro, it is pretty big.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 10:27 PM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,386 posts, read 9,972,941 times
Reputation: 5230
Chicago offers more from a city standpoint but the Philadelphia Area as a whole offers more "bang for your buck" amenities than probably any other area in the country other than the New York Area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 10:41 PM
 
Location: Center City
6,571 posts, read 7,324,334 times
Reputation: 8655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
I pray the pormanteau "Delmarva" hasn't caught on. Sounds like the name of a past-her-prime prostitute or something.
Caught on? I'm afraid you're about 100 years behind: Delmarva Peninsula - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Now you want something embarrassing: Urban Dictionary: delmarvalous
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 12:20 AM
 
Location: Bella Vista
2,472 posts, read 3,259,340 times
Reputation: 2188
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
These are the beaches that most would consider the Philadelphia Beaches - anywhere from 60-90 minutes from Center City so yes proximity is better Downtown Chicago but for the volume and quality of beaches (especially beach feel and scene)sorry nothing on any of the Lakes compares to salt water beaches - there is a significant difference.

Cape May Beach 2010 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bepa/4715357392/ - broken link)

marina | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/30306110@N02/2840649202/ - broken link)

Kite Over Avalon, NJ | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wind-watcher/3793432763/ - broken link)

Ocean City, NJ | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/28604918@N00/3853549051/ - broken link)

Ocean City NJ Boardwalk | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/89903901@N00/4894800629/ - broken link)
Me and the GF actually took a trip down the shore today. We left at around 7:30 and by 8:15 we were on the beach of Ocean City. It was an absolutely beautiful beach day.

Now granted it took almost two hours to get home because of traffic, but the shore ain't far from philly at all, we often just take a trip there for the day.

Anyone who thinks Chicago has better beaches simply has a fundamentally different idea than me as to what a "beach" is. As nice as some of those beach are, they just don't compare.

A lake just isn't an ocean no matter how nice said lake may be. Horsing around in the water isn't nearly as fun without the big waves. Honestly even just sitting around and reading in the sun isn't even as enjoyable when you don't have that super relaxing roar of the ocean to listen to.

Honestly I love Chicago and think it has more "bang" than philly, the beach just isn't one of those places where chicago edges philly. As far as I'm concerned I'd rather be able to drive 45 min to an excellent beach than have a lake beach right next to philly. also for those trashing the jersey shore. yes jersey is jersey. it has many negative stereotypes and as far as i'm concerned it has at least partially earned most of them. but the jersey shore... at least the southern part... is not really comprised of jersey people. come summer time the jersey shore becomes philly east. and while much of jersey may be aesthetically deficient, the jersey shore is beautiful.

Don't get me wrong, philly has lots of "bang" few places in America have more, I just think Chicago is one of them even if I personally prefer philly.

I think the real question here is about the "buck". Compared to other east coast cities, philly has always been seen as a great value, in that your bucks go further here. but i've seen a lot of people say chicago is cheaper. I've been there, never lived there though so hard for me to say.

Overall, I'd say chicago has more "bang", philly has more "buck". which is better? I think that really just depends on what you personally like, both are great cities but there are many differences between them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top