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 wish Philly would attract more companies and foreign investment. Philly does have a great location, but I hate to think Philly's most valuable asset is that it's close to NYC and Washington DC.
Welcome to the world of Baltimore.
Both cities forever live in the shadow of their larger "neighbors" despite they themselves being large, divererse independent economies with rich historic cultures
Chicago is a far nicer city imo. Some of the 'hoods'in Philadelphia are some of the worst looking I've ever seen. Many of the 'hoods' in Chicago on the other hand still look decent.
Chicago is a far nicer city imo. Some of the 'hoods'in Philadelphia are some of the worst looking I've ever seen. Many of the 'hoods' in Chicago on the other hand still look decent.
I wish Philly would attract more companies and foreign investment. Philly does have a great location, but I hate to think Philly's most valuable asset is that it's close to NYC and Washington DC.
And don't worry, no need to think that about its great location at all. I bet the topic has come up a lot when comparing Philly to Chicago, because it sticks out as a particular asset over Chicago. Many people here also love the history, built urban environment, big city amenities, comprehensive public transportation, thriving sports scene, thriving nightlife, cuisine, and so forth. There are so many assets to this city, it would be silly to think that!
Chicago is a far nicer city imo. Some of the 'hoods'in Philadelphia are some of the worst looking I've ever seen. Many of the 'hoods' in Chicago on the other hand still look decent.
Kind of an odd thing to jump to when comparing these two, because unless you live in one of these areas, most people who live elsewhere in the cities have little reason to visit them.
Kind of an odd thing to jump to when comparing these two, because unless you live in one of these areas, most people who live elsewhere in the cities have little reason to visit them.
My point is that overall Chicago is a much cleaner and more well-maintained city.
Chicago is $900 million in the red and freight training towards bankruptcy. So is the state of Illinois. The city is going to have to raise property taxes which will further exasperate the population decline and tax base shrinkage, or go bankrupt due to not being able to service it's debts. Bankruptcy obviously has it's downsides, but I do think the city should. It probably will stop some major investments from flowing in, but it should slow the decline of the rest of the city.
My point is that overall Chicago is a much cleaner and more well-maintained city.
Your point shouldn't hold much weight to anyone.
When picture living somewhere, do you just imagine yourself as a ghetto drug dealer? Maybe that's the type of person you are, but for me a comparsion between which 'hood' is the worst is virtually meaningless. I would imagine that holds true for a vast majority of people.
Chicago is $900 million in the red and freight training towards bankruptcy. So is the state of Illinois. The city is going to have to raise property taxes which will further exasperate the population decline and tax base shrinkage, or go bankrupt due to not being able to service it's debts. Bankruptcy obviously has it's downsides, but I do think the city should. It probably will stop some major investments from flowing in, but it should slow the decline of the rest of the city.
The quasi-bailout from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania saved Philadelphia from that fate, and fortunately, we had a mayor at that time who took full advantage of the reprieve. The city today might not be as good as it is had Ed Rendell not run it for eight years, with the quasi-bailout occurring as he got started.
Illinois is in no position to toss Chicago a similar lifesaver right now.
I'd also like to address that "better-maintained city" comment. I agree with it, and it points to an interesting compare-and-contrast between the two cities.
Both cities have legendary corruption and machine politics, though Philadelphia experiences spasms of "good government" every now and then (Clark/Dilworth, Michael Nutter, and even Ed Rendell). I tell people that Philadelphia politics resemble those of no other American city as much as they do Chicago's. An Illinois-born-and-bred (Chicago-area) Republican friend of mine who also lives in Philly says both have highly transactional political cultures, and he's right.
The difference, IMO, is that Chicagoans have a history of getting something for their graft.
Chicago: Five new and relocated rapid transit lines and extensions.
Philadelphia: Two out of a planned six, and those two weren't fully built out according to plan.
Chicago: Millennium Park.
Philadelphia: We are going to build that cap over I-95, right?
We did get the more impressive City Hall, but it took us 30 years to build it, and the commission charged with building it was perennially starved of money. Nonetheless, it remains the most expensive government building ever built in this country.
I don't know exactly how Chicago has managed to run off the rails given this history.
When picture living somewhere, do you just imagine yourself as a ghetto drug dealer? Maybe that's the type of person you are, but for me a comparsion between which 'hood' is the worst is virtually meaningless. I would imagine that holds true for a vast majority of people.
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.