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.
However, my point is, Chicago also has large swaths of suburban looking areas that go on for miles and miles that you will not find in Philly or any east coast city.
I will not find in Philly?? lol I'm going to the east coast again tonight...do you realize I travel both areas probably more times than the average east coaster. I actually happen to have relatives who live near King of Prussia which is basically Philly's version of Schaumburg. They live in a very cookie cutter suburban area. Yes, there are tons of strip malls filled with box stores and chain restaurants in that area like Costco, Walmart, Applebees etc. You won't find any in the East Coast? You may want to rethink that again because if you say there isn't much suburban style sprawl in the Northeast you are kidding yourself. Duh! of course Chicago will have more suburban satellite communities that's because it has a Much bigger metro population than Philly. NYC even has more go to Long Island plenty of suburban style homes with drive ways. I would even go to say that the NYC metro area isn't immune to having these suburban style strip malls just head north on I-95 towards Baychester Avenue exit over in the Bronx and look to your right. You'll see a huge swath of a strip mall called Bay Plaza Shopping Center with large parking lots filled with big box national chain stores. (you even have semis, campers and buses that park there). Once you go north crossing the bridge to pass the Hutchinson River Parkway density drops while it makes a more suburban transition when going through Rochelle towards the Connecticut line. You start to see more trees and more suburban style homes. Go south of downtown Boston and I-90 and look to your right you'll see another huge strip mall filled with more large parking lots and big box chain stores. It's like this all over the country so no city America are free of this type of development. It's even more prevalent when you go further out from the city center. NYC has more suburban development than Philly because of Long Island and Staten Island are larger with more population. Of course Chicago will have more than Philly because it is a much larger metro of 9 million.
Philly is dominated by rowhouses, while Chicago is dominated by bungalows. There are very few rowhouses in Chicago.
That's because after the 1871 fire Chicago adopted the country's strictest fire city codes requiring some spacing between the buildings but if pushed together it's the same kind of urban home anyway. Some people don't even realize this because they don't know the history behind it. St Louis has more row homes but that's because it didn't have a major fire like Chicago that burnt down most of the city. Now if you look at it Philly could have had a bigger skyline of skyscrapers but it couldn't because at one time nothing could be built higher than the William Penn Statue. Not enough room due to density? No, because NYC was able to do it. Philly is no different
Philly is underrated as a city anda downtown, but IMO Chicago takes this one fairly easily.
I have been to Philly twice and recently made my first trip to Chicago. Chicago's downtown seemed bigger and denser and the neighborhoods are pretty urban and seemed to just go on forever (especially to the North). To me Chicago's downtown is in the top three in the country and Philly is more like 5-7.
Nice image cherry-picking -- the first being warehouse and manufacturing district (Gee, I wonder why it looks so open?? ) so far out on the edge of the city that the suburbs are literally 2 blocks away, and the second actually reinforces the point I made in my previous post -- an area that "looks suburban" to you because of your preconceived ideas of what "urban" looks like, when in reality the neighborhood in your second link is over 15,000 people per square mile, which is at least as dense or denser than Kensington. How many Philly neighborhoods that are 9 miles away from Center City are that dense? Can you even go 9 miles in any direction from Center City and still be inside the city limits?
Let's examine this claim in particular a little more closely:
I beg to differ -- I can play the "selective imagery" game too:
First of all, I gave credit to Chicago so I am not cherry picking images. I also mentioned that you will find suburban looking areas in any east coast city, so I am not biased either. I am only making an observation that on the Southside of Chicago around Midway and further south, those areas look like east coast suburbs. All the major intersections look like this the farther south you go. You can cherry pick a picture of Philly too but my point is that Philly does not have these areas that run for miles and miles and miles like Chicago does. Drive east ond 59th street from Cicero to Ashland. It definitley looks like the burbs at Pulanski, Western, Damen, etc. This is right around Midway. If you go south on any street I mentioned you will see nothing but gas stations at each major corner, surface parking lots, big box stores and strip malls. This is the heart of the southside miles from the actual burbs.
So yeah, if you started in CC and then crossed the Walnut Street bridge into West, then you would exit the city pretty quickly. But if you went up Broad and then transferred to the Bully in the Northeast, then you would see a lot more than 5 miles of rowhouse neighborhoods.
Yes, I do know a lot about the geography of the city. That's why I said the dense network of urban rowhouses starts to die out a bit after you get 5 miles from CC except to the northeast where it carries on farther.
I don't understand where you're disagreeing with me.
I don't know why everyone thinks Chicago is dominated by bungalows. I've heard it multiple times now. Is it just because the neighborhoods where they're found are so distinguishable? Cause they're on the flight paths maybe?
Bungalows are around 25%. 3-flat/courtyard on up to highrise buildings are 55%. 71% of the city is multi-family dwellings.
