Chicago vs. Philadelphia (living, best, cost, state)

[personone]

Originally Posted by Kamms

STEEPS...you paraded this bungalow nonsense around before...give it a rest.

Steeps (DavePa now, or the host of other names he has gone by on here) has a strange infatuation with Chicago and feels the need to respond/defend it anytime anyone ponts out any of its flaws/negatives. Every city has its flaws/weaknesses.

[Pine to Vine]

Originally Posted by personone

Steeps (DavePa now, or the host of other names he has gone by on here) has a strange infatuation with Chicago and feels the need to respond/defend it anytime anyone ponts out any of its flaws/negatives. Every city has its flaws/weaknesses.

Every city has its flawed posters, as well.

[DavePa]

Originally Posted by personone

Steeps (DavePa now, or the host of other names he has gone by on here) has a strange infatuation with Chicago and feels the need to respond/defend it anytime anyone ponts out any of its flaws/negatives. Every city has its flaws/weaknesses.

I'm curious now? What are some of Philly's flaws? I didn't mention any. I posted a couple short Chicago bungalow videos. one showing traits of their exteriors and I gave a list some others too. In reading about Philly at the 1893 Chicago Columbian Exhibition on the history and variety of the Philadelphia types of row homes it consist of 60% as its housing stock that was built in every era of its history.

I had more from the sight of did not post it. on Chicago. it is noteworthy that its built has 1/3 of its housing as Bungalows. built 1910 - 1940. though most of its 80,000 bungalows built? were between 1919 and the Great Depression. Articles I failed to paste their link. Gave where the info on them came from.

I said nothing against Philly. I clearly inferred I see Chicago's housing varieties quite unique to it. A more aesthetically pleasing arrangement with alleys and standard housing required to be set back from streets.

Why some got so agitated and angry? is not on my part in post thrown back. We aren't suppose to get personal that way anyway.

Housing, street-grids styles of housing and built environment. Are the biggest differences (to me I will add) between these cities that both had some of their largest growth periods late 1800s through the mid-20th century.

The OP gave simple guidelines. When this thread began in 2009. I also did not re-open the thread recently. The OP merely asked this..

Originally Posted by fashionguy

based on look, lifestyle and amenities combined. Debate.

I certainly see housing and how a city's streets are presented? Are a key look that city presents to others who visit and therefore valid for this thread.

Perhaps there is some bashing in my post I missed? But after all? in a city vs city thread. Usually one poster prefers, likes or calls on city home. Therefore will stress good points on that city to highlight it. I paste back my apparently? My very negative, or over boastful post of extreme opinion?

Originally Posted by DavePa

The Biggest difference between Chicago and Philadelphia is in the --housing varieties it chose. Some on C-D promote the "Colonial" areas and neighborhoods of Center City. Highly sought after and as if it is the example of a substantial portion of Philly and its standard varieties? But it really --- is not.

The encyclopedia of the Philly row-home. Clearly states how

In 1893, city promoters embraced this characterization when, at the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago, they constructed a simple brick row house described as a “model Philadelphia house.” The cost for such a building was approximately $2500. The row house was easy to build on narrow lots and affordable to buy,

Row Houses | Encyclopedia of Greater Philadelphia

The Chicago Bungalow -- The history and layout of the city affected the design of Chicago’s bungalows. In a city still skittish about fire, brick homes seemed more permanent and secure than wooden structures. And the street grid and alley system kept urban residential development packed in close (although the lots for most of the bungalow belt were widened to 30′ x 125' from the more typical Chicago 25′x 125').

The Chicago Bungalow design,

• was influenced by an Arts and Crafts philosophy favoring simplicity and good craftsmanship over the excessive, ornate finishes of the Victorian era.
• For Chicago’s working class, bungalows were affordable and popular.
• Giving a man who toiled all day at a large factory a bungalow with rich woodwork, built-in bookcases, large groupings of windows, modern electrical and plumbing, a relatively open floor plan, and a backyard space with room for gardening or for play.
• They were inspired by Architects of the Chicago-School of Architecture among some was Frank Lloyd Wright.

One third of all the Chicago's single family homes are bungalows and they anchor the neighborhoods of the so called “Bungalow Belt” constructed between the 1910 and 1940. By 1930, one-fourth of all residential structures in metropolitan Chicago were less than 10 years old, many of them bungalows, ranging in cost from about $2,500 to $10,000 with 80,000 bungalows built.

