Cities (large) most similar to Chicago (Evanston, Skokie: condos, crime rate, gated)

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

When times are good, it's easier to see the comparison of Chicago to cities of this caliber. From the late 90s through 2005, you could really feel the energy buzzing in Chicago--and there was a tremendous sense of optimism. But when the economy is in the dumps and winter is just starting to set in, people get negative and tend to compare Chicago to the "rust belt". Why? Because Chicago is a bi-polar city with one foot in the vibrant "creative class" San Francisco camp and one foot in the post-industrial Cleveland and Pittsburgh rust belt. People forget that New York, San Francisco, and Boston once had larger working-class populations, higher crime, and more significant urban decay. Heck, Seattle was seen as a dying lumber town in the 1970s (remember the phrase "Will the last person to leave Seattle please turn off the lights?"). Perceptions can change over time.

Good post Lookout.

[jdiddy]

Most of Chicago outside of the inner core reminds me of Queens.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Although I've haven't been to NYC (one of these days) but from what I've seen on streetview, I'd say the majority of Chicago looks more like Queens. Most neighborhoods are dominated by a single family hosues (on small, narrow lots) and two-three unit flat buildings. (still detached. We hardly have any true rowhouses (like in Brooklyn and most other east coast cities).

It's hard to say the bungalow belt and beyond is "most of Chicago". Maybe in terms of land mass, but the majority of the population of Chicago lives in apartments, not single-family houses. The two-flat, three-flat, four-flat, six-flat, and eight-flat are the primary housing types in Chicago if you look at the numbers of residential units. By a long shot, too.

I stand by my Brooklyn comment. Brooklyn is more dense and does have a lot of rowhouses, but the general feel is the closest thing I've seen to Chicago in any other city. And Brooklyn has a very diverse housing stock that includes apartment buildings of all types along with single-family detached housing. It's not all brownstones. Brooklyn is huge, man!

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by jdiddy

Most of Chicago outside of the inner core reminds me of Queens.

Similar period of development.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

It's hard to say the bungalow belt and beyond is "most of Chicago". Maybe in terms of land mass, but the majority of the population of Chicago lives in apartments, not single-family houses. The two-flat, three-flat, four-flat, six-flat, and eight-flat are the primary housing types in Chicago if you look at the numbers of residential units. By a long shot, too.

I stand by my Brooklyn comment. Brooklyn is more dense and does have a lot of rowhouses, but the general feel is the closest thing I've seen to Chicago in any other city. And Brooklyn has a very diverse housing stock that includes apartment buildings of all types along with single-family detached housing. It's not all brownstones. Brooklyn is huge, man!

Yes, I was thinking more in terms of landmass. Thats the geographer in me.

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

...We hardly have any true rowhouses (like in Brooklyn and most other east coast cities).

Not entirely accurate. While we have nowhere close to the number of row houses that many east coast cities have-we still have many examples of "true" row houses.

Chicago used to have a lot more-especially on the south and west sides. Many burned in the riots of the 1960's or were neglected and/or abandoned over the last several decades.

Mayor Daley has been extremely aggressive during his reign in tearing down unoccupied dilapidated buildings of all types. Most of these buildings have been located on the westside and southside. It is too bad many of these historic row houses (as well as many other types of buildings) were not protected,rehabbed, and saved. We still can work vigilantly to protect what remains however.

One still can find a decent amount of row houses in neighborhoods such as Near West Side,West Town,Bronzeville,and Oakland if you know where to look. There are also great examples that remain in the Lincoln Park area neighborhoods, as well as in Old Town,Gold Coast,and a few in Lake View even.

For example,do a Google maps street view of 2273 N. Cleveland in Lincoln Park. You will see a row of old row houses on the east side of the street to about 2245 N. Burling.

The maps here can help you find other specific locations of the districts where at least landmarked row houses exist:

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/Landmarks/Maps/Maps.html

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by Avengerfire

Not entirely accurate. While we have nowhere close to the number of row houses that many east coast cities have-we still have many examples of "true" row houses.

