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.
You have to walk far too many several thousands of feet in many parts of Chicago to get to the nearest transit stop. If you are elderly, you are absolutely screwed. That's the reason it ranks so low on the Redfin list. It's low ranking is justified.
Philly's weakness is having only two heavy rail EL lines + the PATCO (not a sufficient number of people live in dense neighborhoods such to be able to take advantage of the PATCO Line).
It's trolly lines score an incomplete.
Philly's strength is its EMU (electrified commuter) network which is very strong compared to many cities including Chicago, San Francisco and Boston.
I'd certainly rank Philly ahead of Chicago on commuter rail.
Lol you put SF above Philly because Philly only has 2 heavy-rail lines? Haha. Yeah. Ok. SF is almost entirely reliant upon buses. BART is a commuter rail, not an inter-city rail, network. MUNI Metro serves only a few neighborhoods. If you live anywhere north of Market St, you're entirely reliant on buses. Same in Philly. A lot of buses. A city reliant on buses can have a successful transit system. But SF's gridlock is insane and the buses are extremely slow. Philly's trolley system serves West Philly very well, the bus system is very well connected, and the MFL and BSL run 24/7.
I've lived in both, visited Chicago tons, from Los Angeles, visit DC regularly, and live in Jersey City right now where I take PATH to Manhattan and take MTA several days per week.
Philly has much better public transit than SF for reasons stated above. Chicago has better public transit than Philly because it has more heavy-rail. The walk between stops is not that bad in the urban core of the city, I'm not sure what you're talking about tbh.
As for Philly being gritty, yeah, that's its charm. DC is so well manicured and bland in many neighborhoods. It's too clean and looks like a planned TOD in some areas. I don't like that, and true urbanites generally don't. DC may be cleaner and less gritty, but that's probably in large part because some of the most inner neighborhoods are so government-oriented. There is no street life in many of the inner neighborhoods. CC Philly has a great combo of 9-5 office workers, residents, tourists, and those looking to go out eating/drinking/shopping. CC Philly has basically no dead zones whatsoever. There are very few obviously blighted areas that were victims of urban renewal anywhere within Greater CC. Rittenhouse, Wash Sq West, Old City, Grad Hospital, Queens Village, Spring Garden are beautiful neighborhoods. Extend beyond, and you have some areas along the 676, parts of No Libs still, parts of Point Breeze, etc. But to say large swaths of the typically urban/dense/trendy parts of Philly still show signs of serious blight is ridiculous. West Philly, U City, and Spruce Hill can be thrown into the ever-expanding core footprint of Philly as well as South Philly. Very few parts have large areas of blight anymore. Point Breeze and similar areas are experiencing rapid infill of empty lots.
But in the immediate downtown areas, Philly has much more life than DC. DC's wide blocks have several completely dead areas filled with government buildings that Philly doesn't have. It stands to reason that that kind of area would be more pristine and well-manicured, but that doesn't mean DC has a better downtown. Being devoid of street life, but being clean, sounds like a TOD, not a truly great downtown experience.
Agree, but it would be perfectly reasonable if someone put SF in front of Philadelphia. I'd also say Boston and Philly are about even.
I really don't see the SF being above Philly. I lived in both. I found the two equally as urban and lively during the day, but SF closes down much earlier, loses a lot of city life later at night, is much much dirtier, doesn't feel as safe, has a much larger homelessness presence, transit accessibility is worse at all times of day, and can be far too overrun with tourists. Philly's tourist areas are a bit removed from where the locals frequent, more similar to NYC.
Philly's downtown is fairly compact and very tall.
But, we can't yet crown Philly as America's next Emerald City.
The problem with Philly's urban core, is it is still punctuated by grittiness, dirtiness
and if i dare say, a fair amount of blight. It's just a fact.
DC has far less grittiness, dirtiness and blight.
DC has a gigantic quantity of expansive, relatively safe, walkable neighborhoods.
Philly is making strides, but it can't make any such claim, on a scale that is favorable with DC. Not yet. It's economic expansion just doesn't possess the reach to put it near the level of DC or Boston.
Philly has a ton of Urban Renewal still ahead. A TON.
The good news, is Philly will eventually get there.
Faster than many people think.
Out of curiosity, where is the blight in the core of Philadelphia? I know there is quite a bit of blight throughout the city, but the worst of it is pretty far separated from Center City at this point.
Dirtiness to me means nothing when comparing downtowns, New York is downright disgusting in August, but that does not take away from its allure. San Fran is pretty gross too. I would say Philadelphia's core does a better job at keeping clean than New York and San Fran.
