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.
The issue is that there is overlap, the CSA maps draw a hard line south of Trenton. It's illogical. Both Philly and NYC residents fly out of Newark Liberty, for example, and Jersey residents sometimes fly out of PHL instead of JFK or Newark. The reason this region is called Megalopolis is exactly because it forms that mega-CSMA.
With Philly growing and Chicago shrinking, that 10% difference might evaporate.
The Chicgo metro is still growing quite nicely though. What people dont seem to understand is that Philadlephia's CMSA gets blatantly muted.
Chicago along with just about every other major CMSA parameters are in the 10,000 sq m range e.g. Wash-Bal, NY/Nj/Ct, Bos/Prov/Manchester,bay area,hou,dal, LA.
Whereas Philadlephias is limited to 5,000 sq mi. Hence population growth gets shorted because they are dealing with 1/2 the regional size.
I don't know how many times I can keep repeating that same point on these boards. It's Philly's cross to bear. -- I know Chicago metro is really nice and still being developed. The great lakes megalopolis still matches the great northeast megalopolis in population, >50,000,000 and it takes the whole, entire west coast to come close to matching either one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainrock
The Chicgo metro is still growing quite nicely though. What people dont seem to understand is that Philadlephia's CMSA gets blatantly muted.
Chicago along with just about every other major CMSA parameters are in the 10,000 sq m range e.g. Wash-Bal, NY/Nj/Ct, Bos/Prov/Manchester,bay area,hou,dal, LA.
Whereas Philadlephias is limited to 5,000 sq mi. Hence population growth gets shorted because they are dealing with 1/2 the regional size.
I realize Philly gets a raw deal and is bigger than it is on paper. But that doesn't compare well with Chicago, Chicago does not *need* those extra 5000 sq miles or so to gain it's GDP or population, as I pointed out in the stats, it is very similar to Philadelphia, actually quite a bit larger.
Where Philadelphia is going to fare well in these regards is vs. population and GDP of the sunbelt cities, where those suburban areas really DO keep sprawling into those higher sq mile areas. Chicago, like the other east coast cities has an extremely built up core area, so again, just b/c those CSA #'s add a lot of sq miles on paper, there really aren't any people out there. Chicago achieves it with less. You can see this in Cook County stats alone, as Chicago hits 5.2 Million in just 946 square miles of county border areas. Chicago is not Dallas or Atlanta ...
#'s again... w/ the density that is coming out of those areas, Chicago is still packed tighter going a bit farther out.
This puts Chicago at 9,240,000 @ 2,298sq miles @ 4,020 density
This puts Philadelphia at 5,340,000 @ 1,799 sq miles @ 2,968 density
Assuming giving Philadelphia the benefit of the doubt, and expand that area to meet Chicago's at the same density, it would give Philadelphia a population of 6,820,464 @ 2,298 sq miles ...I'm quite sure at these sq mile area, that it is something similar to that. But it still gives you an idea of the buildup you have here. Does that seem fair?
I can't choose one over the other. The areas that surround Chicago seem more built-up than most Philly suburbs, especially when it comes to corporate parks. Unless one had a compelling need to access NYC on a regular basis, Chicago has more jobs, more neighborhoods, more restaurants, etc. than the Philly area. I wish I could make my living entirely in Philly but that's not why I moved here. I moved to Philly because I travel for work and Philly is just about the most central-to-everything city there is... without actually being NYC.
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
I can't choose one over the other. The areas that surround Chicago seem more built-up than most Philly suburbs, especially when it comes to corporate parks. Unless one had a compelling need to access NYC on a regular basis, Chicago has more jobs, more neighborhoods, more restaurants, etc. than the Philly area. I wish I could make my living entirely in Philly but that's not why I moved here. I moved to Philly because I travel for work and Philly is just about the most central-to-everything city there is... without actually being NYC.
This is a good point, if one were to buy a house, say in the middle of NYC and Philadelphia...technically you would have access to more stuff, even if you aren't living in the middle of it. It might be an easier transition for someone going to Philadelphia or NYC... but that is a MAYBE. These days people pick up and move across the country with relative ease, major cities are becoming more powerful and operating more like city states irrelevant of the areas around them. It wouldn't be difficult for someone to land a job in NYC from Chicago or LA and pack your bags, have an apartment waiting for you when you got there.
When I last changed my apartment here, the people coming to see it were flying in from Pittsburgh, Boston and DC. They ended up renting it to somebody from Boston sight unseen. I think among the 10 or so major metros, people pack up and exchange cities fairly regularly. Air travel is also much easier, making formerly "local availability only" areas, much easier for somebody from across the country to fly in for the weekend and rent a car the same way.
