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.
Based on news and Census estimates it seems that Philly is rapidly growing in population while Chicago is stagnant or still shrinking (city limits only). Also, the urban fabric of Philly looks denser and more seamless than Chicago's messed up layout with freeways and empty space separating downtown from the rest of the city. But a lot of people on this forum seem to believe that Chicago is denser and more urban than Philadelphia even if Google Earth images show the contrary.
Based on news and Census estimates it seems that Philly is rapidly growing in population while Chicago is stagnant or still shrinking (city limits only). Also, the urban fabric of Philly looks denser and more seamless than Chicago's messed up layout with freeways and empty space separating downtown from the rest of the city. But a lot of people on this forum seem to believe that Chicago is denser and more urban than Philadelphia even if Google Earth images show the contrary.
I love philly about as much as the other philly posters on this forum, but I am confused on where you are getting this idea that it is "rapidly growing". That just isn't true.. In terms of urban. Yeah probably would give the edge to philly for the miles of row houses making up a majority of the city even though Chicago has a much bigger core of skyscrapers and highrises. It isnt like Philly didn't try to build freeways with the vine street expressway. I think Philly could learn something from Chicago in terms of making those types of areas look nice.
Actually Chicago should learn from Philly on how to reduce crime and not letting neighborhoods on the south and west sides turn into urban prairie. Philly hardly has any urban prairies even though there are some abandoned rowhouses and industrial buildings here and there.
This would be my dream project for Philly. You got admit it looks somewhat similar to Chicagos waterfront. Also all the towers going up along the other River is somewhat similar to the Chicago design. Outside of the Downtowns though, I am pretty sure Philly will always be more urban just because of the building style. Idk what Urban Praries are, but I do know that Urban Farming is definitely growing in popularity around here.
This would be my dream project for Philly. You got admit it looks somewhat similar to Chicagos waterfront. Also all the towers going up along the other River is somewhat similar to the Chicago design. Outside of the Downtowns though, I am pretty sure Philly will always be more urban just because of the building style. Idk what Urban Praries are, but I do know that Urban Farming is definitely growing in popularity around here.
Lol, an urban prairie is when a lot of buildings have been demolished and green space takes over, like a ghost town feel. Very common in the badlands of Detroit, St. Louis and Chicago.
Philly does not have. There are plenty of abandoned rowhomes, but there are hardly any areas void of structures that aren't designated parks.
Actually Chicago should learn from Philly on how to reduce crime and not letting neighborhoods on the south and west sides turn into urban prairie. Philly hardly has any urban prairies even though there are some abandoned rowhouses and industrial buildings here and there.
Well Philly has let a lot of its northern neighborhoods rot, so I don't thibk Philly has much to "teach" Chicago on that
Last time we had a thread like this, it went on for dozens of pages.
I think the bottom line is that Philadelphia is overall (discounting blight) more uniformly densely built across its entire city limits.
Still, Chicago is 70% larger by land area. So an argument can be made that if you took out the much more suburban fringes of Chicago, Chicago would be more urban. Certainly Chicago has a more intensely developed core in and around the Loop than Center City is in Philadelphia.
Based on news and Census estimates it seems that Philly is rapidly growing in population while Chicago is stagnant or still shrinking (city limits only). Also, the urban fabric of Philly looks denser and more seamless than Chicago's messed up layout with freeways and empty space separating downtown from the rest of the city. But a lot of people on this forum seem to believe that Chicago is denser and more urban than Philadelphia even if Google Earth images show the contrary.
Chicago grew in the 90s, while Philly declined. In the 2000s the population trends were reversed.
As to the idea that Philly is more urban, I will grant you that Philly has a more consistent density with lots of tightly packed row houses. However, Chicago is built differently. It has more spaced out flats with small yards and then lots of peak density in their apartment buildings. Overall Chicago's density is a little higher than Philly and the city has over 1 million more people. So I'm inclined to argue that Chicago is more urban, despite maybe having a less urban looking vernacular. Chicago's commercial corridors are where the size difference really stands out. Chicago has a lot more commercial activity in its neighborhoods than Philly does. (Not saying that Philly has no activity, just that Chicago has more).
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.