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.
Which studies rate Philly anywhere close to that level (if at all)? Don't send me highly specialized crap, I want to see something comprehensive.
MC has Philly ranked 7th I believe but agree Chicago would and should be higher on these rankings. But again you continue to selectively choose only one criteria. Chicago is very comparable on many aspects and not s on others, think that is point
Philly is not as large as Chicago on finace but is actually a fairly significant player. SEI (Closes all the national and international markets in the 422 corrider in KOP), Vangaurd, lincoln Financial, the huge credit and banking industry, but agree well below Chicago on finance. Conversely in healthcare it is the complete opposite, both excel in some similar and some different industrys
Both have large urban populations, both have tremendous cultural and artist offerings (again here the two are closer than are they to NYC in this regard) etc.
You are hung on one aspect, gotcha, while many others exist for comparability and are actually the answer to the OP's question "Why do people compare Chicago and Philly?" Not accepting these aspects seems a little narrow focused to the actual question at hand. if the OP question was "Which is more important to Finance?", well there is also an answer...
MC has Philly ranked 7th I believe but agree Chicago would and should be higher on these rankings. But again you continue to selectively choose only one criteria. Chicago is very comparable on many aspects and not s on others, think that is point
Philly is not as large as Chicago on finace but is actually a fairly significant player. SEI (Closes all the national and international markets in the 422 corrider in KOP), Vangaurd, lincoln Financial, the huge credit and banking industry, but agree well below Chicago on finance. Conversely in healthcare it is the complete opposite, both excel in some similar and some different industrys
Both have large urban populations, both have tremendous cultural and artist offerings (again here the two are closer than are they to NYC in this regard) etc.
You are hung on one aspect, gotcha, while many others exist for comparability and are actually the answer to the OP's question "Why do people compare Chicago and Philly?" Not accepting these aspects seems a little narrow focused to the actual question at hand. if the OP question was "Which is more important to Finance?", well there is also an answer...
kidphilly, I usually appreciate your contributions and loyalty to your hometown, but I think you are off on this one.
It's true, I do think that finance is a very important criterion, and if you look at the list of the key financial centers they track very closely the most important cities in the world on whatever criteria you use (top 5 are NY, London, Tokyo, Paris and HK). Coincidence? Or is it that the key financial institutions tend to settle in the most important and influential urban centers? That Chicago is in that group speaks volumes of its place in the world. To say that finance is "only one criteria" - just like healthcare - is a misguided argument to suit your position.
But to be fair, nowhere have I been focusing exclusively on finance. The Foreign Policy survey -- which I listed first and attached a link -- rated cities on 5 dimensions: business, human capital, information exchange, culture, and politics. Pretty important and broad criteria, wouldn’t you agree? Take a look at it, it's quite interesting.
Look I've got no axe to grind with Philly, I am just trying to call it the way I see it. I think you guys are way to sensitive.
This may seem a little off topic, as I am pulling a city that has not been discussed here, but since there seems to be a lack of agreement of where to place Chicago:
People seem to feel that Chicago is in a different league than Boston, Philly, and D.C.
Thats fine. But I can not see Chicago at all as being in the same league as New York or LA.
The one city on the north American continent that can be the closest to Chicagos twin, and this is confirmed with all the lists is Toronto.
Both Chicago and Toronto are more isolated in in the interior, with cold winters and flat landscape, yet are global cities as they are the hub for their respective regions:
Chicago: The midwest. Toronto: Canada.
Both cities have a plethora of newer, shinier post war high rises (both residential and commercial), located amidst older residential areas. of small two-four unit apartment buildings and single family homes on small lots with some setbacks and tree lined streets, yet still urban. But lack the east coast/European feel of 19th century rowhouses packed together.
Both cities have a long standing, old guard generational caucasian population, as well as a large number of immigrants.
