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.
Take the downtown area of all American cities. I’m talking here about the greater downtown area, so it’s a lot more than just the CBD. I’m talking core, the center city. For downtown status, I’m including only one area for every city except New York, which with Downtown and Midtown gets two.
I’m going to make two contentions about Chicago when comparing it downtown core with other cities. And, of course, I’m interested in whether you agree or disagree with me.
CONTENTION #1: WHEN IT COMES TO THE “COMMONS”, DOWNTOWN CHICAGO IS IN A CLASS BY ITSELF
No downtown area packs in as many amenities as greater downtown Chicago (which I will refer to as “GDC” from this point). Through the private sector and very, very much through the public, no downtown is enriched the way ours is.
Chicago uses its downtown area as a meeting place, the place we come together like no other city. Think of what is contributed by the public sector: the lakefront with its parks and beaches, Navy Pier, the Museum Campus and all its cultural institutions, the largest public library building in the nation, the ever evolving River Walk, the streetscaping that is the magnificent mile, the Art Institute, the public and private sector sculptures that line Dearborn, the front door that is Grant Park, Soldier Field, McCormick Place, etc.
And, of course, more through the private sector, the shopping streets…Michigan Avenue on the near north side, State Street in the Loop. the incomparable street wall of Michigan Avenue’s east end of the Loop, Hancock and Sears (sorry…that’s the only name I use) observatories, the mind boggling number of restaurants in the core, theatrical venues (Orchestra Hall, Chicago Theatre, Civic Opera, Auditorium, etc.).
And on and on, the GDC’s offerings are spectacular.
CONTENTION #2: Chicago is the most core-centric city in the US
Chicago revolves around its downtown core like no other US city. Chicago is wheel-and-spokes, Chicago is concentric circles in a way no other city is. Like Rome, all roads lead to downtown Chicago. Literally. Our expressway and rapid transit system are designed to bring people into and out of the core (admittedly not to our betterment as we are extremely limited in connecting points away from downtown to each other).
Look at our commuter rail stations: four (Union, Ogilvie, Randolph, LaSalle) puts it ahead of Midtown Manhattan (if you count Grand Central and Penn both being Midtown).
Look at a street map or a railroad map of the midwest and you will easily see that all converge on the GDC.
Now I will fully grant that Manhattan is in a world by itself as a draw. No comparison. Anywhere. But Manhattan is not “core”, it is a very long (although not Long) island where its two cores, downtown and midtown, are far apart. And parts of Manhattan are so far flung that they not only are not core, they’re actually periphery. I’m thinking of the northern tip, places like Inwood or Morningside Heights. Not only is downtown Brooklyn more “core” than they are, Quite frankly, so is a place out of state: Jersey City.
YOUR OPINIONS?
So…..am I right, wrong, or somewhere in between on this.
It's a result of Burnham's plan, and later Montgomery Wards efforts to keep the beach open to the public. Of course the founding of Chicago's Park District later helped.
Regarding its centralization, I'm not so sure. Many cities have sports stadia downtown; Chicago really doesn't. The railroads make the downtown area convenient, and you often hav to go downtown before you can get anywhere (though there are other transfer points).
I kind of agree. Most towns that people visit for tourism have things all over the place. I've been to all Major cities along the coast from Seattle to San Diego and cross town travel was always necessary.
When I bring people to Chicago it's just a train ride downtown and we can walk to all the spots they have to see. Sure it takes up the whole day and you end up tired. But you walked it. Not took a cab from the southside to the northside.
The farthest thing people might have to travel to are the night spots. Even those all have a CTA stop along them.
Although I kind of did enjoy traveling through L.A., SD, SF, PDX, and Seattle and seeing the city.
I kind of agree. Most towns that people visit for tourism have things all over the place. I've been to all Major cities along the coast from Seattle to San Diego and cross town travel was always necessary.
When I bring people to Chicago it's just a train ride downtown and we can walk to all the spots they have to see. Sure it takes up the whole day and you end up tired. But you walked it. Not took a cab from the southside to the northside.
The farthest thing people might have to travel to are the night spots. Even those all have a CTA stop along them.
Although I kind of did enjoy traveling through L.A., SD, SF, PDX, and Seattle and seeing the city.
Chicago is concentrated in "one place" if the huge greater downtown area can be considered "one". And that place has a real advantage: it's flat. Let's defy CW and state the reality: flat=good. Flat comes with feasibility, connectability and with the best platform on which a building can rest; flat flows. And when you throw in an endless lake and a river that runs through that compacts and tightens, you have what I would consider absolutely the best downtown in the nation as a site for aesthetically building your building. What you have is that flat platform with the critical mass of a downtown area that has no need to "aspire" insofar as already scaled to what you'd want it to be.
In such terms, downtown Chicago, downtown Manhattan, and midtown Manhattan are the only places that operate on that form of critical mass. But Chicago differs from the two NYC areas in the sense that both downtown and midtown are not the type of platforms that are designed to give a building a presence of any sort other than the view of skyline apart from it. Manhattan buildings are virtually invisible in Manhattan short of "looking up", save for from Central Park.
While in Chicago which is going through yet another downtown boom, the setting for your buildings works not just from afar....but up close.
