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 guess, but then someone who is partial to the Midwest might say Cleveland was more appealing than Philadelphia. Or someone who preferred the West Coast might say Sacramento was superior. It all comes down to preferences and some of us think that rows of duplexes on broad avenues are just as cool as rowhouses on narrow cobblestone lanes.
Philly's Colonial neighborhoods and a couple in Center City to just south. Are quaint and are NOT the way the city chose to build after the city began to grow faster. The William Penn desire was trees among his rows with cobblestone brick streets and his desire ALL have a small garden. He wanted 's city less like the treeless neighborhoods in London, he grew up in. He had "town squares". This all went out when streets were subdivided for more streets and alleys then a street of more rows right to the street.
So there is a difference between these most desirable areas and those left getting gutted and far from cheap. Row homes outside of Philly are the lowest desired form of home. Why through the rest of PA. The older cities and towns with old stock rows are the cheapest to buy today.
Philly back in the late 1800s prides itself on creating a housing stock that was assembly-line built as tight rows for the masses. All could afford. They had a building advertising this at the Chicago Columbian Exposition. As the affordable home of even the future.
The East embraced it more then the Midwest. Especially the Mid-Atlantic states. Midwest larger cities did gain some. Chicago the least and most were rather high-end over for the masses. Chicago shunned Tenement housing all together and the Workers un-attached Cottage-home became the standard low-end housing. Basically as cheap as Philly's rows. Ironically too, Chicago started with Philly's street-grid of William Penn. But tweeted it to wider streets and standard ster-back of new housing after the Great Fire.
This created the city that would then re-invent the Bungalow home for the new emerging middle-class. Built starting in 1910 to 1940 as 1/3 of Chicago today for over 80,000 bungalows built then. LA also embraced the Bungalow and its styles. Chicago's Craftsmans bungalows added Oak trimmings, Frank Lloyd Wright inspired features and fixtures and window designs of Tiffany inspired leaded glass designs.
So the point in making is --- though Philly thought row-homes as still the American home of the future yet in the closing years of 19 th century to the nation at the Chicago World's Fair. It was far more mistaken then not.
Today Philly's Colonial rows in CC are highly sought after as quaint and intimate in mixing greens and trees with attached rows in cobblestone streets. Much of the rest of the city was built without the comfort of tree-lined streets.
Philadelphians on C-D abhore row- homes mentioned in any way but great even today. But if only they kept the quaintness of very early Philly. The city would have a much more impressive housing stock. Ironically as these plainer standard rows in neighborhoods north and south of CC get gutted and gentrified. Any added painting of brick, awnings or porches added are removed to original bare brick.
I almost rather the variety of colors and features that ungentrified blocks in decent shape still have. I would have thought making Narrow secondary streets of rows gentrified to look colonial Period? Would be desired today? Bricking the sub-street adding reproduction street-lighting along with trees and greens of home planters and these streets closed to autos would be common? It did not happen.
As Philly gentrified. It will continue to be unique for especially CC oldest row stock. Also for being the -- row home capital of the US. Being such a linear city of streets. Would have been more European if less so. Curving streets add a quaintness also that I believe would have softened right row blocks that create a wall and along with re-creating European flair we love to see in Europe. The gentrification does not re-create the TRUE European feel it could have.
If the city planned better in realizing a asset in rows re-invented to look truly Colonial and European? In its tightest blocks. I feel a Great opportunity was missed. Adding reproduction British street-lamps. Especially where power-lines and poles were not along the fronts. Would have given the city a TRUE RE-INVENTING of itself. Billing itself as truly a most European feeling large American city.
My opinion others may see Philly is dandy as it is in gentrifying and styles of cubical infill it designs? But it could have been much better.
Instead a city like Chicago in housing and neighborhoods that gentrify. Have a a variety of housing with green-space that maintains a perception of openess. Yet on narrow city lots. Aesthetically it is defina definitely -- superior to visitors. It's bungalow belt of tight but un-attached housing ROCKS. It's old bungalow belt with a set-back that surely looks like --- front lawns and full alleys with garages. Is why the Quint-essential American city fits well. By European standards. Much to them look suburban. But for US standards it is very much Urban done with green-space, front and back and feature all could have a garage as a emerging Middle-class owned a car. The city PROVES -- it made great choices in its evolution. Why it's neighborhood housing can impress easterners use to not attached varieties and more spawling suburban. While Chicago's housing in every era can fall between them and work for today in a Urbanity. You give up nothing compared to suburban living and gain in what tight rows might not provide in some openess that can be walkable and car-friendly.
Actually, Chicago is tied with 4th for most fortune 500 companies, right there with Dallas, in front of St. Louis, but behind Atlanta, Houston, and NYC.
In terms of concentration, Atlanta, Irving, TX, and Richmond have some of the highest concentration of fortune 500 companies, with Chicago actually having ONE OF THE LOWEST of cities with 5 or more. NYC also has one of the highest, though it's behind those 3 and just a few others.
Now, this isn't to say Chicago is a bad city; I actually love it. But just had to point out that one discrepancy in your statement.
