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.
I think it's because you aren't very well-traveled and routinely make blanket statements that are very obviously ridiculous.
Lol the well-traveled card again huh? It was'nt really called for to pull it out in this case though. I was simply asking a question to those who know better than myself. This was just a weak attempt to impose a mightier than thou attitude on a self proclaimed king
So before i was so rudely interrupted can anyone whose not saddled on a high horse tell me how chicago and nyc differ. One sentence would do im not asking for a pamphlet
I think that Center City comes off as a little more dense, and with narrower streets, cobblestone and that 'history' feel. the vendors and italian market and chinatown in Philly help the cause.
Chicago's is just cleaner I thought. Not as dense. I definitely felt that with Chicago's High Rises, it felt more like how I'd imagine Manhattan would feel.
Just my two cents.PS I've been to Chicago about 20 times and Philly twice...
Since we are comparing downtowns, I'll take Rhittenhouse square over Millennium park any day. By the way, It seems like your definition of a downtown is tall buildings . Now the loop(near north side) does have the magnificent mile and more skyscrapers. But other than that, overall imo Center city is better than the loop in terms of urban environment (density cohesiveness etc) and vibrancy.
The Loop is far more urban than anything Philadelphia has to offer. You gotta be kidding me.
Btw, a fair comparison would be the Loop vs Market West, lmao there is no comparison there whatsoever. If you want to compare all of Center City, then you must include River North and the Gold Coast for Chicago. Either way, as far as vibrancy and urbanism is concerned, Chicago wins.
The crowds are bigger in Chicago during the day than Center City. The crowds on Michigan Avenue and the Loop are more bustling during the day time than Center City. At night, they are both about equal.
Center City has the neighborhood and charming vibe, but as far as density and vibrancy is concerned, I'd have to give it to Chicago by a notch. It's simply larger with more buildings, more upscale and the crowds are bigger.
There really is no arguing that Chicago is #2 after New York. Seems like a lot of people are just pickin at the downsides of Chicago and highlighting their own downtowns. Even though Chicagos downsides probably beat most other downtowns highlights.
Comparing the Loop to all of Manhattan is not apples & apples. To be fair to Chicago, the truer comparison would be the stretch of urban neighborhoods that flank the loop from the north and south. This linear progression of neighborhoods gives a similar variety of experiences that one finds in all of Manahattan. It's also a fairer geographic comparison. Manhattan is more than 13 miles long. If you stretch along the lake through a variety of urban neighborhoods, you will find things similar to Manhattan. If you want to be fair, compare the loop to Downtown Manhattan or another specific area of the island.
^This.
Also, some of you people on here need to realize that downtown chicago is far more than just the loop which is only 1.65 sq miles, downtown chicago is considered about 6-8 sq miles depending on definition. Comparing to CC Philly, you may as well throw in south loop, gold coast, and old town probably as well if you want to make apples to apples comparisons. Maybe even west loop. Downtown chicago is on a slightly different scale than CC. The loop is mostly office buildings, obviously there is little to do there after work hours.
If you want vibrant neighborhoods go up the entire north shore from the loop for 10-12 miles, as stated in the post above.
The Loop is far more urban than anything Philadelphia has to offer. You gotta be kidding me.
Btw, a fair comparison would be the Loop vs Market West, lmao there is no comparison there whatsoever. If you want to compare all of Center City, then you must include River North and the Gold Coast for Chicago. Either way, as far as vibrancy and urbanism is concerned, Chicago wins.
The crowds are bigger in Chicago during the day than Center City. The crowds on Michigan Avenue and the Loop are more bustling during the day time than Center City. At night, they are both about equal.
Center City has the neighborhood and charming vibe, but as far as density and vibrancy is concerned, I'd have to give it to Chicago by a notch. It's simply larger with more buildings, more upscale and the crowds are bigger.