People are much much more mobile, change their jobs much more frequently, the american dream of owning a house and a big family, has definitely morphed in the 20-40 year old age group into something else. Even for those that want that, the nature of the job market and the world has changed, so it is a much harder "bet" to throw down 30 years on a mortgage and hope you s tay in the same job, and once you don't have that job, only have your immediate area as the "market". People have less kids, and are waiting much longer to have them, especially among the affluent.
That's why I try not to get "attached" to any one place, b/c I know if the opportunity arose I could land in a job in Boston, NYC, etc. and while there thoroughly enjoy my time also.
So that to me goes back to your statement, at least my line of thought. Yes I do think Chicago has more jobs, more neighborhoods, more restaurants in your "immediate daily environment" than Philly. I think looking at it in a different way (unless you think you are going to be stuck forever) is not a great way of looking at things.
The same way somebody from Philly can go to NYC, I could do the same thing from Chicago, just walk out of my door onto the El for 2.25 to the airport and fly out for the weekend 200ish or often less round trip . Sure it is more easily done in Philly, but to act like regions are off limits is kind of foolish.
I think the major cities like NYC, Boston, Chicago, Philly, DC, SF and LA are fairly networked together, a lot of people from those cities, that move around the same sets of cities. This is not an exhaustive list, but you get the idea. Some will argue, but it seems like they are in the "real world" and moving in sync, while the rest of the country is just in a different mind frame.
Is Chicago bigger? Yes we all admit that but not by this enormous chasm that certain Chicago boosters including yourself would like us to believe. All things being equal Chicago is about 15%-20% larger than Philadlephia. Significant but not dwarfing.
Population Radius at 25 miles
1 - NYC 13.6 M
2 - LA 9.5 M
3 - Chicago 5.9 M
4 - Philadelphia 4.5 M
5 - Washington DC 4.1 M
Population radius at 50 miles
1. NYC 24 M
2. LA 14 M
3. Chicago 8.9 M
4. Philadelphia- 7.5 M
5. Washington- 7 M
Population Radius at 100 miles
1. NYC 29.8 M
2. Phila 29.6 M
3. LA 18.6 M
4. Chicago 13.4 M
Is Chicago bigger? Yes we all admit that but not by this enormous chasm that certain Chicago boosters including yourself would like us to believe. All things being equal Chicago is about 15%-20% larger than Philadlephia. Significant but not dwarfing.
Population Radius at 25 miles
1 - NYC 13.6 M
2 - LA 9.5 M
3 - Chicago 5.9 M
4 - Philadelphia 4.5 M
5 - Washington DC 4.1 M
Population radius at 50 miles
1. NYC 24 M
2. LA 14 M
3. Chicago 8.9 M
4. Philadelphia- 7.5 M
5. Washington- 7 M
Population Radius at 100 miles
1. NYC 29.8 M
2. Phila 29.6 M
3. LA 18.6 M
4. Chicago 13.4 M
I am not sure where you are going with that, there is no "like you to believe". I don't care what you believe actually, I posted the raw figures and think I am being quite fair with the comparison. I do think Chicago is on a different level than Philadelphia however, it's just a different experience. I will fully admit I am completely biased in terms of what I am looking for, and that is core accessible areas sans vehicle. I do not care whatsoever about the "metro", "gdp", "etc" I am just concerned with day to day urban life and access. I definitely don't think it is on the tier of NYC though...but there is certainly some middle ground in between which I think Chicago is clearly by what I am looking for, above Philadelphia in those terms. The rest are just stats, I posted them b/c other posters posted them incorrectly. My gauge isn't looking for "Exactly" what the OP is, but is pretty similar, therefore I give it more "bang for your buck". Outside of having family there or whatever... If one were picking between the two, I do think Chicago would provide the better experience if one is looking for a "big city with opportunity"
The things I think Philadelphia actually wins on, are not even in the picture for me, as they are with the OP:
Sure I think Philadelphia wins, but I don't have a car nor do I plan on getting one, I would just assume go to the airport and fly somewhere for the weekend. Chicago is centrally located and can go east/west/south/north and find some interesting places. If I want a "beach" experience, as was another question, I'm going to fly to Florida, my family lives there so it is a no brainer. Otherwise I will go to Mexico or the Bahamas or something, I would do the same thing in Philadelphia. I use the lake that I can walk to from my place, but I am not really planning 3 hour weekend vacations up on Lake Michigan, nor do I think I would go down the coast that much if I was in Philadelphia if that is the exp I wanted.
Weather - How much colder is Chicago than Philadelphia during peak winter months?