With the Amazon lottery still in on going, I strongly suspect (1) Chicago will not get the HQ and (2) it is lucky for that (and I pity the city that wins the Amazon lottery in the sense of that old joke (no longer true by any measure in what is now one of the best cities in the nation): First prize, one week in Philadelphia; second prize, two weeks in Philadelphia.
But you accept the givens that (1) it won't be Chicago and (2) this is a good thing, you'd still have to admit that Chicago provides the best site, the best location in which to construct its HQ.
All this, to me, means that Chicago has an asset, an attraction, that surpasses any city, this baby (Chicago) bear of "not too big, not too small, but just right". Both NYC cores, as noted, do not showcase. Any other city but Chicago, does not and will not have that "critical mass" that Chicago has......SF and Boston are small cities and their cores are limited in growth....LA is an incredible city, urbanizing in the best of ways, and remarkably has a real, very real, downtown in ways never dreamed possible. And that downtown will get better and better...but it's limited....not by real estate, but mainly because it doesn't have any waterfront (the Chicago River is to the LA River/drainage ditch what the Mississippi River is to the Chicago River). I'm mention Philly again: it is the one city, sharing legacy status with Chicago and having the potential of growth to reach critical mass. But it won't happen due to proximity: it's as close to Manhattan as we are to Milwaukee and also a short distance from DC.
I honestly believe what I said: Chicago is the best downtown area in the nation by far....and we would do well to realize that and use it as a great selling point for our city.
Manhattan is so consistently dense that in many ways I'd consider it a single core.
Otherwise, Chicago clearly has the second biggest core in the US, and I agree it's probably the most core-centric city. I love Downtown Chicago.
Seattle wouldn't be far back. The city is 45% the size (let's say 4.5 vs. 10m), and by some measures its core might be a similar ratio. With hotel rooms and office space the core would be about 1/3 of the regional total. (Nobody measures office space accurately, despite the brokerages who attempt it, but that's my approximation.) Downtown Seattle has most of the city's major culture and pro sports, it's the largest retail concentration, it's the center for all levels of government, and it has the most hospitals. That said, we're still filling out, albeit at a furious pace.
Manhattan is so consistently dense that in many ways I'd consider it a single core.
Otherwise, Chicago clearly has the second biggest core in the US, and I agree it's probably the most core-centric city. I love Downtown Chicago.
Seattle wouldn't be far back. The city is 45% the size (let's say 4.5 vs. 10m), and by some measures its core might be a similar ratio. With hotel rooms and office space the core would be about 1/3 of the regional total. (Nobody measures office space accurately, despite the brokerages who attempt it, but that's my approximation.) Downtown Seattle has most of the city's major culture and pro sports, it's the largest retail concentration, it's the center for all levels of government, and it has the most hospitals. That said, we're still filling out, albeit at a furious pace.
Yes, true, but Sattle really needs to get rapid transit in place for this to happen. They need to be more like the west coast's other truly major cities, SF and LA. Other than that DT Seattle has so much going for it
True, we need more rail transit. It'll take a while but another $60b or so has been passed by voters, and grade-separated rail extensions north and east are well underway with others coming.
Seattle's in-city SOV commute rate was almost exactly the same as Chicago's in the 2016 ACS, each a little under 50%. Admittedly Seattle's city limits are closer in and include less of the MSA/CSA/UA. Chicago had a significant edge in transit percentage and Seattle made up for it with walking, biking, and working from home.
LA has a nice rail system but its overall transit commute share is much worse than Seattle's.
Chicago downtown is great. I am constantly reminded of this when I visit other American and international cities. I'm not saying that there aren't other great ones. The core, the architecture, the lake, it all adds up to something stunning. I just got back from L.A. and I was not impressed. Been there a few times. I just wish we did not have all the other fiscal and urban problems we have.
Chicago downtown is great. I am constantly reminded of this when I visit other American and international cities. I'm not saying that there aren't other great ones. The core, the architecture, the lake, it all adds up to something stunning. I just got back from L.A. and I was not impressed. Been there a few times. I just wish we did not have all the other fiscal and urban problems we have.
LA is not a legacy city. SF is. SF is the only legacy city west of the Mississippi and south of the Ohio. Only two US cities outside the norteast corridor havevthe sense of urbanity......Chicago and San Francisco.nnone others compete.
SF's urban nature, obviosly confined to the hilly tip of a peninsula, is also the product of its unique development: when gold was discovered in 1849 and 49ers (nt the Candlestick or Santa Clara variery) descended on San Francisco en masse. The result:SF exploded from settlement to city overnight, completely skipping the village and town phases.
When SF shoock and burned to the ground in 1906, LA was still a backater...its explosive growth just ready to begin, partiularly with the west's prime city in shambles.
So LA was really a product of the 20th century and was never going to look like NY, Chi, SF (which shared the same first great urbanization, the start of real cities from the time of the Civil War'end up to WWI.
Ad that LA, circa 1906, was really nothing more then the core and its surroundings, an area now on the cities far east end. Virtually any placeevocative of LA....Hollywood the Hollywood Hills, Westwood, Bel Air..were yet in city limits. For much of the 20th century, LA were peripheral to Los Angeles.
So LA's downtown was always going to have imitations. Throw in there is no body of water that great cities seem to need, LA's downtown had limited horizons. Now I say I really do like LA and I am impressed with all the good things happening downtown...but there are a lot of limitations
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.