The Chicago bungalows traits -

• Craftsman trimming with built-ins
• single family homes, with a full basement
• setback from the streets with a green lawn
• garages built as the auto age progressed in back
• alley behind back as typical of homes across the city.
• brick faced, with decorative stone trim and concrete entry
• wide bay of living room window in fronts and windows throughout
• windows that also included some leaded glass with stained-glass trimming
• they rarely had fences in fronts --- allowing one front lawn to flow into the next
• brick faced, with decorative stone trim and windows with some leaded glass with stained-glass trimming

Short video on some particular features on the bungalows.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvOrUexxY_Y

Remodeled Chicago bungalow has exteriors remain the same. Shows street back-yard with deck and garage.

It is in color. Looks great what was done.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t2gOdL-mYc

The Common - Chicago-style bungalow was developed in 1919 in response to a pressing demand for owner-occupied housing during a period of dynamic growth in Chicago’s population and economic base.

Land was divided into standard city lots, streets layer out and full alleys constructed too. The Bungalow-belt is a arc around Chicago's older neighborhoods and downtown.

The Link called - ( Row homes / The Encyclopedia of Greater Philadelphia) says this I left out. On Philly's built.

*Quoted - Builders, developers, and residents used row houses to solve the problems of housing demand, steep land prices, and narrow lots. However, Philadelphia’s unique combination of original city planning, expansive geography, and the simultaneous trend of speculative building meant street (or court)-front land was obtainable by builders or modest investors at an easier rate compared to other major urban centers. As a result, Philadelphia’s streets, alleys, and courts were lined with relatively homogenous structures of predictable form and design. By the nineteenth century, the term “Philadelphia row” not only became synonymous with the landscape of the city, but it also became a term used elsewhere to describe orderly rows of regularized houses.

Constructing houses in a row was cost-effective and efficient for builders. It allowed them to replicate a design from only a few plans, consolidate crews and resources at one site, and buy materials in bulk. --Quoted*

- Sights, links I used on Chicago's bungalows and the credit the city is given for it becoming a common housing. Along with LA's varieties. Both together became a unique American housing for the masses. Before the Ranch home took over.

Chicago Building Types: Bungalows | Moss Architecture (also showing examples of Californians variety of bungalows) California credited for the bungalow before Chicago's.

Chicago bungalow*·*Buildings of Chicago*·*Chicago Architecture Foundation - CAF

*** Outside of grammar and structure? Nothing is offensive here???? I also stand by my comments on downtown Chicago and its lakefront. Is there any reason I should not? Was it untrue of wrong to use for Chicago's --- good points as if irreverent? I'd be surprised if I did not get a further insult? Rather then a answer to my question? If my post was not relevant in these cities differences and bashed any city?

[DavePa]

Chicago vs Philadelphia

- Physical Location - Chicago for being along blue and huge Lake Michigan. But Philadelphia claims access to the New Jersey ocean front adds to their location.

- Location in general - Philadelphia always gets this for proximity to other Eastern cities.

- Climate - tie-both have winters so a few degrees isn't major. Chicago gets lake-effect snow years and Philadelphia gets storms as nor'easters some years more then others.

- City Topography - tie-as both cities are predominately flat. What Philadelphia gets in elevation in Fairmont Park. Chicago can gain in the grandeur of its open lakefront.

- Regional Topography - Philadelphia as its suburbs and beyond are more varied.

- Economy - tie-with both in broke states and Philadelphia next to NJ in the same boat.

- Costs and Expenses - tie-though perhaps a cheaper nod to Philadelphia in lowest costing housing in poorest areas. Both have plenty of added taxes.

- Public education (K-12) and higher education (colleges and universities) - tie-for Public schools
slight nod to Chicago elementary schools and for Universities
Chicago- for especially having the "University of Chicago" placed at #3 recently https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges...l-universities after "Princeton and Harvard"

Infrastructure (roads, sidewalks, whatever) - tie

- Airport (international and domestic) - Chicago for O'Hare and Midway yet utilized.

- Urban offerings - tie-but my nod to Chicago doing urbanity in options much more liked and preferred by Americans if they had to choose by given examples.