This is only counting city limits population... by this metric, you aren't counting companies like McDonald's, Allstate, Sears, Kraft, Mondelez, Walgreens, etc. Taken as a whole, the Chicago metro area is home to a lot more... 32 to 26 in Houston, 25 in Atlanta and 21 in DFW.
I guess, but then someone who is partial to the Midwest might say Cleveland was more appealing than Philadelphia. Or someone who preferred the West Coast might say Sacramento was superior. It all comes down to preferences and some of us think that rows of duplexes on broad avenues are just as cool as rowhouses on narrow cobblestone lanes.
Actually, Chicago is tied with 4th for most fortune 500 companies, right there with Dallas, in front of St. Louis, but behind Atlanta, Houston, and NYC.
In terms of concentration, Atlanta, Irving, TX, and Richmond have some of the highest concentration of fortune 500 companies, with Chicago actually having ONE OF THE LOWEST of cities with 5 or more. NYC also has one of the highest, though it's behind those 3 and just a few others.
Now, this isn't to say Chicago is a bad city; I actually love it. But just had to point out that one discrepancy in your statement.
Chicago(land) has more Fortune 500 companies than Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston. If you're going by city-limits, sure, but the metro area has more than the aforementioned places.
Chicago(land) has more Fortune 500 companies than Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston. If you're going by city-limits, sure, but the metro area has more than the aforementioned places.
Right, I think the Bay Area (as a CSA) contains about the same number as Chicagoland does.
Philadelphia and its metro definitely contains fewer, I think about a dozen or so, though access to some of the ones in New Jersey that are considered NYC's metro is pretty direct as is to those in Manhattan (I actually know people who make the Center City to Manhattan daily commute). Regardless, those companies and the economic might and white collar job opportunities those headquarters offer is certainly in Chicago's favor though Philadelphia has some of its own.
I think that's one of the big pros of Chicago as well as a more extensive rapid transit system, the vast lakefront right there next to the urban core with its towering skyline, a massive hub airport, more acclaimed institutions in general, and just generally being a larger, brawnier city.
I think that's one of the big pros of Chicago as well as a more extensive rapid transit system, the vast lakefront right there next to the urban core with its towering skyline, a massive hub airport, more acclaimed institutions in general, and just generally being a larger, brawnier city.
Agree with this concise assessment (+1). Chicago is simply on a different their than Philly. Each city offers some unique advantages over the another, however: weather, location, size, and history, to name a few, and people make choices about where to live or visit based on their interests.
Right, I think the Bay Area (as a CSA) contains about the same number as Chicagoland does.
Philadelphia and its metro definitely contains fewer, I think about a dozen or so, though access to some of the ones in New Jersey that are considered NYC's metro is pretty direct as is to those in Manhattan (I actually know people who make the Center City to Manhattan daily commute). Regardless, those companies and the economic might and white collar job opportunities those headquarters offer is certainly in Chicago's favor though Philadelphia has some of its own.
I think that's one of the big pros of Chicago as well as a more extensive rapid transit system, the vast lakefront right there next to the urban core with its towering skyline, a massive hub airport, more acclaimed institutions in general, and just generally being a larger, brawnier city.
Yet, despite all of its pros, Chicago, Chicagoland, and Illinois are seeing stagnant to negative population growth.
Yet, despite all of its pros, Chicago, Chicagoland, and Illinois are seeing stagnant to negative population growth.
I don't think Chicagoland has seen a single official census to official census population loss--only growth. Chicago definitely saw a post-WWII decline that affected every major urban city that didn't annex greater land. It's possible that the 2010 to 2020 census will see the first hit for Chicagoland and Illinois though right now it looks more likely that Chicago will have modest growth and Chicagoland will have stayed about the same. Not really sure about Illinois as a whole though--downstate is having a lot of problems overall and there have been a substantial number of corporate headquarters relocating from downstate to Chicago and Chicagoland and I don't see Chicago and Chicagoland's gains being enough to offset the losses for the rest of Illinois.
Anyhow, I'd chalk that up as a slight nod towards Philadelphia for being part of a region that seems to be in for less tentative growth.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,171,933 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitiesinUSA
Does anyone else hate CSAs? I feel that often times they add quite a bit of fluff to a city's population numbers, combining two urban areas that have little to nothing to do with each other and are often times separated by a 90+ minute commute.
I prefer Demographia's urban numbers to show a city's true size, as it doesn't count fluff or rural areas in a city's size (like the CSA does with Atlanta, adding another 1.1 million people to the "city") but doesn't separate urban areas, like the Census does, that are separated by geographical barriers or uninhabitable land (such as farms or mountains like the CB does with San Fran and SJ, counting them as two separate Urban areas).
In that respect, Chicago has 9.185 million people while Philly has 5.595 million.
Unless NYC adopts a bullet train, I don't think Philly will ever be "part of" NYC, due to the VAST distance (even by train, it's still a 1.25 hour commute).
Probably not, but the distance isn't that vast. At their closest points, only 46 miles separate the two cities as the crow flies. Additionally, the Acela can make the trip in 70 minutes or less, and that's not a true high speed train. Amtrak will be upgrading its infrastructure, but in the meantime, the upcoming Avelia Liberty trainset will reduce that trip even further.
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.
