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.
These were comments made some way back in the thread that kept being repeated.
As for "who said Philly is better than Chicago", I'd say a good portion of the 31.37% of the people who voted in the poll for Philly(that is what the title of this thread is about, no?). Look at how many posts involve the word "better".
Philly can be compared to Chicago in certain specific aspects but in general terms they're in 2 diff. Leagues. Philly can be compared to most other cities in the country but New York-LA-Chicago are the leaders and make up the 1st tier. Or you might be able to make an argument that NY is in the 1st tier while LA and Chicago are in the 2nd. Either way, Philly and Chicago aren't even roughly equal.
It's not a bad comparison IMO. Philadelphia is a large metro, it's not the same as comparing LA to SD. Both share similar characteristics also -- like urbanity, crime, food, sports, etc.
Just look at the Lehigh Valley as a great example. Who would've thought 20-30 years ago that the Lehigh Valley would be added to the New York CSA. Of course Philly(city proper) will always have a culture distinct from NYC but there is no denying New York City's growing influence in the Northern(more particularly the Northeastern) suburbs of Philly. Sure Bucks County today doesn't have a high commuter rate to NYC but that doesn't mean it can't in the future. 20-30 years ago Mercer County, NJ had a very low commuter rate to NYC and look at it now. Burlington County, NJ has also seen a significant increase in commutership to the New York CSA. It wouldn't surprise in the next 10-20 years if Burlington County reaches the MSA threshold for the New York CSA. Like I said before Philly will always have a distinct culture from NYC but I can't say the same for its northern suburbs.
Eh, New York can have Bucks County and all of New Jersey for all I care. Like I said earlier, I'm really not that interested in suburbs. I'm into cities more than anything but also the outdoors. Bucks County has an amazing countryside and scenic towns but they will still be the same distance from Philly, even if the Census considers them "New York territory" on paper. Besides, Philly culture is too ingrained in the region for NYC to have any significant impact. Maybe in a couple decades but suburbs don't have much culture to begin with so who cares if they identify more with New York. Philly will always be Philly.
These were comments made some way back in the thread that kept being repeated.
As for "who said Philly is better than Chicago", I'd say a good portion of the 31.37% of the people who voted in the poll for Philly(that is what the title of this thread is about, no?). Look at how many posts involve the word "better".
Philly can be compared to Chicago in certain specific aspects but in general terms they're in 2 diff. Leagues. Philly can be compared to most other cities in the country but New York-LA-Chicago are the leaders and make up the 1st tier. Or you might be able to make an argument that NY is in the 1st tier while LA and Chicago are in the 2nd. Either way, Philly and Chicago aren't even roughly equal.
Look, I have always considered Chicago the "second city" but it seems like you're riding NYC's coattails a little. There is no NYC/LA/Chicago and then the drop off. NYC is the premier city in the country on any level and the drop off from NYC is ginormous.
In that respect Chicago is much more easily compared to Philly IMO.
Look, I have always considered Chicago the "second city" but it seems like you're riding NYC's coattails a little. There is no NYC/LA/Chicago and then the drop off. NYC is the premier city in the country on any level and the drop off from NYC is ginormous. In that respect Chicago is much more easily compared to Philly IMO.
This to me is actually true.
The difference between NYC and Chicago os far greater than the difference between Chicago and Philly on nearly any metric
I love all three for different reasons but love Chicago as a great cityin the Midwest that is very large and offers a ton
Chicago and Philly are different enough but on the same playing field, making it an interesting comparison.
Exactly. Chicago is clearly larger, but they are close enough to be comparable. Chicago has 9 million and Philly has 6-7 million.
It isn't like silly comparisons, where you have NYC vs Chicago, or NYC vs Philly or whatever, and you're comparing one city that's three times the size of the other.
Exactly. Chicago is clearly larger, but they are close enough to be comparable. Chicago has 9 million and Philly has 6-7 million.
It isn't like silly comparisons, where you have NYC vs Chicago, or NYC vs Philly or whatever, and you're comparing one city that's three times the size of the other.
While there is a point to this, I think this is much too shallow. For a general point, I think it's frivolous to only compare cities of like sizes on certain aspects. Certain aspects it's more than valid, but just because two cities are similar in population doesn't mean that they are more comparable than two cities that are further apart in population.
Istanbul is about 8-10 times the population of Rome, but the two cities are actually alike in many aspects.. if I only looked at populations, then I'd be missing the point about what makes a city. Just because their populations are off and some other things, doesn't mean there aren't other similar aspects among them even if one has more of it than the other and one has many, many more people than the other.
Exactly. Chicago is clearly larger, but they are close enough to be comparable. Chicago has 9 million and Philly has 6-7 million.
City Limits:
Chicago-2.7 million
Philly-1.5 million
Urban Area:
Chicago-8.6 million (probably closer to 9 million)
Philly-5.4 million
MSA:
Chicago-9.5 million
Phily-6.1 million
CSA:
Chicago-9.9 million
Philly-7.1 million
They are somewhat close but you clearly lowballed Chicago and made the two seem a little closer than they are. The city of Chicago is almost twice as big and the metro is about 50% larger.
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.
