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.
If one were to compare living in D.C. to say a Midwestern city, I am sure it is something many would consider. My family and friends who live in D.C. love to make trips to Shenandoah, Philly, and NYC on the weekends. In regards to NYC, I mean I guess most people would consider it the "main" attraction of the East Coast (and the main attraction of the USA for that matter). But New Yorkers love to get out of dodge. The Catskills and ADK are filled with them on summer weekends, and I know of plenty of New Yorkers who travel to Boston, Philly, and D.C. as a getaway. No shade to the Midwest, but I am sure these New Yorkers would say they prefer its location over Chicago's.
Well, no shade to those cities or the Midwest whatsoever, but your average person who enjoys a good day trip is more likely to prefer the proximity to other truly major cities, mountains, beaches, Amish Country, etc. over what Chicago has. And I am not saying Chicago doesn't have some nice accessible day/weekend trips, but we're in a different tier here in Philadelphia.
This ongoing "debate" on city-data is kind of odd to me. I really don't understand people's attachment to this made up rule that one can only consider literal city or metro limits. I think something people confuse is that although proximity to hiking, beaches, other cities, etc. is not a reflection of a city's quality in itself, it has a very real bearing on the quality of life for many (most? all?) of the city's residents. It is simply a matter of whether you want to compare cities on a literal city limit vs. city limit level (which, in my estimation is not an accurate reflection of lived experiences), or you want to consider the holistic lived experience of living in a particular city. I'd say the latter is a better reflection of reality.
Back when I was younger and settling on a city to grow my career, I was deciding between Chicago, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh. Were I considering only city limits, I honestly would have chosen Chicago. Obviously, Chicago is the bigger city and more grandiose on many levels. But I knew that what a city had to offer me just within its limits would not be an accurate reflection of my lived experience. I chose Philadelphia because it offered most of what Chicago has to offer re: urbanity, transit infrastructure, institutions, "high culture," etc., albeit on a smaller scale. The smaller scale was worth it to me, because I am somebody who loves affordable and easily accessible day trips. As Duderino put it, the "synergy" of the East Coast is what really sealed the deal.
You're missing the point. Why is proximity only mentioned only when Philadelphia is bought up? When's the last time you've seen NYC get credited for being close to Philadelphia + DC?? I feel like that's the go-to attribute for people who can't elaborate on what makes Philadelphia a great city- I personally feel like it undermines Philadelphia's status as an elite city. Chicago - Milwaukee is roughly the same distance as NYC-Philadelphia and Chicago - Indianapolis is roughly the same distance as Philadelphia-DC, yet people will have you believe Chicago is "isolated"...
You're missing the point. Why is proximity only mentioned only when Philadelphia is bought up? When's the last time you've seen NYC get credited for being close to Philadelphia + DC?? I feel like that's the go-to attribute for people who can't elaborate on what makes Philadelphia a great city- I personally feel like it undermines Philadelphia's status as an elite city. Chicago - Milwaukee is roughly the same distance as NYC-Philadelphia and Chicago - Indianapolis is roughly the same distance as Philadelphia-DC, yet people will have you believe Chicago is "isolated"...
I get what you mean. People of overthinking a very simple statement. A positive attribute for Philadelphia is being near DC and NYC. Yet I've NEVER heard anyone (on here) mention the opposite.
However, it is a good thing logistically for future office, logistical, and industrial growth. Philadelphia is central and should be the number 1 spot for expansions in the Northeast.
You're missing the point. Why is proximity only mentioned only when Philadelphia is bought up? When's the last time you've seen NYC get credited for being close to Philadelphia + DC?? I feel like that's the go-to attribute for people who can't elaborate on what makes Philadelphia a great city- I personally feel like it undermines Philadelphia's status as an elite city. Chicago - Milwaukee is roughly the same distance as NYC-Philadelphia and Chicago - Indianapolis is roughly the same distance as Philadelphia-DC, yet people will have you believe Chicago is "isolated"...
Sorry, but I think you're missing the point. The point is the East Coast location is favorable for all of the major cities in the Northeast Corridor. Philadelphia is one of those cities, and maybe it feels like it gets mentioned more because NYC is like the premier attraction of the East Coast. It's really not any deeper than that. Philadelphia, NYC, and D.C. all have a favorable location. We are talking about Philadelphia vs. Chicago, so it seems logical that Philadelphia is coming up moreso than NYC or D.C. here.
And that's too bad if some people can't elaborate on all of the other reasons Philadelphia is a great city. Those people are obviously uneducated about Philadelphia, or perhaps they just have a negative disposition.
Milwaukee is an okay day trip destination. Indie, imo, is meh. They wouldn't be one of my top destinations in the country. I like the East Coast destinations better.
