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.
Philly and Chicago are both similar in that they are (comparatively) affordable big cities, with blue collar roots, booming urban cores and some still struggling areas.
But since the OP was asking about size, I would have to say Boston. Philly feels a little bigger than Boston, but in the grand scheme of things Boston and Philly are far closer in terms of urban scale than Philly and Chicago are.
Philly and Boston are a lot closer in metro population (1.2 million difference) than Philly and Chicago (3.3 million difference).
Anyway, obviously not accounting for population, I would say Philadelphia is much more like New York City than Chicago, although it has approximately the same population density as Chicago.
I have lived in both Philly and Chicago. Visually there is obviously more of a resemblance to Boston, with the historical colonial architecture that runs through the city. However, in terms of infrastructure, especially at the neighborhood-level, I definitely see similarities to Chicago (not familiar enough with Boston as far as neighborhoods go). Demographically, it's probably more similar to Boston. Chicago definitely has a much larger Hispanic presence at about 1/3 of the pop (although they are mostly Mexican vs mostly Puerto Rican in Philly), but the white and black populations seem similar in terms of size and presence. Lots of historic ethnic neighborhoods and enclaves in each of the 3 cities.
Although, as many others have said, I don't think "smaller Chicago" or ""bigger Boston" would be good descriptions.
The "colonial architecture" that, in your view, "runs through", Philadelphia is just a small part of the whole. A great deal of what Phila. consists of is Victorian(and Edwardian), or slightly before. That is Philadelphia has been absolutely stamped by the 19th century. It also consists of a ton of housing built in the 20th century.
And, another correction. Philadelphia has a lot of Mexicans now.
The "colonial architecture" that, in your view, "runs through", Philadelphia is just a small part of the whole. A great deal of what Phila. consists of is Victorian(and Edwardian), or slightly before. That is Philadelphia has been absolutely stamped by the 19th century. It also consists of a ton of housing built in the 20th century.
And, another correction. Philadelphia has a lot of Mexicans now.
Beacon Hill, the North End, and Charlestown have buildings dating back to before the revolution, right?
In any case, the towns around Boston have plenty of old houses. Does the Philly area really have more surviving pre-1776 buildings than Boston?
Edit: Ah, nevermind. According to this source most of the buildings on Beacon Hill were built after the war.
Beacon Hill and the North End are almost all post-colonial. Charlestown I think has some older housing. There are really very very few building in Boston that predate 1790. Even most of the famous landmarks there are Federal Style and to a lesser extent Georgian. Boston is #1 for Federal architecture.
Probably less than Philly.
You also referenced neighborhoods that make up Maybe 2-2.5 square miles out of Boston's 48 square miles.
Charlestown is about 1.4 square miles and fewer than 2k people lived there before 1800. The North End is .36 square miles and Beacon Hill is about one half a square mile..Outside of that I cant think of any neighborhood with anything remotely colonial.
Of the link you provided only 2 of those buildings are in Boston.
Beacon Hill and the North End are almost all post-colonial. Charlestown I think has some older housing. There are really very very few building in Boston that predate 1790. Even most of the famous landmarks there are Federal Style and to a lesser extent Georgian. Boston is #1 for Federal architecture.
Probably less than Philly.
You also referenced neighborhoods that make up Maybe 2-2.5 square miles out of Boston's 48 square miles.
Charlestown is about 1.4 square miles and fewer than 2k people lived there before 1800. The North End is .36 square miles and Beacon Hill is about one half a square mile..Outside of that I cant think of any neighborhood with anything remotely colonial.
Of the link you provided only 2 of those buildings are in Boston.
There are very few cities with vast amounts of pre 1780 buildings even London mostly dates from the 1800s other than a few buildings.
Also there are several colonial homes in some of the outer village centers as well like on Dorchester heights and such.
The majority of Philly is also like 1820-1920
Last edited by btownboss4; 08-16-2019 at 01:58 PM..
The "colonial architecture" that, in your view, "runs through", Philadelphia is just a small part of the whole. A great deal of what Phila. consists of is Victorian(and Edwardian), or slightly before. That is Philadelphia has been absolutely stamped by the 19th century. It also consists of a ton of housing built in the 20th century.
And, another correction. Philadelphia has a lot of Mexicans now.
Whatever....you know what I meant. It is a small part, but it's still part of the fabric of the city.
And for your other correction, show me the data that "Philadelphia has a lot of Mexicans now." My comment was in comparison to Chicago. I've lived in both cities and the Hispanic presence is felt much more so in Chicago compared to Philly. Chicago is 1/3 Hispanic with 80-90% of them being Mexican (most of the others being Puerto Rican). I was just making a relative comparison between the two cities in that regards, genius...
Chicago and Boston are more alike in neighborhoods than Philly is to either. You will hear Chicago locals say this very, very frequently when they visit Boston, and vice versa.
Lincoln Park could almost be in Boston. Back Bay could almost be in Lincoln Park/Gold Coast. Lakeview and the Fens are sometimes indistinguishable. Seaport and Streeterville/River North too. Ditto Allston and Wicker.
West Loop/Randolph is certainly unique to Chicago. Charlestown unique to Boston.
Philly far more resembles NYC in that way. Areas like Fishtown and East Passyunk come to mind immediately.
EDIT: Wicker and Allston not so much
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.
