U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
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 08-13-2011, 08:33 AM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 23,771,085 times
Reputation: 5616

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rainrock View Post
Keep in mind that areas 60-70 miles from chicago are included in their GDP. Trenton/Ewing which has a GDP of close to $50 B is 15 miles away from Philadlephia and is not included in Philly GDP. Metro Stats can be quite deceiving. Chicago has a greater GDP than Philadephia but they are much much clo$er all things being equal.

Chicago metro sq mi 10,000 sq mi..
Philadlephia metro sq mi 5,000 sq mi



?????

Household Income 2010

Gladwyne Pa (190135) $204,210
Villanova Pa(19085) $171,003
lake Forest Il(60045) $160,206
This is true, but Cook County is 5.2 million people in only 946 square miles...That expansive metro sq miles is NOT what is making Chicago's population NOR it's GDP higher, they are just wide political boundaries, Chicago's core area is quite large and dense, nice try though. Los Angeles Metro is over 30K square miles and goes to Nevada, but that doesn't mean much either.
Furthermore, Chicago's Urban Area is 9.24 Million in 5,900 square miles... Which is similar in size to Philadelphia's Metro. So back to your post, yes they can be deceiving, but now you know the facts. Philadelphia's UA is 5.3 mil, in 4,600 square miles. So yes, there is a difference, Chicagoland is quite a bit larger in feel, and on paper.

Everybody is tired about you whining about Trenton being close by the way, deal with it. It's a tired argument that has been going on for literally years on here, why do you still post it? It makes you come off like a sore loser. Everybody knows Philadelphia is in the larger greater region, and you have to play by the rules if you want to have access to NYC, Baltimore and DC right there, which is a benefit that Chicago does not have. So really there are two options for you on that angle, play that Trenton card all you want, but then never bring up your "access" ever again... You can't have it both ways.

Last edited by grapico; 08-13-2011 at 08:46 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-13-2011, 08:44 AM
 
Location: Oak Park, IL
5,520 posts, read 11,972,763 times
Reputation: 3820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dub King View Post
Philly has stunning suburbs and a great regional rail system (with dedicated tracks) serving it. This is why towns like Ardmore and Wayne are very expensive and home values have continued rising. If you want to live in a suburb and work in the city, Philly is one of the best places to do so. Living in a nice part of Center City is affordable compared to NYC, but Chicago has better options in that category, especially if one is looking to live in a high-rise. In Chicago, if you live in the suburbs, it's also likely you work in the suburbs as Chicago has many large corporate parks on its periphery. It's not unusual for people to live in Chicago but not go downtown except dining and entertainment.

I know more about Philly than Chicago so if I'm wrong about what I'm thinking, I apologize.
While its true that lots of suburbanites in Chicagoland live and work in the suburbs (also true in Philly), we too have an extensive commuter rail service which is (largely) designed to bring office workers into the Loop in the morning and back to the suburbs in the evening. Metra has a weekday average of about 300k versus 125k for SEPTA regional rail.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2011, 08:48 AM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 23,771,085 times
Reputation: 5616
Quote:
Originally Posted by oakparkdude View Post
While its true that lots of suburbanites in Chicagoland live and work in the suburbs (also true in Philly), we too have an extensive commuter rail service which is (largely) designed to bring office workers into the Loop in the morning and back to the suburbs in the evening. Metra has a weekday average of about 300k versus 125k for SEPTA regional rail.
Yes Dub King, you are off base in that analysis. Chicago's Commuter rail METRA runs in the city (people in the city access it) and well into the suburbs. There are plenty of people who park and ride...