Yes and no. You will see more people in the Loop than you will in Center City, yes. But Center City's advantage is that the city's CBD and many of its residential neighborhoods have been fused together. You only have to go a block or so off Market before you start seeing sushi shops, bike stores, jazz clubs, etc. In Chicago, it's more like "really tall buildings over here, all the cool stuff over there." If Downtown DC had tall buildings, I think it would be very similar to the Loop. Both cities have CBDs that are segregated from their more charming residential areas. What makes Center City so cool is that you can leave a highly commercial area and then be on a quiet, cobblestone residential street with rowhouses in a matter of minutes.
I have always considered Center City to be Manhattan without the crowds. That's a good thing, ya know. Have you ever tried using an internet cafe in Manhattan? Finding an open green space to have a picnic with your girlfriend in the park? Finding a place to sit to fill out grad school applications in a coffee shop? Lots of people can be a real pain in the arse. Center City gives you most of the same stuff Manhattan gives you (sushi bars, coffee shops, Mongolian rug stores) without the ferocious competition for access to its amenities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killaviews
Philly doesn't really have a downtown to compare to Chicago. Philly's downtown is more comparable to a Chicago neighborhood. The vibrancy I feel in downtown Philly is really similar to the vibrancy I feel in East Lakeview or Wicker Park/Bucktown.
Most parts of Philly's downtown have a neighborhood vibe, which is nice. But can it last? Growth and development pushes the neighborhood vibe outside of downtown and into the neighborhoods. There is no Magnificent Mile or Millenium Park in Philly, but I bet the city wishes it had something like them. Philly is certainly improving, but I'll bet improvements mean a downtown that feels more like Chicago and less like a neighborhood.
Uhh...not really. Center City can be very hectic at times. There's always a cabbie behind you honking and ready to fight or a biker whizzing down the street about to run into your car door as you open it. But the cabbies are the greatest annoyance to me. They are very aggressive and will honk you into oblivion the moment a light turns green. Wicker Park has more of a Dupont Circle feel to it whereas Center City has more of a West Village feel to it. I'd say that the Village is more high energy than Dupont Circle, but that's my opinion. I think Center City has a lot more pedestrian activity than neighborhoods like Bucktown, Greektown or Bronzeville.
The neighborhood vibe will always be there. Do you think they're going to demolish all of those 18th century rowhomes and build shiny, glass condos a la Gallery Place/Penn Quarter in DC? Philly definitely has the ability to accommodate more residential high rises and skyscrapers; Manhattan's been able to do it without killing the charm of Chelsea, SoHo, and Tribeca. Plus, any city can build skyscrapers. But what Philly has (cobblestone streets, old trolley tracks, 18th century homes, tight alleyways), no other city, Chicago included, can replicate.
And btw, we don't wish we had something like Millenium Park. Parks, imo, are not one of Chicago's selling points. I'd take a Union Sq, Tomkins Sq, Washington Sq, Rittenhouse Sq, Logan Sq, and maybe even a McPherson Sq over Millenium Park any day. The Magnificent Mile, on the other hand, is very nice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid Cann
I think that Center City comes off as a little more dense, and with narrower streets, cobblestone and that 'history' feel. the vendors and italian market and chinatown in Philly help the cause.
Chicago's is just cleaner I thought. Not as dense. I definitely felt that with Chicago's High Rises, it felt more like how I'd imagine Manhattan would feel.
Just my two cents.PS I've been to Chicago about 20 times and Philly twice...
Surprisingly, Chicago is denser than Philly. After visiting, I'm still having a hard time understanding how this is the case. Philly certainly feels more "crowded" for sure. If you're not careful with your elbows, you may break someone's living room window. Even New Yorkers complain about Philly being too "tight." But vis-a-vis Chicago, Philly seems denser, yes.
Last edited by BajanYankee; 08-28-2010 at 07:18 AM..
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.
can anyone whose not saddled on a high horse tell me how chicago and nyc differ. One sentence would do im not asking for a pamphlet
. Now the loop(near north side) does have the magnificent mile and more skyscrapers. But other than that, overall imo Center city is better than the loop in terms of urban environment (density cohesiveness etc) and vibrancy.
