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.
There simply is no comparison between the mighty city of Chicago and the NY shadow city of Philly, except in these kinds of meaningless metrics. The east coast cities are more densely populated than Midwestern cities, so the population within a certain region is certainly going to be higher. I think its pathetic to try to ride some claim of superiority that Philly has over Chicago based on this metric. IMO, Philly is not in Chicago's league. Maybe you should compare Philly to Milwaukee.
This is why I will always prefer Chicago over a city on the east coast like Philly. Chicago is a mighty city, one of quiet power and quality that stands on its own as head of an entire Midwestern region. Philly is a shadow of NY, screaming for attention and respect. Comparing it to Chicago is misguided IMO. Meaningless metric.
Well, Paris and Chicago do have one thing in common. They are both better cities than Philadelphia.
To quote what someone just said, "You forgot to add in my opinion" (though I would definitely agree with Paris being a much better city). Here's one thing that Philly and Paris have in common, they are both much more compact and walkable cities than Chicago and that is a fact.
To quote what someone just said, "You forgot to add in my opinion" (though I would definitely agree with Paris being a much better city). Here's one thing that Philly and Paris have in common, they are both much more compact and walkable cities than Chicago and that is a fact.
Philadelphia and Paris don't have anything in common. I'm sure there's a 135 square mile slice of Chicago that's more dense, walkable and lively than all of Philadelphia. There's no section of either Philadelphia or Chicago that can compare to Paris. In case you forgot, Paris has over 2 million people living in less than 50 square miles.
Chicago has Philadelphia beat in just about every measurable way.
There simply is no comparison between the mighty city of Chicago and the NY shadow city of Philly, except in these kinds of meaningless metrics. The east coast cities are more densely populated than Midwestern cities, so the population within a certain region is certainly going to be higher. I think its pathetic to try to ride some claim of superiority that Philly has over Chicago based on this metric. IMO, Philly is not in Chicago's league. Maybe you should compare Philly to Milwaukee.
This is why I will always prefer Chicago over a city on the east coast like Philly. Chicago is a mighty city, one of quiet power and quality that stands on its own as head of an entire Midwestern region. Philly is a shadow of NY, screaming for attention and respect. Comparing it to Chicago is misguided IMO. Meaningless metric.
Except that both cities match up pretty well on multiple metrics. At the msa/csa level, it's even more debatable which city has more to offer. If funny when people keep bringing up the "overshadowed by NYC " thing. If Chicago was located less than 90 miles from NYC, the Windy City would be overshadowed as well.
Philadelphia and Paris don't have anything in common. I'm sure there's a 135 square mile slice of Chicago that's more dense, walkable and lively than all of Philadelphia. There's no section of either Philadelphia or Chicago that can compare to Paris. In case you forgot, Paris has over 2 million people living in less than 50 square miles.
Chicago has Philadelphia beat in just about every measurable way.
ha you do realize that the Ben Franklin Parkway was modeled after Paris?
Also worth noting (just because I think it is interesting).. the reverse has happened before, with other countries modeling buildings after ones in Phildadelphia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_building was modeled after Philadelphia's Memorial Hall
Last edited by thedirtypirate; 04-26-2015 at 11:51 AM..
Well, Paris and Chicago do have one thing in common. They are both better cities than Philadelphia.
Chicago is in the same general class of city as Philly. They're roughly comparable, and reasonable people can disagree which is more urban and desirable.
Paris stands in a separate weight class, and has maybe two or three rivals globally. Neither Chicago nor Philly come close.
