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.
1) Anyone who thinks that only cities that are similar in size can be compared to one another is missing the point. There's more to this than just how many people there are. Los Angeles is officially closer in Population to Chicago versus Philadelphia to Chicago, but Philadelphia is more like Chicago than LA is. Even St. Louis with 320,000 people is more like Chicago than LA is. Population barely means jack ****. It's like looking at two women and thinking that every single thing about them and their personality, their abilities, etc is the same because they look alike. It's ****ing shallow and naive.
Regardless of population size. Chicago and Philadelphia are very comparable when it comes to what a city has to offer in amenities, infrastructure, culture, etc.
Regardless of population size. Chicago and Philadelphia are very comparable when it comes to what a city has to offer in amenities, infrastructure, culture, etc.
Which was exactly my point in the last paragraph of my post. Size barely means anything. It's a very, very minor part of comparing two cities. Istanbul and Karachi are only about 1 million people apart, but Istanbul is much more like Rome which is about 8-10 times smaller in population. Anyone with half a brain will tell you that for large cities, comparing population and using that as your basis is frivolous.
In the end, I was merely showing official statistics for someone who obviously did not check them claiming very confidently such things that LA is twice the size of Chicago which is nowhere close to true whether it's at the city level or the MSA level.
I'll say this again. The only reason the Chicago MSA has twice the population as the Philly MSA is because it has twice the land area as the Philly. Also when using the CSA or miles radius metric(which are better metrics for this type of comparison) the population gap between Philly and Chicago starts to close especially when each area starts to reach 6,000 and higher. I think that's also the reason why "Fitzrovian" didn't show the the population comparison between Philly and Chicago past 4000 sq miles because Philly would start to close the gap.
I didn't show the population comparison past 4,000 sq miles because it has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing -- which is the population of Chicago and Philly. Not the population of Pocanoes or Allentown or New York City. Philly and Chicago. Even 4000 sq miles is a stretch.
But just to make you happy:
5000 sq miles: Chicago 9.3m, Philly 6.4m.
6000 sq miles: Chicago 9.5m, Philly 6.8m. (2.7m difference -- just peanuts, right?)
Once you get into the 8000 sq mile range you are at a 52 mile radius from Philly. That takes you all the way to North Brunswick, deep in Middlesex County, NJ. What on earth does that have to do with Philly? Or are you saying that Philly's population becomes "very comparable" to Chicago once we start adding NY's suburbs to Philly? Sound logic.
I didn't show the population comparison past 4,000 sq miles because it has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing -- which is the population of Chicago and Philly. Not the population of Pocanoes or Allentown or New Brunswick. Even 4000 sq miles is a stretch.
But just to make you happy:
5000 sq miles: Chicago 9.3m, Philly 6.4m.
6000 sq miles: Chicago 9.5m, Philly 6.8m. (2.7m difference -- just peanuts, right?)
Once you get into the 8000 sq mile range you are at a 52 mile radius from Philly. That takes you all the way to North Brunswick, deep in Middlesex County, NJ. What on earth does that have to do with Philly? Or are you saying that Philly's population becomes "very comparable" to Chicago once we start adding NY's suburbs to Philly? Sound logic.
Fitz, anyone who lives in the NY/NJ/Philly area knows Middlesex County is influenced by Philly somewhat (especially the southern part). Anyone who actually lives in the NY/NJ/Philly area is familiar with the area knows the counties in NJ of Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth and Ocean have a Philly element to them. At the end of the day they can go to NY in the census, but they all are influenced by Philly somewhat. I'm not saying more than NY though. This goes for sports, accents, tv channels, radio, etc.
Fitz, anyone who lives in the NY/NJ/Philly area knows Middlesex County is influenced by Philly somewhat (especially the southern part). Anyone who actually lives in the NY/NJ/Philly is anyone familiar with the area knows the counties in NJ of Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth and Ocean have a Philly element to them. At the end of the day they can go to NY all day but they all influenced by Pholly somewhat. I'm not saying more than NY though. This goes for sports, accents, tv channels, radio, etc.
im from the nyc area, but philly def gets short changed on their msa numbers
chicagoland is still much larger tho, anyth over a million people difference is a significant amount, as that could represent a separate major city on its own
I didn't show the population comparison past 4,000 sq miles because it has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing -- which is the population of Chicago and Philly. Not the population of Pocanoes or Allentown or New Brunswick. Even 4000 sq miles is a stretch.
But just to make you happy:
5000 sq miles: Chicago 9.3m, Philly 6.4m.
6000 sq miles: Chicago 9.5m, Philly 6.8m. (2.7m difference -- just peanuts, right?)
Once you get into the 8000 sq mile range you are at a 52 mile radius from Philly. That takes you all the way to North Brunswick, deep in Middlesex County, NJ. What on earth does that have to do with Philly? Or are you saying that Philly's population becomes "very comparable" to Chicago once we start adding NY's suburbs to Philly? Sound logic.
I already acknowledge that Chicago still had larger population. All I said that the population gap shrinks when you get past 4000 sq. miles. Regardless of what the MSA boundaries are, the population gap between the two cities start to close as even your statistics start to show vs. the MSA population difference of 3.5 million difference.
I already acknowledge that Chicago still had larger population. All I said that the population gap shrinks when you get past 4000 sq. miles. Regardless of what the MSA boundaries are, the population gap between the two cities start to close as even your statistics start to show vs. the MSA population difference of 3.5 million difference.
No, what you said was: "You know the Philly MSA population would be very close to the Chicago MSA if Philly had similar size metro boundaries. It all depends on the metrics but either way both Chicago and Philly are very comparable."
Now you acknowledge that Chicago is larger? Good, we are making progress.
What statistics show is that the population gap only begins to close once you start adding the NY suburbs to Philly (and other areas with little to no relation to Philly). Not a complicated concept.
No, what you said was: "You know the Philly MSA population would be very close to the Chicago MSA if Philly had similar size metro boundaries. It all depends on the metrics but either way both Chicago and Philly are very comparable."
By comparable I was referring more towards what each city has to offer. I should have specified that part a little better.
Quote:
Now you acknowledge that Chicago is larger? Good, we are making progress.
Quote:
lol. I always said "Either way Chicago still has the larger population".
Quote:
What statistics show is that the population gap only begins to close once you start adding the NY suburbs to Philly (and other areas with little to no relation to Philly). Not a complicated concept.
But some of those areas in New York used to be part of the Philly MSA, hence is why I said miles per population radius was a better metric for comparing population between the two areas then MSA statistics.
No, what you said was: "You know the Philly MSA population would be very close to the Chicago MSA if Philly had similar size metro boundaries. It all depends on the metrics but either way both Chicago and Philly are very comparable."
By comparable I was referring more towards what each city has to offer. I should have specified that part a little better.
Quote:
Now you acknowledge that Chicago is larger? Good, we are making progress.
lol. I always said "Either way Chicago still has the larger population".
Quote:
What statistics show is that the population gap only begins to close once you start adding the NY suburbs to Philly (and other areas with little to no relation to Philly). Not a complicated concept.
But some of those areas in New York used to be part of the Philly MSA, hence the reason why I said using "miles radius" was a better metric for comparing population between the two areas then MSA statistics.
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.
