Does Chicago need its own Manhattan? (Industry: house, quality of life, taxes)

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by edsg25

agreed. but virtually all of Manhattan (with the possible exception of the far end of the heights uptown) has a special status based on density, extensive public rapid transit,lifestyle, attractions even without the CBDs in Midtown and Downtown.

Thus, I'm talking about could the Near North Side be more like the Upper West Side in that respect? Bucktown/Wicker Park like The Village? Hyde Park more like the Upper West Side around Columbia? Not necessarily with steroid induced density...just that transporation and connectiveness.

Thus I'm wondering if

Well, the density and transit kinda go together. Without high population density, extensive transit doesn't make much sense.

Maybe its because I'm not intimately familiar with Manhattan, but I guess I'm having a little difficulty understanding the point you are trying to make. Doesn't the Northside already serve the role of the residential Manhattan relative to the Loop/Midtown? Its already where the predominance of professionals with disposal income who desire urban amenities live.

[Swandaddy]

Originally Posted by edsg25

Chicago isn't Milwaukee, St. Louis, Detroit, Minneapolis, or Cleveland. They are far smaller and so are their metro areas and people have too easy of an access to what's in the heart of the city to increase close in urbanism.

It's interesting that you mention density and then throw in StL and Detroit as comparisons, as StL and Detroit are two very sprawling automobile dependent metro areas. For example, one of St. Louis's walkable attractions, the beautfiul and exciting Delmar loop, has parking lots that are almost as big as the Delmar loop itself, and the parking is free, which doesn't happen in Chi or NY.

As for adding a Manhattan-type to Chicago, the first thing that comes to consideration in my mind is geography--Manhattan is an island that is somewhat separated from the sea, while Chicago has it's lakefront which is like no other. If Chicago were to decide to undergo some of these development projects, the blueprints for them should involve fortifying the great benefits Chicago already derives from the lakefront.

[softdev]

I'm guessing you've only been to New York as a tourist.

Originally Posted by hsw

Most of economy is based in Midtown (~48-62 St and 3rd to 7th Ave), not unlike Loop; Goldman is the only relevant employer left in Downtown

1) Midtown extends many blocks south of 48th. You aren't even including Grand Central Terminal in your description.

2) Midtown extends past 7th Ave. You haven't even hit Broadway yet.

3) Goldman is by far not the only relevant employer downtown. American Express? NYSE? WSJ? Merill (BofA)?

Originally Posted by hsw

Most of means live in UES (S of ~85th St along 5th or Park) or 15 CPW or up in suburban Greenwich

Or the the Village or SoHo or TriBeCa or Midtown East or the rest of the UWS. You're fooling yourself if you think that "most" people of means live in the UES.

Originally Posted by hsw

And most of means are driven around (or drive selves) around Manhattan via Mercedes S550 (or 600 or 65) to office/schools/dinner, etc

Not unlike what many Citadel or Goldman guys in Chic do w/the Loop/GoldCoast/LincPk/Winnetka axis; where are their offices vs homes vs Alinea/Tru vs pvt schools of their kids; how do they travel around town, etc?...

Penis envy?

[softdev]

Originally Posted by tb4000

It's called the Gold Coast, lad.

About as close as you get to some of Manhattan's non-business districts in Chicago. Nice mixture of luxury retail, upscale restaurants, hi-rises and townhouses. It reminds me of my time in the UES with a little of the Village thrown in.

[prairiestate]

Ever heard of the Loop?

[roboto]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

Well, the density and transit kinda go together. Without high population density, extensive transit doesn't make much sense.

Maybe its because I'm not intimately familiar with Manhattan, but I guess I'm having a little difficulty understanding the point you are trying to make. Doesn't the Northside already serve the role of the residential Manhattan relative to the Loop/Midtown? Its already where the predominance of professionals with disposal income who desire urban amenities live.

Yeah, I dont get what edsg25 is trying to say.

We already easily have the second biggest downtown in the country, and its never going to be manhattan. Sure there are equivalent neighborhoods somewhat, and these areas are only just starting to be utilized in some cases. The near north is the densest residential neighborhood in the city, but the south and west loops are expanding and with that will come the greater transit access and density. And the north shore hoods serve as the UWS and UES versions as ultra dense residential hoods, I guess, but chicago-ized. I dont understand what your trying to get at edsg25.