Keep in mind that I combined the loop, near north side, and south side for Chicago numbers, so the Windy City isn't being pigeonholed when being compared to Philly. Some of these Chicago posters are just hating on Philly. Maybe it's a little jealously but who really knows. I personally like both cities.
what the heck are you even talking about? why would Chicago be jealous of Philadelphia? Do I suggest that because there is anything wrong with Philly or that is not a great city? hell, no. Philly is a great place.
no, I suggest it because why would Chicago be jealous of any city? I say that because we Chicagoans know our city is incredibly great, its greatness doesn't come from comparison to any other place; its greatness comes from what the city is. NYC's downtown (or basically 2 CBD's, downtown and midtown) are considerably larger than Chicago's CBD. So what? Chicago in no way is trying to be NYC, although we fully recognize how great NYC is. NYC and LA are both larger than Chicago, will always be larger than Chicago, are fantastic cities……and nobody in Chicago gives a damn. Indeed, we Chicagoans can look at the greatness of other great cities (places like NYC, DC, Boston, LA, SF), appreciate that greatness, and thoroughly enjoy those places with no need for us to compare…..because we are secure in how we see our city.
In fact, the thing that makes Chicago so great to me is not what outsiders think of it (although my own experience is that the out-of-towners think the city is fabulous). No, what makes Chicago so great to me is how great Chicagoans think the city is. we're homers….and damned proud of it.
so, gwilly, you can be thrilled all you want about the prospect of Philly's downtown passing Chicago in size just like the fools down in Houston are salivating in anticipation to that marvelous day when Houston passes Chicago in population. You can "write off" Chicago all you want….so many others have done so, but like the energizer Bunny, we always bounce back. and personally, I don't want to write off any city
gwilly, have you ever heard of a city called "San Francisco" (it's in California, if that helps you). well, SF is the 4th largest city in California, and not only that, it is only the 2nd largest city in its own metro area, the Bay Area, behind San Jose (with SJ being above a million people and SF being below a million people).
now, do you think any San Franciscan gives a damn about those statistics? they don't. what San Franciscans think is that SF is "everybody's favorite city" or, to them, a place that is simply known as "The City" and they don't feel in competition with anybody.
and can Chicago "bleed" population? yes, it can and it has. but what Chicago is losing is low income population, largely African American and that is part of what goes in my city that truly stinks: Chicago is more and more a home for the wealthy and others are disposable.
in your own northeast corridor, you have a similarly self secure city, Boston, a city a fraction of Philly's size…..but a Bostonian would consider it joke to suggest that Boston is in Philly's shadow.
if you think Philly is a great city (which it is), you don't need any competition of pecking order with other places to realize its greatness.
Chicago is in the same general class of city as Philly. They're roughly comparable, and reasonable people can disagree which is more urban and desirable.
I agree, this idea that Chicago blows Philly out of the water in every single category is complete nonsense. I think we can both agree that some of these homers have huge egos.
Philadelphia and Paris don't have anything in common. I'm sure there's a 135 square mile slice of Chicago that's more dense, walkable and lively than all of Philadelphia. There's no section of either Philadelphia or Chicago that can compare to Paris. In case you forgot, Paris has over 2 million people living in less than 50 square miles.
Chicago has Philadelphia beat in just about every measurable way.
But Chicago and Paris have something in common? Yeah right. I never said that Philly and Paris have a lot in common. Also, what I said is exactly true. "Philly and Paris have one thing in common, they are both more compact and walkable than Chicago". I also obviously never said that any part of Philly is comparable to or on the same level as Paris. The most urban parts of Chicago are still less walkable than the most urban parts of Philadelphia and a continuous of 135 sq miles of Chicago is still less compact and walkable than Philadelphia. Will the slice of 135 sq miles of Chicago be more dense than Philadelphia overall? Yes. But that doesn't mean anything. For example, if you slice out a continuous 227 square miles of LA it would be more dense and larger than Chicago but does that mean that LA is more walkable or urban than Chicago? No. There you have it.
Lakepoint Tower. The only highrise that somehow got permission to build right along the lake and east of Lakeshore Drive.
I can think of one other, Chicago60614: that would be Outer Drive East. Although I know that isn't what it is called today and it no longer is east of LSD since LSD was rerouted. today, the building is just another Lakeshore East high-rise, albeit the oldest of the group.
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.