Why the comparisons between Philadelphia and Chicago (live, best, compared)
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'm familiar with the pecking order. I put Chi as #2 after NYC, I've never wavered from that. Chi is 50% larger, not twice as large. Another way to put it is Philly is 2/3 the size of Chicago. Philly's downtown is #3 for vibrancy/urbanity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzrovian
Well look, Chicago is close to double the size whether you take city limits or metro. That's a big difference, and i think it's reflected in the public perception of the two cities. Chicago traditionally has been seen as one of the big 3 largest and most important urban areas in the country, and its peer group is more NYC and LA... Philly's are Boston and DC. Chicago is unquestionably a more important city across a whole range of criteria and it's recognized as such both in the US and abroad.
Of course this has nothing to do with urban qualities or desirability. Philly is a terrific city with an amazing history, and I think it has better neighborhoods. It also enjoys better location. But it's unrealistic to suggest that the two have comparable stature.
Well look, Chicago is close to double the size whether you take city limits or metro. That's a big difference, and i think it's reflected in the public perception of the two cities. Chicago traditionally has been seen as one of the big 3 largest and most important urban areas in the country, and its peer group is more NYC and LA... Philly's are Boston and DC. Chicago is unquestionably a more important city across a whole range of criteria and it's recognized as such both in the US and abroad.
Of course this has nothing to do with urban qualities or desirability. Philly is a terrific city with an amazing history, and I think it has better neighborhoods. It also enjoys better location. But it's unrealistic to suggest that the two have comparable stature.
Actually, it's LA and NY being in the comparable category. Chicago is in league with DC-Baltimore, SF Bay area as each of these metros are gaining on Chicago; this despite Chicago's metro growth.
Well look, Chicago is close to double the size whether you take city limits or metro. That's a big difference, and i think it's reflected in the public perception of the two cities. Chicago traditionally has been seen as one of the big 3 largest and most important urban areas in the country, and its peer group is more NYC and LA... Philly's are Boston and DC. Chicago is unquestionably a more important city across a whole range of criteria and it's recognized as such both in the US and abroad.
Of course this has nothing to do with urban qualities or desirability. Philly is a terrific city with an amazing history, and I think it has better neighborhoods. It also enjoys better location. But it's unrealistic to suggest that the two have comparable size or stature.
You are correct in the neighborhoods. Philly, like other east coast cities have more European-like neighborhoods with 19th century rowhouses, where one walks from their building door to a sidewalk, and another step to a narrow street. In this respect the neighborhoods are very urban. Obviously the location only 2 hours from New York is huge. They are almost part of the same combined statisical metro area, considering you never leave a suburban environment along the New Jersey turnpike.
Chicagos perception aobut being in the same peer group as New York and LA is because of Chicagos massive downtown and skyline. Chicago is number two, and its city fathers have always believed in downtown first, so that Chicago could be a tourist and convention mecca.
However in other very important indicators, really just about everything else Chicago is most definitely not in the same league as New York and LA, and is closer to being in the same league as Boston, Philly, and D.C.
New York proper is 8 million
LA proper is 3.8 million
Chicago proper is 2.7 million.
Philly proper is 1.5 million.
New York combined metro area is 22 million
LA combined metro area is 17-18 million
Chicago combined metro area is 9-10 million
Phillys combined is 6-7 million
Boston is actually over 7 million (when you throw in overlapping Providence, etc).
D.C-Baltimore is 8 million.
When cities are that close together they form one large overlapping economic engine of a region.
San Francisco, Palo Alto, and San Jose, etc. are ALL important to making the Bay area the capital of modern technology.
Also, very important, I don't care if one doesn't care about celebrities, the relative absence of any huge media and entertainment industry in Chicago is a VERY good reason why Chicago shouldn't be placed in the same league as NYC and LA.
You are correct in the neighborhoods. Philly, like other east coast cities have more European-like neighborhoods with 19th century rowhouses, where one walks from their building door to a sidewalk, and another step to a narrow street. In this respect the neighborhoods are very urban. Obviously the location only 2 hours from New York is huge. They are almost part of the same combined statisical metro area, considering you never leave a suburban environment along the New Jersey turnpike.
Chicagos perception aobut being in the same peer group as New York and LA is because of Chicagos massive downtown and skyline. Chicago is number two, and its city fathers have always believed in downtown first, so that Chicago could be a tourist and convention mecca.