Look, manhattan is manhattan. Chicago doesnt need one and couldnt create one, who cares. We just need to improve the density near the loop and rivernorth, and work on the central area transit plan (connect the metra lines and el onto one seamless system), and provide more infill on the south and west sides. Let NYC be NYC, and Chicago do Chicago - two completely different cities with different geographical restraints, different political machines, and different 'hoods. Sure our central area could probably fill up a couple hundred thousand people, we just need to work on our existing plans for development and transit, and densify even further.

[jdiddy]

If you were a hot dog, would you eat yourself?

More importantly, should you eat yourself?

How much of yourself would you eat?

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by roboto

Yeah, I dont get what edsg25 is trying to say.

We already easily have the second biggest downtown in the country, and its never going to be manhattan.

if you read what i wrote, roboto, you would see i was excluding both midtown and downtown in Manhattan like I would the greater downtown area in Chicago in what I was bringing up.

I was talking about Manhattan as a place where the neighborhoods themseles are tied together with extensive rapid transit service, that are exceedingly walkable in part due to this public transportation and where an in-between zone that is located between the high rise CBD's (two and Manhattan) and the traditional city neighborhoods that form the close in portions of the Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn.

In essence, I see New York as having the following progression in urban nature:

Downtown and Midtown CBDs - Rest of Manhattan - Urban core areas of Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn - suburban, almost village like areas of outer Queens, Staten Island, and the northern reaches of the Bronx.

No, I do want Chicago to be New York. I far prefer Chicago. It's not only home, but it works well for me. I can't think of a better city in the nation. I definitely do not want any part of New York density which, to me, exceeds livability.

And I have no desire to transport Manhattan to Chicago. I realize that it is an island and I'm in no way trying to recreate it in my mind here.

I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me on this topic. In fact, the notion itself should, by its nature, invite disagreement. I only ask that people read what I wrote and not put words in my mouth. (not suggesting that you did that here, roboto)

And my arguments here go far beyond just New York, but are generalized to our megacities (here and abroad) with huge populations. New York, in that respect, is not alone; here in the US, Los Angeles very much follows a New York model of transition from zone to zone.

I only use Manhattan here as an example so that those of you who have read my words have something to relate to in order to understand what I am saying.

So let me try to redefine my argument here.

Chicago could be looked at this way:

1. a large CBD, extending from North Ave to Cermak, from the lake to perhaps as far west as the UC

2. A highly urbanized area surrounding the core north, northwest, west, southwest, south, and southeast taking up most of the city

3. suburban like neighborhoods such as Sauganash, Forest Glen, Norwood Park, Beverly on the fringe.

My point is, should we make a new #2 (as 2 becomes 3 and 3 becomes 4) that already has pieces virtually in place (the lakefront from North to Hollywood and arguably to Devon, Bucktown/Wicker Park, Hyde Park). Could a zone like this increase density (but on a manageable and wise level), improve rapid transit, and be more of a tourist destination and a destination of other Chicagoans and suburbanites with more attractions within). This would be a zone that would change our paradigm on how we look at the CBD as being our core by making areas around it more part of the Chicago image and experience.

Could that new zone, arguably on the lakefront from Edgewater to Hyde Park and inland to places like Chinatown, Pilsen, UIC, the areas around UC/Med Ctr, Bucktown, Wicker Park...excluding the CBD be a Chicago parallel to Manhattan of to the urban areas of San Francisco that spread from its downtown west to Pacific Hts and the Marina and north to Telegraph and Russian hills, the Wharf, and the north waterfront.

As noted: Manhattan is merely a frame of reference. It definitely doesn't mean I would, in any way, trade Chicago for New York. I wouldn't.

And, as noted, if you still think my idea based on how I expressed it is nuts and something Chicago doesn't need (and even sillY), I'm fully comfortable with that, too.

[via chicago]

Streeterville.

[via chicago]

Originally Posted by coldwine

Ah ha! Yes. Goose Island.

Yeah, nothing good was ever done with Goose Island. It's such a complete and total waste of space.

Its a planned manufacturing district and has been permanently set aside for light-moderate industrial use. There are dozens of others throughout the city

http://www.ci.chi.il.us/webportal/CO...dust_10_07.pdf