Overall Chicago is the best city in America in my opinion. If they could get their crime under control they would be unstoppable. Philadelphia isn't in Chicago's league.
Overall Chicago is the best city in America in my opinion. If they could get their crime under control they would be unstoppable. Philadelphia isn't in Chicago's league.
Sorry, but I think you're missing the point. The point is the East Coast location is favorable for all of the major cities in the Northeast Corridor. Philadelphia is one of those cities, and maybe it feels like it gets mentioned more because NYC is like the premier attraction of the East Coast. It's really not any deeper than that. Philadelphia, NYC, and D.C. all have a favorable location. We are talking about Philadelphia vs. Chicago, so it seems logical that Philadelphia is coming up moreso than NYC or D.C. here.
And that's too bad if some people can't elaborate on all of the other reasons Philadelphia is a great city. Those people are obviously uneducated about Philadelphia, or perhaps they just have a negative disposition.
Milwaukee is an okay day trip destination. Indie, imo, is meh. They wouldn't be one of my top destinations in the country. I like the East Coast destinations better.
Regardless what we may think or feel, there is a hierarchy of cities, both nationally and regionally.
Just as what's near New York is not mentioned as a reason to live there, so what's near Chicago is also not mentioned, and for the same reasons: New York sits atop the national hierarch and Chicago atop the Midwestern one.
But we know that many Chicagoans visit Milwaukee* just as many New Yorkers visit Philadelphia.
I do understand why some Philadelphians regard the proximity argument as a slight, for it's usually applied to the "lesser" city in a local or regional hierarchy. Thus we might hear proximity to Chicago given as a reason to live in Milwaukee, and we do hear proximity to Washington given as a reason to live in Baltimore but not vice versa.
New Yorkers' behavior suggests they don't consider Philadelphia's proximity a mark against it, however.
As for the topic of this thread, while Chicagoland is about one-third bigger than Greater Philadelphia, I don't think the differences between the two regions and core cities are so large as to make Chicago and Philadelphia not peers. Were Chicago as it is located where Philadelphia is instead, we'd hear people touting its proximity to New York, and if Philly as it is were in Chicago's place, we'd hear people talking about how close other cities are to it.
* I see I was incorrect in my prior post talking about cities within a 200-mile radius of other Midwestern cities. Both Milwaukee, which I completely overlooked, and Indianapolis are within Chicago's 200-mile circle.
Overall Chicago is the best city in America in my opinion. If they could get their crime under control they would be unstoppable. Philadelphia isn't in Chicago's league.
Ah a new user...
Anyways, Chicago does outdo Philadelphia is a few things, but your last comment is just not true. They are both top tier major cities even if one outdoes the other by a bit.
Anyways, Chicago does outdo Philadelphia is a few things, but your last comment is just not true. They are both top tier major cities even if one outdoes the other by a bit.
you moved to NYC? I thought you were in Philly lol
you moved to NYC? I thought you were in Philly lol
I've actually been in NYC for many years haha. From the Philadelphia suburbs, went to school in Philadelphia, lived there a while after school then relocated to NYC. But I follow Philadelphia development closely and never post in the NYC forum (I also travel to Philadelphia A LOT for work, so still very connected).
My boyfriend lives in Chicago, so I became very familiar with a 3rd city, beyond just work travel.
But related to this thread, I find Philadelphia and NYC much more similar from a layout, architectural, attitude, street-life standpoint, but I find Philadelphia and Chicago to be more similar in an overall stature comparison, hence my response above.
I've actually been in NYC for many years haha. From the Philadelphia suburbs, went to school in Philadelphia, lived there a while after school then relocated to NYC. But I follow Philadelphia development closely and never post in the NYC forum (I also travel to Philadelphia A LOT for work, so still very connected).
My boyfriend lives in Chicago, so I became very familiar with a 3rd city, beyond just work travel.
But related to this thread, I find Philadelphia and NYC much more similar from a layout, architectural, attitude, street-life standpoint, but I find Philadelphia and Chicago to be more similar in an overall stature comparison, hence my response above.
Ah nice! Did not know that. I get a few confused with locations.
I know this going to sound weird, but I always see:
New York like Philadelphia
Chicago like Boston
I know there is a lot to explain there.. but heavily being in 3/4 of those and visiting Philly a lot, I see Philly with so many similarities to NYC, and Chicago/Boston having a lot of similarities. Built architecture, tourist spots similarities, urbanity, people, cuisine, pace and culture.
I always find NYC and Philadelphia pretty much one of the other. Chicago and Boston, while not as close as NYC+PHL are pretty similar in itself. Unpopular opinion, Im sure.. but thats the vibe I get from both.
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.
(I also travel to Philadelphia A LOT for work, so still very connected). 
