Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Chicago vs. Philadelphia
Chicago 568 65.21%
Philadelphia 303 34.79%
Voters: 871. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-10-2012, 07:13 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
32,119 posts, read 34,767,213 times
Reputation: 15093

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Summersm343 View Post
Do you ever interact with Philadelphian's? And I mean born and raised Philadelphian's.... not suburbanites from Newtown. I have met some of the most down to earth honest hardworking people in my life here in Philadelphia. People who would donate a kidney to a neighbor.
Well, considering I was born and raised in the city, I'd say so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-10-2012, 07:18 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
8,701 posts, read 14,710,087 times
Reputation: 3668
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Well, considering I was born and raised in the city, I'd say so.
Well then I retract my statement lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2012, 10:41 PM
 
Location: In the heights
37,188 posts, read 39,473,415 times
Reputation: 21293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Summersm343 View Post
Guy, I was using it as an example. Obviously I don't give a crap.
I know you were using it as an example because you were using it as an example. The part where you used it as an example is the part that's ridiculous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2012, 12:37 AM
 
Location: The canyon (with my pistols and knife)
14,187 posts, read 22,768,179 times
Reputation: 17399
I think Chicago would have a built environment more similar to Philadelphia if it hadn't burnt down. They basically got to start over from scratch, and they rebuilt their city like Philadelphia on steroids: an easily-navigable grid pattern with wider streets and more elbow room between buildings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2012, 06:15 AM
 
1,750 posts, read 3,394,550 times
Reputation: 788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnutella View Post
I think Chicago would have a built environment more similar to Philadelphia if it hadn't burnt down. They basically got to start over from scratch, and they rebuilt their city like Philadelphia on steroids: an easily-navigable grid pattern with wider streets and more elbow room between buildings.
I think you are overestimating how much of Chicago was destroyed in the fire; it wasn't that big of an area; but do agree the city would probably look drastically different than it does today, had the fire not happened.

Edit: 3.3 sq miles were destroyed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2012, 10:39 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
32,119 posts, read 34,767,213 times
Reputation: 15093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnutella View Post
I think Chicago would have a built environment more similar to Philadelphia if it hadn't burnt down. They basically got to start over from scratch, and they rebuilt their city like Philadelphia on steroids: an easily-navigable grid pattern with wider streets and more elbow room between buildings.
There are photos online of Chicago before and after the fire. I don't think Chicago and Philadelphia were really that similar before the fire. Chicago has more in common with DC and Old Toronto from a design and architectural standpoint, imo.

Before and After | The Great Chicago Fire & The Web of Memory
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2012, 12:23 PM
 
11,289 posts, read 26,221,630 times
Reputation: 11356
Quote:
Originally Posted by prelude91 View Post
I think you are overestimating how much of Chicago was destroyed in the fire; it wasn't that big of an area; but do agree the city would probably look drastically different than it does today, had the fire not happened.

Edit: 3.3 sq miles were destroyed.
Less than 1/3 of the city was left homeless, and basically the street plan was the exact same one before the fire as after. I always forget what a small area actually burned. It's just so well known because it was the entire business district. The fire never really left the area bordered by Halsted, Armitage and the Loop. Today that would be thought of as a very smal area from downtown up to the near north side along the lakefront.

It did let the city rebuild the entire business district though, and that massive upshoot in development really pushed Chicago's economic engines and let it ride a massive wave of growth from the 1870's into the new century.

Cook County (basically the entire Chicago area up until the 1950's)

1840 10,201
1850 43,385
1860 144,954
1870 349,966 <---- Chicago Fire
1880 607,524
1890 1,191,922
1900 1,838,735
1910 2,405,233
1920 3,053,017
1930 3,982,123

From nothing to around 4 million people in 90 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2012, 09:55 AM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,384 posts, read 28,535,266 times
Reputation: 5884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago60614 View Post
Less than 1/3 of the city was left homeless, and basically the street plan was the exact same one before the fire as after. I always forget what a small area actually burned. It's just so well known because it was the entire business district. The fire never really left the area bordered by Halsted, Armitage and the Loop. Today that would be thought of as a very smal area from downtown up to the near north side along the lakefront.

It did let the city rebuild the entire business district though, and that massive upshoot in development really pushed Chicago's economic engines and let it ride a massive wave of growth from the 1870's into the new century.

Cook County (basically the entire Chicago area up until the 1950's)

1840 10,201
1850 43,385
1860 144,954
1870 349,966 <---- Chicago Fire
1880 607,524
1890 1,191,922
1900 1,838,735
1910 2,405,233
1920 3,053,017
1930 3,982,123

From nothing to around 4 million people in 90 years.
Where did you get that 1930 number, I thought Chicago's population peaked in 1950 at 3.6 million.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2012, 10:07 AM
 
Location: Maryland
4,675 posts, read 7,414,300 times
Reputation: 5369
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
Where did you get that 1930 number, I thought Chicago's population peaked in 1950 at 3.6 million.
The numbers are for Cook county, not just Chicago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2012, 10:08 AM
 
1,750 posts, read 3,394,550 times
Reputation: 788
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
Where did you get that 1930 number, I thought Chicago's population peaked in 1950 at 3.6 million.
That 3.9 number is all of Cook County.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top