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.
Is Philadelphia more similar to Chicago or Baltimore? These are two cities often compared to Philadelphia that I thought would make a fun comparison. Of course there are other good contenders, such as Boston, but Boston is too close as a peer city and would be less fun to compare.
Please consider the cities wholly, without giving simplistic answers such as “Baltimore, because they are both East Coast” or “Chicago, because both are top 10 cities/metros.”
Criteria for comparison:
-Culture: Including similarity and strength of “local culture” and degree of cosmopolitanism. Consider factors such as local customs, "ethnic" neighborhoods, restaurant/bar/nightlife scene, etc.
-Significance and Influence: Including both urban and metropolitan area. “Significance and Influence” includes economic, cultural, political, educational, etc. factors.
-Amenities
-Demographics
-Built environment
-Other subjective categories
Aspects of culturally, Philly could be seen as similar the Chicago. As both have a fairly large Catholic % for one. Demographics perhaps. Just Chicago is much more Latino % and less African-American as its biggest % in losses of population have been.
Philly may have a edge in neighborhoods that maintained more of ther ethnic flavor. Chicago had more become Latino especially around its core and then gentrification further changed them. But its Chinatown fully maintained its Chinese population including growth in Chinese alone. They even sell or rent within the neighborhood and to Chinese immigrants.
But Chicago's Little Italy originally having the expressway divide it. Is today basically the campus to the University of Illinois there. Both their aspects of many different kinds of world ethnic groups represented under Cosmopolitanism. But still in feel .... I'd say Chicago's core has it a but more I'd say ..... also the more grandeur feel in scope and openness to its frontage on majestic Lake Michigan in the other side of cosmopolitan feel. Also, Chicago of course has the more a office oriented core and financial status in degree of the Nation its placement in the world among influential cities.
Both have their political machine strongholds.
Both cities have their great neighborhoods and highest core live-in populations after mighty NYC. But the BIGGEST difference is in -- built environment. In that .... Philly and Baltimore are much more akin to the other. Chicago's street-grid is much more with housing having standard set-backs with green-frontage and standard alleyways throughout.
I can virtually always tell a Chicago scene in neighborhoods by its uniform sidewalks, curbing and more gentle turns and wider streets in the neighborhood itself. There is no comparison to its bungalow-belt of mostly the boom of the 20s and 30s. It makes up 1/3 the city. Overall housing stock unique to it also. But I can tell a tight row-housing neighborhood most times too. But more compatible styles to Baltimore.
Philly of course is the Nation's row-housing Capital and Baltimore also a high %. Chicago far more unattached ..... even if by inches in densest older neighborhoods. You almost never see a full block f attached true row-housing in Chicago. Mix of both in some yes and more would be the twin-attached mixed in. But even Chicago though .... doesn't have the full suburban scope of Philly's Northwestern region, that is quite the opposite of most of the most associated built environment to Philly.
All just aspects of opinion. The visible difference is a big key in built environment to me and where Philly and Baltimore line up closer. Baltimore bit wider streets.
Average well maintained Chicago neighborhood of its pre-bungalow-belt mostly Cottage-homes for its blue-collar population. Here mostly the wood-framed varieties. Shows its standard street-grid and wider turns.
Once you get out of the central downtown areas and into the rest of the city, Philadelphia and Baltimore look the same. Lots of row-houses in both.
Yes this is true. Chicago has some row homes, but not like those two cities. Culturally I think that Chicago and Philadelphia are more similar than Chicago/Baltimore. With that being said though, it's only a comparison with those 3 places. I think they're all unique places.
Aren't housing prices, really similar between Philadelphia and Chicago?
I think only if you compare at a high level. Chicago in the city itself (not counting suburbs - just the city) has more expensive areas than Philadelphia has and if you don't look more closely at this, you'd think Chicago was more affordable in many places than it really is. Every city you could say has 2 sides to it, but Chicago is moreso than a lot of cities. From real estate sales to population - you will find polar opposites and in many different measures they kind of even each other up. For that reason, you have to dig a little deeper. Don't get me wrong, Chicago is more affordable than NYC, Boston, DC, Bay Area, and Los Angeles but if you were to compare some of the more desireable or even "normal" areas of the city of Chicago vs. the city of Philadelphia then you'd find Philadelphia in that aspect is probably cheaper.
Data is from realtor.com recently sold data:
$1M+ Sales, October 2018
Chicago: 168 sales | 1 sale per 16,169.3 people
Philadelphia: 35 sales | 1 sale per 45,167.5 people
$500K+ Sales, October 2018
Chicago: 612 sales | 1 sale per 4438.6 people
Philadelphia: 225 sales | 1 sale per 7026.1 people
Under $200K Sales, October 2018
Chicago: 1322 sales | 1 sale per 2054.8 people
Philadelphia: 1285 sales | 1 sale per 1230.2 people
In terms of $1M+ sales, Chicago per capita was 2.8X higher than Philadelphia (aka more common than in Philadelphia). For $500K+ Chicago was 1.58X higher than Philadelphia. However, for under $200K+ the cities put up very similar overall sales even though Chicago has over 1.1 million people more than Philadelphia - Philadelphia's per capita was 1.67 times higher.