@ Tex - Agree in a lot ways that Toronto may be the best match, better than either NYC or Philly in this regard
@Fitz - all good, though you still missed my point and where we agree and disagree. There are aspects that compare and aspects that dont, all good. I like both Chicago and Philly and no axe to grind with either. Actually if you would read I am typically a pretty big fan of Chicago and believe it many times is falsly under rated for all it offers
On the MC Global Commerce Importance report I was wrong, Philly was 4th in the US (Chicago 2) and 18th in the world (Chicago 5)
US was
NYC 1 (2 in world)
Chicago 2 (5)
LA 3 (17)
Philly 4 (18)
FWIW Toronto was 13th in the world somewhere between Chicago and Philly
@ Tex - Agree in a lot ways that Toronto may be the best match, better than either NYC or Philly in this regard
@Fitz - all good, though you still missed my point and where we agree and disagree. There are aspects that compare and aspects that dont, all good. I like both Chicago and Philly and no axe to grind with either. Actually if you would read I am typically a pretty big fan of Chicago and believe it many times is falsly under rated for all it offers
On the MC Global Commerce Importance report I was wrong, Philly was 4th in the US (Chicago 2) and 18th in the world (Chicago 5)
US was
NYC 1 (2 in world)
Chicago 2 (5)
LA 3 (17)
Philly 4 (18)
FWIW Toronto was 13th in the world somewhere between Chicago and Philly
Cheers... and just to add that I have repeatedly invited people to compare across a range of criteria -- economy, culture, art, music, education, etc. And I have said that on certain things - like urban issues - they are comparable, but on others they are not. And people got upset with the "not" part. I do think, however, that the comparison with Boston and DC is a more interesting one.
PS. Thanks for the link above, good stuff. Chicago is # 5 in the world which is pretty fricking impressive for a city of only 2.6 mil
Last edited by Fitzrovian; 11-29-2011 at 11:59 AM..
Cheers... and just to add that I have repeatedly invited people to compare across a range of criteria -- economy, culture, art, music, education, etc. And I do agree that on certain things - like urban issues - they are certainly comparable, but overall I don't think it's a particularly good comparison. The comparison with Boston and DC is a much better one.
I don't at all take issue with the idea that Philly is easier to compare to Boston and DC. DC has a very similarly sized metro, Boston's is considerably smaller, but still not far off. Also on the surface they are all east coast cities, and while Boston and Philly are considerably older than DC they are all cities that have been developing for at least the past 2 centuries, making them among the older major cities in the nation.
I also think that to some extent LA and especially Toronto make for a far more close comparison with Chicago than does Philadelphia.
At the same time though, why in the world can't you make a comparison between Chicago and Philadelphia? To say that they are not even close enough to compare is just absurd. Finance, Population, International renown, these are battles Chicago likely wins, and they are absolutely huge factors. But urbanity, downtown, vibrancy, walkability, higher education, tourism, history, crime, cost of living, public transportation, and on and on etc. These and many more are all factors that you can compare between two cities as well and in many of these factors Philadelphia is certainly in Chicago's league and can arguably come out on top in many of them. In fact in many of these categories i would argue that Philly and Chicago are probably the most comparable cities in the nation.
You can compare a city to another city even if that city isn't necessarily the most comparable comparison available and it isn't automatically absurd. No one is comparing Charleston to NYC here, this is the third largest city in America being compared to the fifth. Over a wide array of criteria I think it is a very good comparison.
You are stretching it. You obviously simply: love Chicago.
Your location says Midtown Manhattan. Are you from Chicago? Did you spend a lot of time there?
It just seems atypical and unusual for someone who is from New York to put Chicago on that high of a pedestal.
Unless, again, you are simply comparing downtown area to downtown area.
And in that category: Chicago wins. The Loop, Grant Park/Museum campus, Mag Mile, River North, Gold Coast is the one area of the country that feels like a slice of Manhattan outside of Manhattan. (Albeit where the taller buildings are much newer and modern, as Chicago had no super tall buildings until the late 60s, whereas Manhattan due to necessity born out of lack of space built 15 super tall pre-war structures).
However, it ends there. Metropolitan area to metropolitan area or even city limits to city limits there is NO comparison, and Chicago is absolutely more comparable to Philly.
Chicago is about 75% of its peak 1950 population. So is Philly.
Chicago: 3.6 million in 1950, 2.7 today. Philly: 2.0 million in 1950, 1.5 million doday.
New York (5 burroughs) is 8 million today, and is the highest its ever been. All five burroughs have their own major cultural attractions. Due to cost of living and of land, there is a bit of gentrification that has spread through the entire 5 burroughs. You do not see the kind of half abandoned blighted neighborhoods with large vacant lots and boarded up buildings like you see covering half of Philly and Chicago.
On top of that: Right on the other side of the Hudson, Hudson County, NJ has whole independent suburban communities that are as or more densely populated as Chicago neighborhoods. (Guttenberg, Hoboken, etc.).
You obviously put a high value on a financial sector. Yes Chicago is big on that. So, yes, Chicago is more of a "puppet-master" city with its financial institutions.