Chicago used to have a lot more-especially on the south and west sides. Many burned in the riots of the 1960's or were neglected and/or abandoned over the last several decades.

Mayor Daley has been extremely aggressive during his reign in tearing down unoccupied dilapidated buildings of all types. Most of these buildings have been located on the westside and southside. It is too bad many of these historic row houses (as well as many other types of buildings) were not protected,rehabbed, and saved. We still can work vigilantly to protect what remains however.

One still can find a decent amount of row houses in neighborhoods such as Near West Side,West Town,Bronzeville,and Oakland if you know where to look. There are also great examples that remain in the Lincoln Park area neighborhoods, as well as in Old Town,Gold Coast,and a few in Lake View even.

For example,do a Google maps street view of 2273 N. Cleveland in Lincoln Park. You will see a row of old row houses on the east side of the street to about 2245 N. Burling.

The maps here can help you find other specific locations of the districts where at least landmarked row houses exist:

Chicago Landmarks | Landmark Maps

I'm really partial to the 2000-2200 blocks of North Bissel. The rowhouses there are just gorgeous, but the west side of the street has to deal with 24/7 "L" tracks in the alley.

I once saw an old book at my grad school's architecture library that broke down the "vernacular" housing types in Chicago. The book was published in the 1960s, and mentioned that the West Side had once had the largest concentration of rowhouses in the city. Unfortunately a lot of those neighborhoods have been devastated. I would really like to find this book again, but I'm not sure how to find it since I don't remember the title or author.

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

...I once saw an old book at my grad school's architecture library that broke down the "vernacular" housing types in Chicago. The book was published in the 1960s, and mentioned that the West Side had once had the largest concentration of rowhouses in the city. Unfortunately a lot of those neighborhoods have been devastated. I would really like to find this book again, but I'm not sure how to find it since I don't remember the title or author.

I will try to find it.

Maybe it is this one:

Row houses and cluster houses; an international survey.
Author: Hoffmann, Hubert, 1904-1999.
New York, Praeger [1967]

[What'sthenameofthistown?]

Originally Posted by edsg25

No center cities in the US compare to New York, Chicago, and San Francisco, although Boston comes in an admirable 4th place.

I think Center City Philadelphia is bigger than Boston's downtown. More than 80,000 people live in Center City as well.

I don't see any similarity between Chicago and SF. Chicago seemed really spread out to me and surprisingly not very walkable outside of downtown and the neighborhoods along the lake to the north. A lot of it appeared built in an inhuman, unfriendly scale. SF on the other hand is quite walkable and is one of the most beautiful and unique cities in the world.

But I'm partial to Baltimore, my hometown, which is also a unique and eccentric city and isn't nearly as segregated (or flat) as Chicago.

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by What'sthenameofthistown?

...But I'm partial to Baltimore, my hometown, which is also a unique and eccentric city and isn't nearly as segregated (or flat) as Chicago.

I am not trying to pick a fight here,but how can a city that is 63.8% and 30.4% non-hispanic white not have many sections that are segregated?

"The Central region of the city includes the Downtown area...?" (Racial makeup not stated)

"The Northern region...home to many of the city's upper class residents..." (Racial makeup not stated)

"The Southern region of the city...working class ethnically mixed neighborhoods..."

"Northeastern Baltimore is...remains a diverse but predominantly African American region of the city."

"The Eastern region...is almost an exclusively African American area..."

"The Southeastern region...an ethnically rich section of Baltimore home to many Polish Americans, Greek Americans, African Americans, and Italian Americans."

"The Northwestern region...has become an almost exclusively African American area."

"The Western region...constitutes a deprived socio-economic group of African American residents..."

"The Southwestern region...has gradually shifted from having a predominantly White to a predominantly African American majority."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore

Reading this, I don't see how Baltimore is any less segregated than Chicago. In fact it seems just as segregated as Chicago and maybe even more so. According to the above statements about half of the areas of the city are overwhelmingly black.