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.
There's been one party rule in the Philadelphia a lot longer than you seem to know.
From 1866 to 1952 the city's mayors were all Republicans. So, in essence, Republican control of the city lasted longer so far.
Just a note - in 1866, the Republican party was a whole different animal. It was an Upper Midwestern (founded in Ripon, WI) progressive party built a decade earlier in opposition to slavery. It later shifted ideologies.
Just a note - in 1866, the Republican party was a whole different animal. It was an Upper Midwestern (founded in Ripon, WI) progressive party built a decade earlier in opposition to slavery. It later shifted ideologies.
Very true---the GOP was the dominant player in states like ME, NH, VT, MI, WI and MN for decades after the Civil War, because the Dems were strong in the South. There was an expression --"vote the way you shot", that would account for GOP strength in northern states. This philosophy faded as immigrants piled into northern states, and started to vote Dem...
I grew up in Phily (lived there for 15 years) and I've been living in Chicago since 2010 and still live there (currently in my 4th year of living in Chicago).
I like the city of Chicago better (it's an awesome city and imo the clear 2nd best city in the country behind NYC), but the surrounding areas are pretty boring and mundane.
Philly on the other hand is a good city (not as good as Chicago, but top 5-10 in the US), but the surrounding area is awesome. Some INCREDIBLE scenery in that area of PA not to mention the Jersey Shore, Atlantic City, NYC, DC all within easy reach (could do a day trip for all of them)...
Chicago has Madison and Milwaukee and a few decent areas, but in general the surrounding area outside the city is much less interesting...And Green Bay is to far for a day trip...
Last edited by NatureLover10; 09-10-2014 at 09:42 PM..
I think this is true - Chicago I love but do agree based on my experience the directly surrounding areas don't compare. I really don't think people realize how beautiful the surrounding areas of Philly really are (places like Bucks and Chester county are stunning and just not well known probably because they are so close to all the really large cities) - You also forgot the Chesapeake which is pretty amazing - comparable (maybe better than the lake in Chicago) let alone the Jersey shore which is also strikingly pretty and gets a an awful rap
though the DT and lakefront for the city of Chicago are pretty amazing in their own right
I grew up in Phily (lived there for 15 years) and I've been living in Chicago since 2010 and still live there (currently in my 4th year of living in Chicago).
I like the city of Chicago better (it's an awesome city and imo the clear 2nd best city in the country behind NYC), but the surrounding areas are pretty boring and mundane.
Philly on the other hand is a good city (not as good as Chicago, but top 5-10 in the US), but the surrounding area is awesome. Some INCREDIBLE scenery in that area of PA not to mention the Jersey Shore, Atlantic City, NYC, DC all within easy reach (could do a day trip for all of them)...
Chicago has Madison and Milwaukee and a few decent areas, but in general the surrounding area outside the city is much less interesting...And Green Bay is to far for a day trip...
Have you been to the Indiana Dunes National Park? One of the most diverse national parks in terms of biomes, plant and wildlife...Starved Rock is a day trip and has like 14 canyons with waterfalls, as does Matthiessen State Park. Amd just beyond the Indiana Dunes lies hundreds of miles or gorgeous Michigan coastline and quaint beach towns as well as Grand Rapids, an excellent city. In terms of urban attractions, of course Philly has a great location....but for three day weekends...Chicago's choice of destinations expands greatly, Cincy, Cleveland, Columbus, Detroit, Ann Arbor, Imdianapolis, Des Moines, South Bend, Louisville, St Louis....and don't assume that smaller Midwest cities are wastelands, in Iowa you have Iowa City, Dubuque, the Quad Cities. Even a small city like Beloit Wisconsin has interesting sites, one of the largest farmer's markets, a reviving downtown, a beautiful College Campus with Indian burial mounds.
Just because our Coastal oriented national media never references these places...doesn't mean they are devoid of attractions....
Chicago without question. There is no comparison here. Chicago is a world class city. Chicago is in fact classified as an alpha city by the GaWC study. Philly is classified a beta+ city. NYC, LA, and Chicago are THE cities that people around the world think of when they think of the US. The link below will give you an idea of how world cities are classified.
Chicago without question. There is no comparison here. Chicago is a world class city. Chicago is in fact classified as an alpha city by the GaWC study. Philly is classified a beta+ city. NYC, LA, and Chicago are THE cities that people around the world think of when they think of the US. The link below will give you an idea of how world cities are classified.
Seems like the only argument that can be made for Philly, is that it has better options for a day trip.
What does it offer as a city that Chicago does not have?
1. Cheaper cost of living
2. More walkable city
3. Better architecture
4. Better historical preservation
5. Not as much large street gangs
6. Better location
7. More passionate sports fans
8. Better weather conditions
#3 is especially subjective, and even if Philadelphia is more walkable, it's not by a very big margin. They're pretty close to one another when dealing with walkability. Philadelphia's walk score is 77, while Chicago's is 75. Boston's on the other hand is 80, so essentially Chicago and Philadelphia are closer than Philadelphia and Boston are. The South Side of Chicago (and some of the west side) skews these numbers a lot.
Go down to the neighborhoods on the following page. The population of neighborhoods they have with a minimum walk score is 1,235,665 people. Of those 86 neighborhoods, only 7 have a score of 77 while the others are higher. Averaging that out obviously it's more than a 77 walk score. The point is that it all depends on where you live. For over 40% of the population of the city, it's more walkable than Philadelphia is at close to the same population. In other areas, it's not. The cities are closer than you think in walkability. Arguing over Philadelphia versus Chicago walkability is like arguing over whether Dan Marino or Joe Montana was the better QB as if one was vastly superior to the other.
And yet Philadelphia still has the higher homicide, robbery, and assault rate per 100k people.
Quote:
7. More passionate sports fans
The two cities are about even on this, and IMO this is a turn off to many people anyway.
Last edited by marothisu; 09-21-2014 at 06:23 PM..
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.