As far as the whole city, Philadelphia certainly has a lot more room to grow and improve and remains behind its Northeastern neighbors, but the CORE neighborhoods are hardly punctuated by blight, maybe in 2000, but not in 2018.
Out of curiosity, where is the blight in the core of Philadelphia? I know there is quite a bit of blight throughout the city, but the worst of it is pretty far separated from Center City at this point.
Dirtiness to me means nothing when comparing downtowns, New York is downright disgusting in August, but that does not take away from its allure. San Fran is pretty gross too. I would say Philadelphia's core does a better job at keeping clean than New York and San Fran.
As far as the whole city, Philadelphia certainly has a lot more room to grow and improve and remains behind its Northeastern neighbors, but the CORE neighborhoods are hardly punctuated by blight, maybe in 2000, but not in 2018.
I think this stereotype will always follow Philly, no matter what it does. If you haven't spent significant time in NYC, Philly, and SF, it's very hard to imagine that NYC and SF can be just as dirty, if not dirtier, than Philly. NYC has the issue of trash pick-up being on the curbs, sewers and subways that smell, etc. SF has the issue of human urine and feces being all over the city, along with normal trash and used needles. Philly has the used needle problem away from CC more in Kensington, but really just generic trash/litter on the streets. Nothing more than normal for a very dense city.
Philly's weakness is having only two heavy rail EL lines + the PATCO Line (not a sufficient number of people live in dense neighborhoods such to be able to take proper advantage of the PATCO).
It's trolly lines score an incomplete.
Not necessarily true on either count. Certainly there's a good amount and increasing residential density surrounding the PATCO line, but it serves as more of a commuter heavy rail line from Southern New Jersey and not quite as useful to Philadelphia residents themselves (its 38K daily ridership is also fairly robust).
As far as Philly's trolly lines, capacity is actually quite impressive and extensive (it's the third most extensive behind Dallas and LA in terms of system length and second only to San Francisco in the number of stations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_by_ridership). Ridership just seems to not be quite as robust as it could be, as it's not aligned very well for current commuting patterns (hopefully something that will change in the future as the city's job market becomes more robust).
As far as the whole city, Philadelphia certainly has a lot more room to grow and improve and remains behind its Northeastern neighbors, but the CORE neighborhoods are hardly punctuated by blight, maybe in 2000, but not in 2018.
Yes, exactly. Perhaps a few pockets of Center City could still use some polish, but even those are becoming few and far between. It's light years ahead of where it was even 20 years ago.
Yes, exactly. Perhaps a few pockets of Center City could still use some polish, but even those are becoming few and far between. It's light years ahead of where it was even 20 years ago.
The only part of Center City that is truly 'gritty' is Chinatown and by extension Market East north of Market Street. Market East is obviously all under construction with a redesigned mall opening late next year and another two tower mixed use complex across the street that is opening this year. Chinatown is Chinatown. It's a crazy little place with so much character and street activity.
I could go on forever about why I love living where I live, but I won't. I will just say Philly has a great food scene, great nightlife, and great cultural options (museums/music/comedy/theater/etc.). It's also the least expensive city in terms of rent/purchasing a condo/house out of the ones being mentioned. Philadelphia's history is also second to none.
I really don't see the SF being above Philly. I lived in both. I found the two equally as urban and lively during the day, but SF closes down much earlier, loses a lot of city life later at night, is much much dirtier, doesn't feel as safe, has a much larger homelessness presence, transit accessibility is worse at all times of day, and can be far too overrun with tourists. Philly's tourist areas are a bit removed from where the locals frequent, more similar to NYC.
I do for sure. It feels pretty safe to me. I've seen worse. 2 major pieces to a successful downtown imo are shopping, dinning. And dt San Francisco is far superior imo. Far too overrun with tourists? Are you kidding? That's a great thing. As far as transit, the subway might not be the best but to me so what. The city is so compact its quite easy to get around with whats available sufficiently. I had no problem. Center City is a great downtown. Imo I just dont think its above San Francisco.
I do for sure. It feels pretty safe to me. I've seen worse. 2 major pieces to a successful downtown imo are shopping, dinning. And dt San Francisco is far superior imo. Far too overrun with tourists? Are you kidding? That's a great thing. As far as transit, the subway might not be the best but to me so what. The city is so compact its quite easy to get around with whats available sufficiently. I had no problem. Center City is a great downtown. Imo I just dont think its above San Francisco.
Downtown SF is a toilet with needles all over the place. It shuts down at night. Philly has much better downtown than SF but not as good as L.A's. Philly all the way, otherwise!!!
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.