- Architectural style - Chicago without a doubt. Always known for American architecture since the skyscraper and in completely redesigning new American varieties in housing that became common in the city.

- Public Transport (buses, inner city rail, commuter rail, elevated) - tie- in both off varied rail transit offerings. Chicago a nod for its elevated system and Philadelphia for trolleys that Chicago has none of.

- Amenities - tie Chicago for in the city offerings and Philadelphia for the region.

- Diversity - tie

- Culinary scene- Chicago since it has the Chicago-style hot dog, Italian beef (I prefer over the Philly wizsteak) and deep-dish options I prefer. But Culinary is a term denoting High-end fine dining options. Still I see Chicago has more highest-end and love its outside sidewalk options in spring to fall that pop up all over downtown and better neighborhoods. Generally very green and flower-laden that adds much to vibrancy. Even its main downtown street has them along its stretch and river-walk to parks.

- Music scene - Chicago because of its blues clubs.

- Political scene (type of politics and mindset) gotta be da Chi-Town for its constant limelight in corruption to still making great choices in improving and upgrading their city and go for it attitude in getting Federal grants Philly seems to merely seek from the state.

- Neighborhoods (historic, ethnic, affluent, middle-class, so on) -
Philadelphia for Historic,
tie in ethnic.
Chicago for affluent and
tie for middle-class.

- Suburbs - tie

- Entertainment (sports themes, major conventions, Park attractions, so on) -
Chicago - Wrigley Field for sports,
Chicago for conventions with most space too,
Chicago for parks with its Millennium Park's outdoor Pavilion symphony free concerts to film, Grant Park with its outdoor concerts and Lincoln Park its free zoo to harbors and beaches.

- Nightlife scene - Chicago

- Image as a city - Chicago- its flyover image has ceased and its growth in tourist with favorable feedback and more noted in TV shows helps is stature and recognition that its gangland issues don't destroy.

- Safety - tie both have high-crime neighborhoods. Chicago's just look better and cleaner.

- History - Philadelphia will always get the nod for its key roll in early American history. Though Chicago gets one for the 20th century.

- User friendliness (the city is easy to get around, easy to understand, things come easy here) - Chicago for having a wider street-grid with corners not as sharp and easy street address numbering of blocks by hundreds. Any address by what hundred block north-south and east-west block one knows exactly where in relation to downtown this block is and for locals the neighborhood.

- Cultural institutions and performing arts - Chicago in museums and having a few Theaters that have a Broadway-like live Play scene of its own and even pre-Broadway to Second-City. Philadelphia also has historical assets as Independence Hall, Betsy Ross house, Ben Franklin. But these are National Landmarks rather then a Cultural institutions. They merely stand in memorandum to our past beginnings as a Nation. Philly has a great Performing Arts Center. But again Chicago has the former old movie palaces for "Live Plays venues" second NYC. and its "Civic Opera House" its former Library. As a city "Cultural Center".

- City parks, public spaces, and greenbelts - Chicago for its downtown Parks and greenbelts of its whole Lakefront of Parks, Harbors and Beaches for public use. Though Philadelphia has the largest city Park in its "Fairmont Park".

- Aesthetics of the city - Chicago wins for look of "Grandeur and Scale on size it gives. Its street-grid is superior in openness in neighborhoods by green-space frontage as standard and alleys standard.

- Housing stock and variety - clearly Chicago for me. From its Victorian, Greystone to Workers Cottage and bungalow belt. By far un-attached and apartment buildings are more prevalent in Chicago.
BIG for me is NOT a by far, a majority attached single-home city.

Overall appearance aesthetically- Chicago clearly photographs well from ground-level and cleaner overall.

Chicago wins as Poll did show.

[Krisps]

Philly >>>>> Chicago

[Vlajos]

Chicago >>>>> Philly

[BigLake]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Chicago >>>>> Philly

Philadelphia is a very attractive town (one of the top ten in the U.S., imo), but it simply doesn't match Chicago.

[AJNEOA]

Originally Posted by BigLake

Philadelphia is a very attractive town (one of the top ten in the U.S., imo), but it simply doesn't match Chicago.

Yeah, Chicago is a great town! I prefer Philly, but Chicago is one of my favs.

