Does Chicago need its own Manhattan? (Cleveland, Detroit: neighborhoods, live, wealthy)

[edsg25]

Chicago shares much structurally with New York. Chicago has a downtown which functions basically the same way that downtown and midtown function in New York. Chicago has edge neighborhoods like Sauganash and Beverly that are similar to the far edges of Queens or much of Staten Island.

What Chicago doesn't have is its own Manhattan: that core and critical part of the city that is more than just about a central business district but is built on density, intercorrection, accessabilty, and sense of urban pinnacle.

We do have elements of Manhattan away from the downtown core. Certainly the north side lakefront offers some of that feeling (with the red, purple, and brown lines a bit too inland to really drive the point home). Hyde Park might make it, too, but Manhattan doesn't come with gaps and that McCPl-to-HydePk gap is a big one (albeit filling).

Should Chicago, given its size, have its own Manhattan? Should higher density, extensive new CTA rapid transit lines, and a spreading of the wealth that is now concentrated from Cermak to North, the lakefront to Halsted be infused in a larger part of the near north, west, and south sides (and even mid-north and mid-south, for that matter)?

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.

But Chicago is different. It is huge. To enjoy its pleasures you need to give access a major thought. And it has the critical mass necessary to make those previously mentioned near and mid N, W, and S sides into a Manhattan like urbanity.

The questions would be:

should we?

and if we do, what type of boundaries are we talking about for this Manhattan like area?

[tb4000]

It's called the Gold Coast, lad.

[coldwine]

Actually, we sort of have our own Manhattan: the island south of North Ave and north of Chicago Ave between Halsted and the Kennedy. Damned if I can remember what the name of it is, but city planners have done absolutely nothing with that island.

[noid_1985]

Originally Posted by coldwine

Actually, we sort of have our own Manhattan: the island south of North Ave and north of Chicago Ave between Halsted and the Kennedy. Damned if I can remember what the name of it is, but city planners have done absolutely nothing with that island.

Isn't that Goose Island?

[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.

[Avengerfire]

[Chicagoland60426]

What Chicago need to do is dense its Southside a little more. The Loop, Near Northside, West Loop, and South Loop is the core. Its not a Manhattan core, but it should add up to around 200,000 or more residents.

[Venom]

Goose island.
I wish I lived there.

[coldwine]

On the island, Manhattan Island. Oh on the island, Manhattan Island... Oh those crazy Indians...

[oakparkdude]

I don't quite get the original post. Although there are some similarities to NYC, clearly the different geography and history make comparisons treacherous at best. SHOULD Chicago have a dense, wealthy, transit-friendly central area comparable to much of Manhattan? If the economics and demographic trends support it, I suppose so, but I guarantee it won't look anything like Manhattan.