Again, not a big issue for me, they are both 4 seasons, one with what I consider a slightly better summer (chicago) one with a slightly better winter (Philadelphia) ...but besides that, it isn't a factor in choosing the place. The differences aren't drastic, this isn't Chicago vs Los Angeles or Philadelphia vs Miami we are talking about.
You should read Inga Saffron's take on the Philly 25-year plan. Just a tidbit - "City planners seem to have taken the opposite tack from that advocated by the great Chicago planner Daniel Burnham, who exhorted his city to "make no little plans. They have no power to stir men's blood."... "The 2035 report is a collection of little plans, many of them terrific, but small-scale nonetheless. The future Philadelphia that appears in the planners' crystal ball is a place where people bike to work, shop at neighborhood farmer's markets, dine at the corner brewpub, tap at laptops in the park at the end of the block, and regularly compost their food waste. It sounds like a shinier version of today's Philadelphia, one without the poverty and blight."
When I think of Philly's accessibility 'sans vehicle' I'm thinking about walking, biking, or hailing a cab. Public transit isn't the first thing that comes to mind. I use the bus much more than the subway, especially since SEPTA's buses all feature bike racks. I know Chicago has that, too.
In fact, for me the only useful thing about the subway is it's great for getting to a game. In Chicago, the whole transit system comes into play when I visit there. Big difference. Philly's Center City neighborhoods can be incredibly quaint, and most good neighborhoods are within a 15-20 minute walk of everything that's good in downtown Philly, from Old City restaurants to Rittenhouse Square to South Street and the Italian Market and Chinatown. It's flat, it's a grid, it's compact and for most of the year the weather isn't half bad. I really, really enjoy living in an area where I can hail a cab within 2 minutes (right off South St. in Bella Vista, the best 'Bang for Buck' neighborhood in Philly, IMHO.
So there it is, if it sounds appealing there are a number of neighborhoods in Philly that already operate this way and the spread of gentrification is obvious and rapid.
On another note, PATCO is one of the coolest little rapid transit systems. Over in Jersey there is a string of great towns each with a stop on PATCO and the ride over the Ben Franklin Bridge offers a great view, almost worth it as a joyride. If you want to live in a place like Collingswood or Haddonfield with their small town charm and amenities (each has a terrific main street) PATCO runs 24 hours and has three Center City stops that make it super-easy to get in and out of Philly.
If you really, truly love great beer that might be a point in Philly's favor. Chicago was lacking in that department. This development raised hackles in Philly:
I am not sure where you are going with that, there is no "like you to believe". I don't care what you believe actually, I posted the raw figures and think I am being quite fair with the comparison. I do think Chicago is on a different level than Philadelphia however, it's just a different experience. I will fully admit I am completely biased in terms of what I am looking for, and that is core accessible areas sans vehicle. I do not care whatsoever about the "metro", "gdp", "etc" I am just concerned with day to day urban life and access. I definitely don't think it is on the tier of NYC though...but there is certainly some middle ground in between which I think Chicago is clearly by what I am looking for, above Philadelphia in those terms. The rest are just stats, I posted them b/c other posters posted them incorrectly. My gauge isn't looking for "Exactly" what the OP is, but is pretty similar, therefore I give it more "bang for your buck". Outside of having family there or whatever... If one were picking between the two, I do think Chicago would provide the better experience if one is looking for a "big city with opportunity"
The things I think Philadelphia actually wins on, are not even in the picture for me, as they are with the OP:
Sure I think Philadelphia wins, but I don't have a car nor do I plan on getting one, I would just assume go to the airport and fly somewhere for the weekend. Chicago is centrally located and can go east/west/south/north and find some interesting places. If I want a "beach" experience, as was another question, I'm going to fly to Florida, my family lives there so it is a no brainer. Otherwise I will go to Mexico or the Bahamas or something, I would do the same thing in Philadelphia. I use the lake that I can walk to from my place, but I am not really planning 3 hour weekend vacations up on Lake Michigan, nor do I think I would go down the coast that much if I was in Philadelphia if that is the exp I wanted.
Weather - How much colder is Chicago than Philadelphia during peak winter months?
Again, not a big issue for me, they are both 4 seasons, one with what I consider a slightly better summer (chicago) one with a slightly better winter (Philadelphia) ...but besides that, it isn't a factor in choosing the place. The differences aren't drastic, this isn't Chicago vs Los Angeles or Philadelphia vs Miami we are talking about.
Last edited by Dub King; 08-14-2011 at 11:56 AM..
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.
-- I know Chicago metro is really nice and still being developed. The great lakes megalopolis still matches the great northeast megalopolis in population, >50,000,000 and it takes the whole, entire west coast to come close to matching either one.