Here is the Metra system, there are 5 major stations in the Chicago Loop, and 20 more additional stops throughout the city proper where you can get off there, such as North Clybourn Corridor, Ravenswood Corddior, Hyde Park, Irving Park etc.

http://www.fnal.gov/orgs/gsa/guide/v2006/images/metra_map_2006.gif (broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2011, 08:50 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
1,335 posts, read 1,246,627 times
Reputation: 344
I've ridden Metra and it serves its purpose very well but it is limited in speed by having to use existing freight rail routes and overall is not as nice, clean and convenient as SEPTA which features three downtown stops. Bigger, not better is what I'd say about Metra. The situation becomes much less favorable for Philly when comparing the CTA 'L' lines versus SEPTA's subway and trolley lines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oakparkdude View Post
While its true that lots of suburbanites in Chicagoland live and work in the suburbs (also true in Philly), we too have an extensive commuter rail service which is (largely) designed to bring office workers into the Loop in the morning and back to the suburbs in the evening. Metra has a weekday average of about 300k versus 125k for SEPTA regional rail.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2011, 09:04 AM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 23,771,085 times
Reputation: 5616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dub King View Post
I've ridden Metra and it serves its purpose very well but it is limited in speed by having to use existing freight rail routes and overall is not as nice, clean and convenient as SEPTA which features three downtown stops. Bigger, not better is what I'd say about Metra. The situation becomes much less favorable for Philly when comparing the CTA 'L' lines versus SEPTA's subway and trolley lines.
Metra isn't clean? that is the first I have ever heard... Metra is clean, double decker, bathrooms, quiet cars... Metra has 5 downtown stops...as I posted above, and 20 more in the city. Are we talking about the same things?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2011, 09:12 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
1,335 posts, read 1,246,627 times
Reputation: 344
I'm just comparing the two. I said 'not as clean' I never said Metra was dirty. The implication was that both were clean. The fact I use Metra when I am in Chicago speaks to the systems utility. In most cities I have to rent a car, in Chicago I always use public transit. Kudos, Chicago.
SEPTA is cleaner than Metra. Metra is cleaner than NJ Transit. I have not ridden LIRR or Metro North lately to judge these systems against it. Just a personal opinion, BTW. The way Metra is designed, each train does not go through all 5 downtown stops, rather the Metra system is served by 5 stops which are stub-end terminals except for Union Station. SEPTA regional rail also stops at Temple U. and University City giving it 5 stops in the city. Read up on the Center City Commuter Connection Tunnel. It's unique to Philly and very cool.

Center City Commuter Connection (Commuter Tunnel)

"The concept behind the Commuter Tunnel was to connect the two commuter rail systems in the downtown, to allow through-routing of commuter trains, and to eliminate the capacity limitations and operational difficulties imposed by stub-end terminal designs. From what I gather, not much passenger traffic goes "through the tunnel", i.e. completely through all three Center City stations. The main benefit of the tunnel is that much more capacity exists in the corridor, and that commuters on either the ex-Pennsylvania Railroad (PRR) or ex-Reading Railroad system have three downtown stations for distribution."

Boston might be the next city to get such a tunnel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North%E...outh_Rail_Link



Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
Metra isn't clean? that is the first I have ever heard... Metra is clean, double decker, bathrooms, quiet cars... Metra has 5 downtown stops...as I posted above, and 20 more in the city. Are we talking about the same things?

Last edited by Dub King; 08-13-2011 at 09:23 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2011, 10:17 AM
 
2,420 posts, read 3,844,743 times
Reputation: 1257
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
This is true, but Cook County is 5.2 million people in only 946 square miles...That expansive metro sq miles is NOT what is making Chicago's population NOR it's GDP higher, they are just wide political boundaries, Chicago's core area is quite large and dense, nice try though. Los Angeles Metro is over 30K square miles and goes to Nevada, but that doesn't mean much either.
Furthermore, Chicago's Urban Area is 9.24 Million in 5,900 square miles... Which is similar in size to Philadelphia's Metro. So back to your post, yes they can be deceiving, but now you know the facts. Philadelphia's UA is 5.3 mil, in 4,600 square miles. So yes, there is a difference, Chicagoland is quite a bit larger in feel, and on paper.