Obviously Chicago is a bit of a bigger city with more stock, but it's a more complicated picture than just merely looking at the median number for the entire city. The median home value of Chicago is $228K and I think a lot of people would be surprised to find out in how many areas that is not going to buy you a home, and how many areas that may only get you at most a 1 bedroom
I think only if you compare at a high level. Chicago in the city itself (not counting suburbs - just the city) has more expensive areas than Philadelphia has and if you don't look more closely at this, you'd think Chicago was more affordable in many places than it really is. Every city you could say has 2 sides to it, but Chicago is moreso than a lot of cities. From real estate sales to population - you will find polar opposites and in many different measures they kind of even each other up. For that reason, you have to dig a little deeper. Don't get me wrong, Chicago is more affordable than NYC, Boston, DC, Bay Area, and Los Angeles but if you were to compare some of the more desireable or even "normal" areas of the city of Chicago vs. the city of Philadelphia then you'd find Philadelphia in that aspect is probably cheaper.
Data is from realtor.com recently sold data:
$1M+ Sales, October 2018
Chicago: 168 sales | 1 sale per 16,169.3 people
Philadelphia: 35 sales | 1 sale per 45,167.5 people
$500K+ Sales, October 2018
Chicago: 612 sales | 1 sale per 4438.6 people
Philadelphia: 225 sales | 1 sale per 7026.1 people
Under $200K Sales, October 2018
Chicago: 1322 sales | 1 sale per 2054.8 people
Philadelphia: 1285 sales | 1 sale per 1230.2 people
In terms of $1M+ sales, Chicago per capita was 2.8X higher than Philadelphia (aka more common than in Philadelphia). For $500K+ Chicago was 1.58X higher than Philadelphia. However, for under $200K+ the cities put up very similar overall sales even though Chicago has over 1.1 million people more than Philadelphia - Philadelphia's per capita was 1.67 times higher.
Obviously Chicago is a bit of a bigger city with more stock, but it's a more complicated picture than just merely looking at the median number for the entire city. The median home value of Chicago is $228K and I think a lot of people would be surprised to find out in how many areas that is not going to buy you a home, and how many areas that may only get you at most a 1 bedroom
I could see that. I thought with City Center Philadelphia would be more expensive than it was, at least in that area.
I think only if you compare at a high level. Chicago in the city itself (not counting suburbs - just the city) has more expensive areas than Philadelphia has and if you don't look more closely at this, you'd think Chicago was more affordable in many places than it really is. Every city you could say has 2 sides to it, but Chicago is moreso than a lot of cities. From real estate sales to population - you will find polar opposites and in many different measures they kind of even each other up. For that reason, you have to dig a little deeper. Don't get me wrong, Chicago is more affordable than NYC, Boston, DC, Bay Area, and Los Angeles but if you were to compare some of the more desireable or even "normal" areas of the city of Chicago vs. the city of Philadelphia then you'd find Philadelphia in that aspect is probably cheaper.
Data is from realtor.com recently sold data:
$1M+ Sales, October 2018
Chicago: 168 sales | 1 sale per 16,169.3 people
Philadelphia: 35 sales | 1 sale per 45,167.5 people
$500K+ Sales, October 2018
Chicago: 612 sales | 1 sale per 4438.6 people
Philadelphia: 225 sales | 1 sale per 7026.1 people
Under $200K Sales, October 2018
Chicago: 1322 sales | 1 sale per 2054.8 people
Philadelphia: 1285 sales | 1 sale per 1230.2 people
In terms of $1M+ sales, Chicago per capita was 2.8X higher than Philadelphia (aka more common than in Philadelphia). For $500K+ Chicago was 1.58X higher than Philadelphia. However, for under $200K+ the cities put up very similar overall sales even though Chicago has over 1.1 million people more than Philadelphia - Philadelphia's per capita was 1.67 times higher.
Obviously Chicago is a bit of a bigger city with more stock, but it's a more complicated picture than just merely looking at the median number for the entire city. The median home value of Chicago is $228K and I think a lot of people would be surprised to find out in how many areas that is not going to buy you a home, and how many areas that may only get you at most a 1 bedroom
Also keep in mind, that number for Philadelphia does not include condominiums, not sure about Chicagos number.
On a metro level, sales prices are pretty even, on a city level, Philadelphia has a majority of its wealthy luxury sale market in and around CC, then it becomes quite affordable the remainder of the city, minus a few neighborhoods. Chicago has wealth scattered throughout many neighborhoods of the city, which helps averages.
I do see Philadelphia becoming more expensive at a faster rate than Chicago over the next decade though, much do to the luxury gentrification sweeping Center City and the overflow from New York.
Comparing the cities. I find Center City Philadelphia to be more similar to Boston or a smaller Manhattan than either Chicago or Baltimore.
Comparing the cities. I find Center City Philadelphia to be more similar to Boston or a smaller Manhattan than either Chicago or Baltimore.
My two cents exactly.
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.