3-flat to 12-flat/coutyard/highrise: 623,000
Bungalows/other single family: 286,000
Brownstones/two flat/cottages: 203,000
Rowhouses: 40,000
First of all, I gave credit to Chicago so I am not cherry picking images. I also mentioned that you will find suburban looking areas in any east coast city, so I am not biased either. I am only making an observation that on the Southside of Chicago around Midway and further south, those areas look like east coast suburbs. All the major intersections look like this the farther south you go. You can cherry pick a picture of Philly too but my point is that Philly does not have these areas that run for miles and miles and miles like Chicago does. Drive east ond 59th street from Cicero to Ashland. It definitley looks like the burbs at Pulanski, Western, Damen, etc. This is right around Midway. If you go south on any street I mentioned you will see nothing but gas stations at each major corner, surface parking lots, big box stores and strip malls. This is the heart of the southside miles from the actual burbs.
Imagine that -- if you drive along a major commercial street, you see -- wait for it -- centers of commerce. I mean, really -- how strange is that?
I will point out yet again that the neighborhood you picked to illustrate your idea of "what looks like the burbs" is 15,000 people per square mile. Name me one suburb of Philadelphia that is 15,000 people per square mile. And while I'm at it, I will also point out again that it is Pulaski, not "Pulanski."
Philly does not have these areas that run for miles and miles and miles like Chicago does. Drive east ond 59th street from Cicero to Ashland. It definitley looks like the burbs at Pulanski, Western, Damen, etc. This is right around Midway. If you go south on any street I mentioned you will see nothing but gas stations at each major corner, surface parking lots, big box stores and strip malls. This is the heart of the southside miles from the actual burbs.
Uhm..you might want to take a short drive up I-76 from downtown towards King of Prussia then swing south on I-476. You'll hit plenty of suburban style development covering several square miles in places like Belmont Hills, Gladwyne, Conshohocken, Radnor etc.. Btw, Chicago's southside have some open areas due to being the country's largest industrial city so no you want find Wrigelyville on Midway's door step. Some areas are going to be different than other areas of the city. Like i said even Boston and NYC have suburban style development near by...Philly is no different.
I don't know why everyone thinks Chicago is dominated by bungalows. I've heard it multiple times now. Is it just because the neighborhoods where they're found are so distinguishable? Cause they're on the flight paths maybe?
Bungalows are around 25%. 3-flat/courtyard on up to highrise buildings are 55%. 71% of the city is multi-family dwellings.
3-flat to 12-flat/coutyard/highrise: 623,000
Bungalows/other single family: 286,000
Brownstones/two flat/cottages: 203,000
Rowhouses: 40,000
Total: 1,152,000
Probably b/c people see them around the NW Side... (Ohare) and the SW side... (Midway)...as they are coming/leaving the city by subway/airplane : /
Likewise, fly into JFK and it is surrounded by tons of suburbanesque development in outer Queens that seems to go on forever.
Overall yes... this whole dominating thing I am like huh??? What part of Chicago were you in, and did you go anywhere else? I generally don't see any of them on a daily basis. The 3-4 flat/courtyard buildings are by far the most dominant architectural style in the neighborhoods, esp the greater northside.
"“bungalow belt” is a quintessential Chicago term, referring generally to the bungalow-style single-family houses built in the 1910s and 1920s in a collar just inside the limits of the city of Chicago."
Imagine that -- if you drive along a major commercial street, you see -- wait for it -- centers of commerce. I mean, really -- how strange is that?
I will point out yet again that the neighborhood you picked to illustrate your idea of "what looks like the burbs" is 15,000 people per square mile. Name me one suburb of Philadelphia that is 15,000 people per square mile. And while I'm at it, I will also point out again that it is Pulaski, not "Pulanski."
Actually there are a few
Milbourne
Darby
Upper Darby
Parkside
East Landsdowne
Clifton Heights
Woodlyn NJ
Many areas of Camden
etc.
Many more if I go the individual neighborhood within municipalities, but also get your point. But also the footprint of Chicago proper is much larger. On the whole I would say that Philly in general is more dense than Chicago but they are very close (Stats show Chicago on average density to be slightly more dense though to me it doesnt feel this way, but very similar) and Chicago is larger so that more than makes up for it. The Philly city density is misleading as more than 20% of the 134 sq miles are not inhabited, would probably estimate closer to 10% for Chicago.
Regardless I dont really find one place more or less urban, they both are. Neighborhood by neighborhood there are differences. Even similarities, places like Wicker Park remind me more of areas in Philly (No Libs) than do place like lincoln park etc.
One thing though for sure is that Chicago is the larger city and maintains urban space over a wider footprint. Oddly after Chicago Philly is probably the next largest city by urban footprint but not as large
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.
) so far out on the edge of the city that the suburbs are literally 2 blocks away, and the second actually reinforces the point I made in my previous post -- an area that "looks suburban" to you because of your preconceived ideas of what "urban" looks like, when in reality the neighborhood in your second link is over 15,000 people per square mile, which is at least as dense or denser than Kensington. How many Philly neighborhoods that are 9 miles away from Center City are that dense? Can you even go 9 miles in any direction from Center City and still be inside the city limits?