[DavePa]

-Methodology-
Acreage + Facilities and Investments + Access = PARKSCORE

-Scoring-
The scoring system recognizes the accomplishments of cities that have made significant investments in their parks without holding dissimilar cities to an unrealistic standard. It enables detailed analysis and allows cities to increase their ParkScore through incremental improvements to different aspects of their park systems.

To determine a city’s ParkScore, we assigned points in three categories: acreage, services and investment, and access.
◾Acreage: 20 points for median park size, and 20 points for park acres as a percentage of city area
◾Facilities and investment: 20 points for spending per resident and 20 points for the average of the four key facilities per-capita (basketball hoops, dog parks, playgrounds, and recreation and senior centers).
◾Access: 40 points for percentage of the population living within a ten-minute walk of a public park

Points for each statistic are assigned by breaking the data range established by our national sample into 20 brackets, with the lowest bracket receiving the least points and the highest bracket receiving the most points.

Each city’s total points—out of a maximum of 120—are then normalized to a ParkScore of up to 100.

PHILADELPHIA RANK #22 ParkScore w/map

- Philadelphia-Park Facts (PARK SCORE of 64)

Park acreage: 10,830 acres
People served per park acre: 143
Oldest municipal park: East Fairmount Park, est. 1855
Largest municipal park: Wissahickon Valley Park, 1,750 acres
Most-visited municipal park: Fairmount Park

- Philadelphia-City Stats 2016 -

City area: 82,913 acres
Median park size: 3.6 acres
Park land as % of city area: 13.1 %
* Spending per resident: $65.13 *
Basketball Hoops per 10,000: 4.1
Dog Parks per 100,000 Residents: 0.3
Playgrounds per 10,000: 1.7
Recreation / Senior Centers per 20,000 Residents: 2.1
Population density: 18.7 per acre

CHICAGO RANK #15 ParkScore w/map

- Chicago-Park Facts (PARKSCORE of 69)

Park acreage: 12,588 acres
People served per park acre: 217
Oldest municipal park: Grant Park, est. 1837
Largest municipal park: Lincoln Park , 1,216 acres
Most-visited municipal park: Lincoln Park

- Chicago-City Stats 2016 -

City area: 136,796 acres
Median park size: 2.2 acres
Park land as % of city area: 9.2 %
* Spending per resident: $171.79 *
Basketball Hoops per 10,000: 2.9
Dog Parks per 100,000 Residents: 0.8
Playgrounds per 10,000: 2.4
Recreation / Senior Centers per 20,000 Residents: 1.9
Population density: 20.0 per acre

By the stats and scoring. It seems-

- Chicago way outspends Philadelphia in Park maintenance and upkeep. Probably partly due to Chicago has more totally manmade parks including beaches and harbors, lakes and lagoons needing upkeep. Playgrounds have also been increased throughout the city.

- Chicago also has a free zoo in Lincoln Park its busiest because of it. Not sure if the cost of the zoo is in monies for parks spent? Chicago also has its 2 newest downtown parks where access to concerts, movies and other uses is free to the public. Its newest Maggie Daley Park is filed with children facilities to play. It also has a ice skating rink in a ribbon around lighted sculptures in both parks.

- Philadelphia has more acreage of parks. But more is probably wooded and more natural around waterways that are in northern and western areas of the city.

- Chicago has its lakefront lined with Park's including its downtown. All man-made.

- Philadelphia has a very low amount of Park space along the Delaware river. Its other waterways have far more.

- Philadelphia seems to have much of its river-front for industry by the maps in PARKSCORE and a large southern portion of the city as Industrial.

- Chicago has a couple Industrial corridors that shoot through the city and a portion of its far south too.

Chicago's aim in its downtown was to add facilities (many as Parks and Pier) for entertainment. Today it includes its Navy Pier as one of the first and Millennium Park/Maggie Daley Parks filled with free attractions. It recently added more to its River-walk with outdoor cafés to kayak rentals.

Philadelphia's new plan to cap I-95 with Park space to connect the Delaware riverfront to the heart of Center City. Will be a GREAT boon for Tourist visiting.

* BOTH cities are close. But Chicago spending on and in its Parks tips the scale.