However Philly has the universities that have contributed to Philly being a more research and development city which can bring in more brain power and ultimately lead to better lives for Americans and beyond.
Chicago has two world class universities: Northwestern and U of C. And some other good ones. Boston and Philly have more universities that are at or close to those league of universities either in the city or very close by. (Princeton is so close to Philly and maybe technically part of the metro area).
In the realm of universities and the subsequent R&D opportunities Chicago is a bit lacking, as well as the obvious aforementioned media and entertainment.
However in terms of the sectors of the economy that make the country work and go round, Chicago comes on top with finance and logistics. But that has always been characteristics of midwestern cities. Like Detroit with its auto industry (that is being resurrected from near-death), or Cincinnati keeping Americans clean with Proctor and Gamble, Chicago is in the business of the more basic, bones and muscles side of the economy.
I didn't think major banks were headquarterd in Chicago any longer; for example, isn't Charlotte or Cleveland ahead in this area?
Cheers... and just to add that I have repeatedly invited people to compare across a range of criteria -- economy, culture, art, music, education, etc. And I have said that on certain things - like urban issues - they are comparable, but on others they are not. And people got upset with the "not" part. I do think, however, that the comparison with Boston and DC is a more interesting one.
PS. Thanks for the link above, good stuff. Chicago is # 5 in the world which is pretty fricking impressive for a city of only 2.6 mil
The Chicago metro areas collection of higher instituions of learning are indeed great. But I don't think they are quite on the same "par" as east coast metro areas.
The midwest does have some of the best public universities in the country, no question there, but obviously they are found in small cities in the midwest.
As far as culture: I disagree on your post that defined what is included as culture. I for one generally do not put major league sports in the category of culture. Sure, I like going to ball games. However, I would in fact say that rapid loyalty to sports with everyone decked out in their teams jerseys, etc. while nothing at al wrong with that, can come across as almost the opposite of cosmopolitan.
And the media and entertainment is a huge extension of theater, etc. As far as music. Chicago not only is not a place where people who make it big in music live, it does not even stand out all that much in terms of where music originates). Chicago has always had a great music scene, although many other cities do to.
And like I said, Chicago has more of the "puppetmaster" (finance and logistics) sectors of the economy, but are not the sectors of the economy that tend to attract "dreamers" (actors/entertainers, politicians, even techies) who give a city a very dynamic feel that would be hard to replicate without.
At the same time though, why in the world can't you make a comparison between Chicago and Philadelphia? To say that they are not even close enough to compare is just absurd. Finance, Population, International renown, these are battles Chicago likely wins, and they are absolutely huge factors. But urbanity, downtown, vibrancy, walkability, higher education, tourism, history, crime, cost of living, public transportation, and on and on etc. These and many more are all factors that you can compare between two cities as well and in many of these factors Philadelphia is certainly in Chicago's league and can arguably come out on top in many of them. In fact in many of these categories i would argue that Philly and Chicago are probably the most comparable cities in the nation.
Well put. I agree 100%.
The original question, to paraphrase, was if Philly and Chicago make for an interesting comparison. And my answer was -- in some things yes, and in some things no. I never said that the comparison is absurd.
On that note we can move on, and discuss Tex?Il?'s ridiculous claims that Chicago and LA are not in the same league. I am still waiting to hear in what areas -- other than media and showbiz -- LA beats Chicago.
The original question, to paraphrase, was if Philly and Chicago make for an interesting comparison. And my answer was -- in some things yes, and in some things no. I never said that the comparison is absurd.
On that note we can move on, and discuss Tex?Il?'s ridiculous claims that Chicago and LA are not in the same league. I am still waiting to hear in what areas -- other than media and showbiz -- LA beats Chicago.
I'm not saying that LA "beats" Chicago in anything. I mean the whole idea of competition between cities is rather pointless. They are all different and offer different things.
But I would say there are many reasons, why one would perceive LA as having way more to do, see, and experience than Chicago.
I don't care how much Chicago has in terms of finance, or whatever, thats not the point. All cities are different. People don't move to a city based how globally influential they are in terms of economy. Its a stupid argument.
Tokyo is one of the biggest cities in the world. One of most expansive cities in terms of high rises, global manufacturing, finance, etc. That doesn't mean thats is a destination for many. A city where everyone is packed at very high densities, where every looks more or less the same (not to be offensive, but its like 98% ethnic Japanese), and a culture that discourages individualism is not attractive, and in fact a little creepy.
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.
