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 am not trying to be a homer but there is a significant difference between the geographies outside these two. And it doesnt take two hours to reach it, not even close and its not really a destination per se, it is what the whole perimeter becomes. There is nothing like the rollings hills and valleys outside the Philly area in Chicago
I love Chicago but this is an aspect that has significant differences
I am not trying to be a homer but there is a significant difference between the geographies outside these two. And it doesnt take two hours to reach it, not even close and its not really a destination per se, it is what the whole perimeter becomes. There is nothing like the rollings hills and valleys outside the Philly area in Chicago
I love Chicago but this is an aspect that has significant differences
I am just pointing out that Chicago is more than just flat land. The city is, but outisde of that it certainly is not. Never said the topography was better in the Chicago area.
I am not trying to be a homer but there is a significant difference between the geographies outside these two. And it doesnt take two hours to reach it, not even close and its not really a destination per se, it is what the whole perimeter becomes. There is nothing like the rollings hills and valleys outside the Philly area in Chicago
I love Chicago but this is an aspect that has significant differences
Agreed, I've driven around both areas, it's no contest. Philly easy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicagoist123
I am just pointing out that Chicago is more than just flat land. The city is, but outisde of that it certainly is not. Never said the topography was better in the Chicago area.
It's still mostly flat despite a few nuances. These nuances are everywhere around Philly with more dramatic stuff. It's a major difference to me. And that Devil's head pic is 3 hours away from Chicago. 3 HOURS to get to that and the topography is still not like wow or anything, you are still only at 1300 feet elevation max. You can literally go right outside Philly and find similar stuff. That kind of topography is EVERYWHERE from Philly all the way to almost Pittsburgh as well as back SW towards WV and getting into 4000+ foot mountainous terrain if you were to go that far and there is way way more of it.
I am not trying to be a homer but there is a significant difference between the geographies outside these two. And it doesnt take two hours to reach it, not even close and its not really a destination per se, it is what the whole perimeter becomes. There is nothing like the rollings hills and valleys outside the Philly area in Chicago
I love Chicago but this is an aspect that has significant differences
Sure, there are differences. We're just trying to provide a counterpoint to the "Well outside Phildelphia there's A, B, C, and D" that is "Outside Chicago, there's A, B, C, and D, as well. They're different, but there's stuff outside of Chicago." We're just trying to say that Chicago isn't a bubble; that is, there are other cities within train and driving distance, there are places to hike, there are picturesque farm areas and small towns, there are huge sand dunes and rocky beaches. There's more to Chicagoland and its surroundings than just Chicago. Pennsylvania is a beautiful state, but Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana and Michigan all have beautiful and charming areas, too. One plus about the Philly area is that some of these charming places are in a bit closer, but they are also not that far away in the Chicago area. My personal favorite getaway outside the Chicago area, within just a few hours is Galena, Illinois, but I really like the proximity of Chicago to Madison and Milwaukee, too.
I still disagree, outside of Chicago is very weak in terms of outdoors stuff, you need to get several *hours* away for anything decent on the same caliber of right outside city limits of other places and it still isn't that impressive. Not sure why everybody is saying it isn't like this. The East Coast cities have way more to do, and it isn't close. Chicago can of course compete city wise, but it's no contest really in terms of outdoor activities and beautiful scenery. Guess we will have to agree to disagree, I know what I've seen with my own eyes.
I have never been in Philly but I would love to go. Im sure it is adorable. I have been to NYC and it was nice but the one thing I don't like is the cost of living. I am a city person and want to live as close to the city as I can in a decent part. Can I do that In NYC or even in Philly. Here in Chicago I pay 1075 for a nice 2 bedroom in a great area, less than a mile from the lake, close to 2 different cta stops and bus stops that all take me down town within 30 minutes. So quality of life is also something I consider.
I have never been in Philly but I would love to go. Im sure it is adorable. I have been to NYC and it was nice but the one thing I don't like is the cost of living. I am a city person and want to live as close to the city as I can in a decent part. Can I do that In NYC or even in Philly. Here in Chicago I pay 1075 for a nice 2 bedroom in a great area, less than a mile from the lake, close to 2 different cta stops and bus stops that all take me down town within 30 minutes. So quality of life is also something I consider.
Philadelphia you can. Chicago and Philadelphia are the US's two most affordable great urban cities.
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.