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.
A lot of talk about proximity to other cities, and that is why Philly and Boston are better than Chicago. Which I don't understand why that makes a city that much better. Chicago isn't close to any other gigantic cities.... but it doesn't really need to be. When I'm in Chicago, I feel zero need to go to another major city, unless I want to visit. The urge to visit NYC doesn't pop up hardly ever, and even if it did, it's a relatively short flight away. Everything you could possibly need from a major city is right there. Why would Philly need to be close to NYC for it to be better? Does Philly lack something NYC and DC have?
Giving pluses to Philly and Boston for location are okay, but I don't see why that makes the individual cities themselves better. If anything, it comes off as implying those cities are lacking something you can only get in nearby cities.
A lot of talk about proximity to other cities, and that is why Philly and Boston are better than Chicago. Which I don't understand why that makes a city that much better. Chicago isn't close to any other gigantic cities.... but it doesn't really need to be. When I'm in Chicago, I feel zero need to go to another major city, unless I want to visit. The urge to visit NYC doesn't pop up hardly ever, and even if it did, it's a relatively short flight away. Everything you could possibly need from a major city is right there. Why would Philly need to be close to NYC for it to be better? Does Philly lack something NYC and DC have?
Giving pluses to Philly and Boston for location are okay, but I don't see why that makes the individual cities themselves better. If anything, it comes off as implying those cities are lacking something you can only get in nearby cities.
I mean, to be fair, this is about living long-term somewhere. I think not everyone, but a lot of people, especially on this board, would find it tedious just staying in their city all the time because there's nothing around. Hell, I haven't lived in Seattle for a full year and I've been on a bunch of trips around Washington and Oregon.
Having said that, I don't consider Chicago to be particularly isolated. It has Milwaukee, Madison, Indianapolis, St. Louis, Peoria, Springfield, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Grand Rapids all within about a 5-hour drive, so doable for a weekend trip. At the very least I don't think Boston is hugely better on that front, since there are really no decent-sized cities north or east of it other than Portland, ME.
I would like to have a family in the not to distant future so the school system is a big deal of where I would end up. Boston would be the only logical place. Philly schools are notoriously bad. People are pissed and our new governor ran on a platform of fixing the charter school/public school problem. To understand how big of a deal this is year, the last time a governor lost as an incumbent seeking reelection was in 1854.
Pennsylvania governors were not allowed to succeed themselves from 1874 (when the term was lengthened from three to four years) until 1968 (in the middle of what became Milton Shapp's first term in office). The last three governors under the old setup all succeeded themselves; the last of those ended his first four-year term in 1879, having been elected to a shortened first term in 1872.
Having said that, I don't consider Chicago to be particularly isolated. It has Milwaukee, Madison, Indianapolis, St. Louis, Peoria, Springfield, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Grand Rapids all within about a 5-hour drive, so doable for a weekend trip. At the very least I don't think Boston is hugely better on that front, since there are really no decent-sized cities north or east of it other than Portland, ME.
Providence, Hartford, Springfield, and New Haven are all larger than Portland. Manchester is similarly sized (just a little bit smaller). Burlington, Portsmouth, Newport, Mystic, and Bar Harbor are all small cities, but are still good weekend destinations.
And of course New York and Montreal are also good weekend trip destinations. NYC could be done as a day trip if you’re ambitious.
Giving pluses to Philly and Boston for location are okay, but I don't see why that makes the individual cities themselves better. If anything, it comes off as implying those cities are lacking something you can only get in nearby cities.
That argument has been made before, but that's really twisting the point.
I think it's fair to say that most people get curious about seeing other parts of the world and having different life experiences. The idea that I'd always be content never leaving my city of residence seems particularly parochial/narrow-minded and quite frankly, would make me go insane.
There's so many places out there that are very worthwhile for a day or weekend trip, and if a place has more of those options nearby than typical, that means you have the opportunity to expose yourself to even more of the world.
That argument has been made before, but that's really twisting the point.
I think it's fair to say that most people get curious about seeing other parts of the world and having different life experiences. The idea that I'd always be content never leaving my city of residence seems particularly parochial/narrow-minded and quite frankly, would make me go insane.
There's so many places out there that are very worthwhile for a day or weekend trip, and if a place has more of those options nearby than typical, that means you have the opportunity to expose yourself to even more of the world.
Honestly I think it is kind of dumb to compare anything beyond about a 2hr radius beyond that is a vacation.
Nobody moves to Boston for the Jersey Shore.
Nobody moves to Philly because it’s 3 hours from Washington.
You’re going to spend 90% if your time within a 90 Minute drive of your residence.
It doesn’t matter Cleveland is 5 hrs from Chicago but 7 from Philly.
The Adirondacks are too far from Philly to matter, they just have the Poconos.
New York and Montreal are Weekend Trips from Boston which limit you’re ability to actually go there.
Honestly I think it is kind of dumb to compare anything beyond about a 2hr radius beyond that is a vacation.
Nobody moves to Boston for the Jersey Shore.
Nobody moves to Philly because it’s 3 hours from Washington.
You’re going to spend 90% if your time within a 90 Minute drive of your residence.
It doesn’t matter Cleveland is 5 hrs from Chicago but 7 from Philly.
The Adirondacks are too far from Philly to matter, they just have the Poconos.
New York and Montreal are Weekend Trips from Boston which limit you’re ability to actually go there.
Very true.
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.