However in other very important indicators, really just about everything else Chicago is most definitely not in the same league as New York and LA, and is closer to being in the same league as Boston, Philly, and D.C.
New York proper is 8 million
LA proper is 3.8 million
Chicago proper is 2.7 million.
Philly proper is 1.5 million.
New York combined metro area is 22 million
LA combined metro area is 17-18 million
Chicago combined metro area is 9-10 million
Phillys combined is 6-7 million
Boston is actually over 7 million (when you throw in overlapping Providence, etc).
D.C-Baltimore is 8 million.
When cities are that close together they form one large overlapping economic engine of a region.
San Francisco, Palo Alto, and San Jose, etc. are ALL important to making the Bay area the capital of modern technology.
Also, very important, I don't care if one doesn't care about celebrities, the relative absence of any huge media and entertainment industry in Chicago is a VERY good reason why Chicago shouldn't be placed in the same league as NYC and LA.
All very good perspective. Chicago is absolutely larger than Philly and on most accounts more important. But the size difference is closer than most understand. And far closer than Chicago is to NYC and by a massive amount in this regard they are far more comparable. Even the MSA/CSA metrics do philly an injustice (wont banter as has been done to death) and oddly based on the 2000 CSA rules NYC and Philly now have the commuter connections via Mercer and Burlington Counties in NJ (will see what the census does with that as in many ways would be a little absurd though DC and Baltimore are their own unique places combined on this metric)
Even on city size with arbitrary land area they are close at 240 miles - the equivelent of Chicago is 2.4 million for Philly. Based on city borders the numbers would suggest San Antonio and Philly are close in size...
Well look, Chicago is close to double the size whether you take city limits or metro. That's a big difference....
But if you look beyond the imaginary boundaries that is where Philadelphia is closer to Chicago than most people believe. From N to S Chicagos defined metro sprawls nearly 160 miles. On the otherhand Philadelphia cannot even get Mercer County included in its metro eventhough Mercer is only 15 miles away from the city of Philadelphia.
Chicag metro at 10,000 sq mi is 9.5 M
Delaware Valley(10,000 q mi) which is Philadelphia metro plus beaches of South Jersey,Lehigh Valley ,Lancaster,Dover is pushing 9 M.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzrovian
Chicago traditionally has been seen as one of the big 3 largest and most important urban areas in the country, and its peer group is more NYC and LA... Philly's are Boston and DC.
I dont like your usage of the word "traditionally" in this argument. Currently or Recently would be more appropriate imo.
Traditionally from say 1700-1925 Philadlephia was seen as the #1-#2city/metro in the country. Thats nearly 3/4 of this countrys life span.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzrovian
Chicago is unquestionably a more important city across a whole range of criteria and it's recognized as such both in the US and abroad.
This statement I agree with as long as we understand that is a current and relatively recent happening, the last 1/3 of the US lifespan. Keep in mind that while critical world history making events were happening in Philadelphia , Chicago was a trading post for fur traders and the Potawatomi Indians.
I visited some friends in Chicago last year. Awesome awesome city but I got a kick out of them getting me all hyped up for spending a day at the Lake.
Its very nice but I had to chuckle at them and tell them this was kids play compared to the resorts along the Atlantic Ocean.
Interesting point. Maybe because Chicago attracts many people from land-locked areas not used to seeing water, they go nuts. Chicago is a nice city and the lakefront is nice, but c'mon.
Interesting point. Maybe because Chicago attracts many people from land-locked areas not used to seeing water, they go nuts. Chicago is a nice city and the lakefront is nice, but c'mon.
The lakefront is amazing in how it directly interacts with the city. A benefit for the city and Philly has nothing remotely close as a waterfront.
I still love my ocean beaches though but that lake is pretty damn cool
Chicago is the only inland city i would remotely consider moving to, but would absolutely miss the salt water and beach feel
The lakefront is amazing in how it directly interacts with the city. A benefit for the city and Philly has nothing remotely close as a waterfront.
I still love my ocean beaches though but that lake is pretty damn cool
Chicago is the only inland city i would remotely consider moving to, but would absolutely miss the salt water and beach feel
The lake is great, no doubt. I would prefer Philly's rivers with the shore close by to the lake on the city's waterfront. Plus, I like bridges; there aren't any in Chicago other than the Skyway (which you really don't see unless you use it) and the small links over the Chicago River.
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.
.