[personone]

Originally Posted by DavePa

-Methodology-
Acreage + Facilities and Investments + Access = PARKSCORE

-Scoring-
The scoring system recognizes the accomplishments of cities that have made significant investments in their parks without holding dissimilar cities to an unrealistic standard. It enables detailed analysis and allows cities to increase their ParkScore through incremental improvements to different aspects of their park systems.

To determine a city’s ParkScore, we assigned points in three categories: acreage, services and investment, and access.
◾Acreage: 20 points for median park size, and 20 points for park acres as a percentage of city area
◾Facilities and investment: 20 points for spending per resident and 20 points for the average of the four key facilities per-capita (basketball hoops, dog parks, playgrounds, and recreation and senior centers).
◾Access: 40 points for percentage of the population living within a ten-minute walk of a public park

Points for each statistic are assigned by breaking the data range established by our national sample into 20 brackets, with the lowest bracket receiving the least points and the highest bracket receiving the most points.

Each city’s total points—out of a maximum of 120—are then normalized to a ParkScore of up to 100.

PHILADELPHIA RANK #22 ParkScore w/map

- Philadelphia-Park Facts (PARK SCORE of 64)

Park acreage: 10,830 acres
People served per park acre: 143
Oldest municipal park: East Fairmount Park, est. 1855
Largest municipal park: Wissahickon Valley Park, 1,750 acres
Most-visited municipal park: Fairmount Park

- Philadelphia-City Stats 2016 -

City area: 82,913 acres
Median park size: 3.6 acres
Park land as % of city area: 13.1 %
* Spending per resident: $65.13 *
Basketball Hoops per 10,000: 4.1
Dog Parks per 100,000 Residents: 0.3
Playgrounds per 10,000: 1.7
Recreation / Senior Centers per 20,000 Residents: 2.1
Population density: 18.7 per acre

CHICAGO RANK #15 ParkScore w/map

- Chicago-Park Facts (PARKSCORE of 69)

Park acreage: 12,588 acres
People served per park acre: 217
Oldest municipal park: Grant Park, est. 1837
Largest municipal park: Lincoln Park , 1,216 acres
Most-visited municipal park: Lincoln Park

- Chicago-City Stats 2016 -

City area: 136,796 acres
Median park size: 2.2 acres
Park land as % of city area: 9.2 %
* Spending per resident: $171.79 *
Basketball Hoops per 10,000: 2.9
Dog Parks per 100,000 Residents: 0.8
Playgrounds per 10,000: 2.4
Recreation / Senior Centers per 20,000 Residents: 1.9
Population density: 20.0 per acre

By the stats and scoring. It seems-

- Chicago way outspends Philadelphia in Park maintenance and upkeep. Probably partly due to Chicago has more totally manmade parks including beaches and harbors, lakes and lagoons needing upkeep. Playgrounds have also been increased throughout the city.

- Chicago also has a free zoo in Lincoln Park its busiest because of it. Not sure if the cost of the zoo is in monies for parks spent? Chicago also has its 2 newest downtown parks where access to concerts, movies and other uses is free to the public. Its newest Maggie Daley Park is filed with children facilities to play. It also has a ice skating rink in a ribbon around lighted sculptures in both parks.

- Philadelphia has more acreage of parks. But more is probably wooded and more natural around waterways that are in northern and western areas of the city.

- Chicago has its lakefront lined with Park's including its downtown. All man-made.

- Philadelphia has a very low amount of Park space along the Delaware river. Its other waterways have far more.

- Philadelphia seems to have much of its river-front for industry by the maps in PARKSCORE and a large southern portion of the city as Industrial.

- Chicago has a couple Industrial corridors that shoot through the city and a portion of its far south too.

Chicago's aim in its downtown was to add facilities (many as Parks and Pier) for entertainment. Today it includes its Navy Pier as one of the first and Millennium Park/Maggie Daley Parks filled with free attractions. It recently added more to its River-walk with outdoor cafés to kayak rentals.

Philadelphia's new plan to cap I-95 with Park space to connect the Delaware riverfront to the heart of Center City. Will be a GREAT boon for Tourist visiting.

* BOTH cities are close. But Chicago spending on and in its Parks tips the scale.

Why are you so obsessed with this comparison/thread? You come back on here every few days with something new. I think just about every possible angle of this comparison has been hashed out in the 100+ pages. Can't we all just agree that these are 2 great cities????