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.
This comparison is rather ridiculous. Given this is CD, in most instances we are comparing cities on sheer urbanity. And in that category, Chicago wins. As the 5th largest city in the country, Philly is not small. But it is considerably smaller than Chicago, and doesn't feel nearly as "brassy" to me when I am in the heart of Chicago. Philly doesn't have an answer to the beautiful lakefront and to my lament, South Broad doesn't hold a candle to Michigan Avenue. So, on most "urbanity" measures, Chicago wins (except in the view of blatant homers).
Does that mean Philly is a loser? Not at all. It's a truly great city. When re-lcoating a couple of years back, I could have lived anywhere I wanted to (including Chicago) and chose Philly. I prefer the (still large) scale, the people, the location, the cultural offerings and it's "east coast" feel. The variety of cities, historical sites, beaches, bays, hamlets and varying topography I can reach within a two hour radius blows Chicago out of the water.
So on most measures that seem to count on CD, Chicago would win. On the only measure that counts for me (i.e., where I want to live), Philly wins.
This comparison is rather ridiculous. Given this is CD, in most instances we are comparing cities on sheer urbanity. And in that category, Chicago wins. As the 5th largest city in the country, Philly is not small. But it is considerably smaller than Chicago, and doesn't feel nearly as "brassy" to me when I am in the heart of Chicago. Philly doesn't have an answer to the beautiful lakefront and to my lament, South Broad doesn't hold a candle to Michigan Avenue. So, on most "urbanity" measures, Chicago wins (except in the view of blatant homers).
Does that mean Philly is a loser? Not at all. It's a truly great city. When re-lcoating a couple of years back, I could have lived anywhere I wanted to (including Chicago) and chose Philly. I prefer the (still large) scale, the people, the location, the cultural offerings and it's "east coast" feel. The variety of cities, historical sites, beaches, bays, hamlets and varying topography I can reach within a two hour radius blows Chicago out of the water.
So on most measures that seem to count on CD, Chicago would win. On the only measure that counts for me (i.e., where I want to live), Philly wins.
This is a pretty fair assessment. Chicago wins this fairly handily. However, Philadelphia is one of the better cities in the U.S. It's urban, vibrant, historic and has great architecture. IMHO, its geographical placement cannot be improved upon (smack in the East Coast metro corridor, an 1-1/2 from the Jersey shore, with beautiful, hilly Blue Mountain country just to the West.). If you compare Philly to any city that is not NYC, Chicago or SF, it likely wins, or at least puts up a valiant fight.
This comparison is rather ridiculous. Given this is CD, in most instances we are comparing cities on sheer urbanity. And in that category, Chicago wins. As the 5th largest city in the country, Philly is not small. But it is considerably smaller than Chicago, and doesn't feel nearly as "brassy" to me when I am in the heart of Chicago. Philly doesn't have an answer to the beautiful lakefront and to my lament, South Broad doesn't hold a candle to Michigan Avenue. So, on most "urbanity" measures, Chicago wins (except in the view of blatant homers).
Does that mean Philly is a loser? Not at all. It's a truly great city. When re-lcoating a couple of years back, I could have lived anywhere I wanted to (including Chicago) and chose Philly. I prefer the (still large) scale, the people, the location, the cultural offerings and it's "east coast" feel. The variety of cities, historical sites, beaches, bays, hamlets and varying topography I can reach within a two hour radius blows Chicago out of the water.
So on most measures that seem to count on CD, Chicago would win. On the only measure that counts for me (i.e., where I want to live), Philly wins.
What does "brassy" mean?
Quote:
brass·y 1(brs) adj.brass·i·er, brass·i·est1. Made of or decorated with brass. 2. Resembling brass, as in color. 3. Music Resembling or characterized by the sound of brass instruments: "The band was now playing some brassy march" (Robert Penn Warren). 4. Cheap and showy; flashy. 5. Informal Brazen; insolent.
Chicago doesn't compare to Philly. The city itself isn't as vibrant or interesting and not to mention inferior to Philly in the arts, beer, food, weather, education, festivals, etc. Chicago can't put on a good holiday celebration like Philly's 4th of July or New Year's Day.
When comparing cities, ONLY New York should be SLIGHTLY above Philly and that's because New York wins on QUANTITY while Philly's several notches above in QUALITY.
I still don't understand what that has to do with space constraints. Philly and Boston are built the way they are because of transportation/techonological limitations. It simply wasn't possible to build a city like Houston in the early 19th Century. So their urban form is the result of the technology of the time, not a lack of space. The fact that both cities have rather low density and sprawling suburbs turns the space constraint argument on its ear.
Good point. Maybe it's best to drop the word "space" from such statements. Or change it to "size" for simplicity/accuracy.
Chicago doesn't compare to Philly. The city itself isn't as vibrant or interesting and not to mention inferior to Philly in the arts, beer, food, weather, education, festivals, etc. Chicago can't put on a good holiday celebration like Philly's 4th of July or New Year's Day.
When comparing cities, ONLY New York should be SLIGHTLY above Philly and that's because New York wins on QUANTITY while Philly's several notches above in QUALITY.
Its funny how people can call Boston a bigger with with a population of 600,000 compared to 1,600,000. But people cant call Philly bigger then Chicago with 1,650,000 compared to 2,7000,000. You see there is a million person difference in all. Boston and SF posters are delusional.
Its funny how people can call Boston a bigger with with a population of 600,000 compared to 1,600,000. But people cant call Philly bigger then Chicago with 1,650,000 compared to 2,7000,000. You see there is a million person difference in all. Boston and SF posters are delusional.
It goes Chicago>Philly>Boston
Hate to shatter your ego, but I think you are the delusional one. Who is calling Boston "bigger" than Philadelphia? Let's break this down for you, nice and slooooooooooow:
City Limits:
Chicago < Philly < Boston
Urban Area:
Chicago < Philly < Boston
MSA:
Chicago < Philly < Boston
CSA;
Chicago < Boston < Philly
....So as you can see, the only metric where Boston is "bigger" than Philly is at the CSA level, so if somebody says "Boston is bigger than Philly" that is probably what they are referring to. Under no metric is Philly "bigger" than Chicago (Feel free to chime in with your silly Radius mumbo jumbo).
Hope this helps.
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.
s
) 
