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 live in the Philly suburbs and I don't have any side streets near me, aside from right near the downtown of the town i live in. Actually many streets in the northeast are very windy, with speed limits about 30-35mph, and people are flying around the bends at 45-50 mph. I walk in philly everyday, and if im not out of the way as soon as the light turns green, people honk, and basically try to run you over. I've never experienced that in any other city, aside from new york.
You have not spent a lot of time in Chicago have you. I would say it's second only to NYC when it comes to people honking instantly when a light turns green etc.
You have not spent a lot of time in Chicago have you. I would say it's second only to NYC when it comes to people honking instantly when a light turns green etc.
I would say Philly is just as bad as New York in this regard.
Yes. Other than a MUCH larger hispanic population, and neighborhoods that are much further along the gentrification and building infill process 773-Chicago looks a lot more like Cleveland or St. Louis than Philly or New York. (And one midwest city, Cincinnati, has the architecture that is most like east coast cities).
Chicago in 773 overall has lower population density than Boston or Philly. Because of the differences in housing stock type.
Those east coast cities have rowhouses. And both Boston and the outer burroughs (Brooklyn, Bronx, and Queens) don't have the vacant lots that pepper the west and south sides.
Keep in mind, that parts of the city of St. Louis and the city of Cleveland do have some very urban neighborhoods. And neighborhoods with major immigrant populations. Cleveland, while not having much of a Mexican population at all, does have a Puerto Rican population almost as large as Chicagos Puerto Rican population.
I'm not talking total size, I'm talking about the architecture of the neighborhoods.
Chicagos closest mirror image city is Toronto. A city with a historic houses, some areas with rowhouses, but where most of the population density is due to high rises and courtyard style apartment complexes built after world war II.
Yes. Other than a MUCH larger hispanic population, and neighborhoods that are much further along the gentrification and building infill process 773-Chicago looks a lot more like Cleveland or St. Louis than Philly or New York. (And one midwest city, Cincinnati, has the architecture that is most like east coast cities).
Chicago in 773 overall has lower population density than Boston or Philly. Because of the differences in housing stock type.
Those east coast cities have rowhouses. And both Boston and the outer burroughs (Brooklyn, Bronx, and Queens) don't have the vacant lots that pepper the west and south sides.
Keep in mind, that parts of the city of St. Louis and the city of Cleveland do have some very urban neighborhoods. And neighborhoods with major immigrant populations. Cleveland, while not having much of a Mexican population at all, does have a Puerto Rican population almost as large as Chicagos Puerto Rican population.
I'm not talking total size, I'm talking about the architecture of the neighborhoods.
Chicagos closest mirror image city is Toronto. A city with a historic houses, some areas with rowhouses, but where most of the population density is due to high rises and courtyard style apartment complexes built after world war II.
Thats because it's bigger and encompasses more land. Put it like this, if Chicago was about the size of Boston or Philly it would be denser. Probably not by ALOT but a significant amount. Keep in mind many of the areas with vacant lots still have densities of 10,000 or over.
Not ot mention the city of Chicago has very strict laws as far as tearing down boad-ups. Not say philly doenst have any vacant lots because I know there are plenty but its more common to see like 6 borded up homes in philly than Chicago.
To me this is one of those threads that will never produce a consensus answer, but is quite amusing in that it gives people ample opportunity to make a fool of themselves.
Any one who claims that either city isn't fast paced just sounds like a fool. They are both fast paced.
Honestly I felt like Chicago was a tad more fast paced. But that might just be because I was a tourist there, so everyone was hustling and bustling around me. In Philadelphia I'm the one walking around all fast and all these damn slow people get in my way! haha
Thats because it's bigger and encompasses more land. Put it like this, if Chicago was about the size of Boston or Philly it would be denser. Probably not by ALOT but a significant amount. Keep in mind many of the areas with vacant lots still have densities of 10,000 or over.
Not ot mention the city of Chicago has very strict laws as far as tearing down boad-ups. Not say philly doenst have any vacant lots because I know there are plenty but its more common to see like 6 borded up homes in philly than Chicago.
True. But thats why I used the area code as somewhat of a differentiation.
Add some 773 zip codes adjacent to 312 and then you got it.
And I would agree it would be denser, and thats why I compared Chicago more to Toronto. The density is more the result of post-war high rise and courtyard construction that really started to take off in the 60s and afterwards.
Are you guys serious! Chicago by a long horn. Philly just acts like that but not really fast paced. Go to Manhattan and you'll see how fast pace we are.
This is a thread that makes a lot sense, because Philly is probably more like Chicago than any other American city. (If we were to include ALL of North America than Chicagos closest twin would be Toronto, but just in the US, I would say Philly is Chicagos closest brother/cousin).
Although Chicago has been bigger than Philly for a little over 100 years, they are close enough to compare.
If you look at the population history for both cities, I think you can easily desribe the major difference is that Philly is exactly 10-15 years behind in terms of revitilization.
Because of the Daleys, etc. Chicago increase for the first time since the peak 1950 in the 2000 census. Whereas Philly continued to drop in 2000, but is really the only older northeast/midwest city proper to actually gain in 2010.
Both cities are about 3/4 of their peak from 1950.
Philly is 1.5 million, 2 million in 1950. Chicago is 2.7 million, 3.6 million in 1950.
Based on the differences between gaining population in 2010 versus 2000, I think one can conclude that Chicago has started to level off/slow down in terms of its "comeback", while Philly has just been delayed and is happening now. Philly is just where Chicago was 10-15 years.
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.