Everybody is tired about you whining about Trenton being close by the way, deal with it. It's a tired argument that has been going on for literally years on here, why do you still post it? It makes you come off like a sore loser. Everybody knows Philadelphia is in the larger greater region, and you have to play by the rules if you want to have access to NYC, Baltimore and DC right there, which is a benefit that Chicago does not have. So really there are two options for you on that angle, play that Trenton card all you want, but then never bring up your "access" ever again... You can't have it both ways.
Chicagos UA is 8.3mil in 2122sqm, Philly's is 5.2mil in 1800sqm. These stats are very old, so things are likely different now
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2011, 10:23 AM
 
Location: New York City
4,865 posts, read 4,508,226 times
Reputation: 2197
Quote:
Originally Posted by kolchak View Post
Very enjoyable thread!

If one is comparing wealth of the two metro areas and suburbs, here are some relevant statistics:

GDP: Chicago 574 Billion, Philadelphia 388 Billion

Number of millionairs in metro area: Chicago 198,000 Philadelphia 104,000

According to Forbes, the Chicago metro area has 19 Billionairs. Philadelphia has 4.

Of the 25 wealthiest suburbs in America (source: Business Insider,)
four - Wilmette (12) Winnetka (17) Highland Park (19) and Kenilworth (24) are in Chicago. Philadelphia had none on the list.

Of the 100 wealthiest zip codes in America, Chicago has 11. Lake Forest (Chicago suburbs) is 3rd and Winnetka (Chicago suburbs) 6th nationally. Six Chicago zip codes made the top 50. Philadelphia has 3 in the top 100. Bryn Mawr (Philadelphia suburbs) is the highest ranked Pennsylvania zip code in 57th place. (based on U.S. Govt. figures)

Keep in mind that chicagos area population is larger than philadelphias, so it would be obvious that there would be more wealthy people. However, i compared statistics as best as i could between the 2 areas over the past 30 years, and what is predicted in the future, and every decade philly closes the gap, and by 2020 philly is expected to surpass chicago in per capita income, amount of millionares, and GDP will be virtually equivalent. And i checked up on those stats you posted and they are definately debateable, because each site i cheack states something differently. And i looked up wealth per county in each metro and 3 out of the 5 counties in phillys metro on the pa side are among the top 100 wealthiest in the country, chicago area has 1 in top 100. So both areas are very wealthy, but it too subjective to argue which area is wealthier.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2011, 10:48 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
1,335 posts, read 1,246,627 times
Reputation: 344
The key is that Philly is growing again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cpomp View Post
Keep in mind that chicagos area population is larger than philadelphias, so it would be obvious that there would be more wealthy people. However, i compared statistics as best as i could between the 2 areas over the past 30 years, and what is predicted in the future, and every decade philly closes the gap, and by 2020 philly is expected to surpass chicago in per capita income, amount of millionares, and GDP will be virtually equivalent. And i checked up on those stats you posted and they are definately debateable, because each site i cheack states something differently. And i looked up wealth per county in each metro and 3 out of the 5 counties in phillys metro on the pa side are among the top 100 wealthiest in the country, chicago area has 1 in top 100. So both areas are very wealthy, but it too subjective to argue which area is wealthier.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2011, 10:53 AM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 23,771,085 times
Reputation: 5616
Quote:
Originally Posted by killakoolaide View Post
Chicagos UA is 8.3mil in 2122sqm, Philly's is 5.2mil in 1800sqm. These stats are very old, so things are likely different now
No, I gave the updated stats in my first post.

http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf

This is as of April 2011. These are based on the most current U.N. data standards on world UA's.

The numbers you gave reference the 2000 United States Census numbers, which are outdated, both in years and method of quantification.

This puts Chicago at 9,240,000 @ 2,298sq miles
This puts Philadelphia at 5,340,000 @ 1,799 sq miles

The former #'s were referencing kms, as most of the world doesn't use miles.

Back to the topic though, OP wants to know best bang for your buck... So probably amenities/F500 companies/economy/future job opportunities, etc are better

Last edited by grapico; 08-13-2011 at 11:20 AM..
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