Chicago vs DC Metro, who has the better amenities (Boston, skyscrapers, downtown)

[mas23]

Originally Posted by DC's Finest

I'm not talking about vibrancy or density. I'm talking about urban residential neighborhoods. 14th, you mentioned neighborhoods on the northside but venture south or west and you won't find that urban Chicago that you speak of. In the 70's going down Cicero, Chicago looks surburban as ever with strip malls galore. Baltimore has that Philly affect. Rowhouse on top rowhouse even though a lot of the neighborhoods are bombed out. Chicago does not have consistent structural density. Those flats remind me of 1950's suburbia.

The 70's going down cicero is the South west side. One of the more suburban-like sections but even that area is not really all that "suburban" Not to mention parts of it actually border the burbs. Now, the if you were to be on say, 71st & Jeffery thats as urban as you can get outside of the N. Side. Chicago is a big city thus its going to have many different types of structures. Baltimore, D.C. and philly do not cover as big an area.

What you just said would be like me going to south east Queens and saying "Man its so suburban. I though NYC was all dense"

mas23

[mas23]

Originally Posted by grapico

Yeah it certainly isn't suburban... there are 15 SFH style homes on my block, but only 2 of them are actual single families, the rest are 3 level housing units with 3 sets of people living in them. There are also 7 Courtyard style buildings and 1 brownstone type building... each courtyard style building has about 45-50 units a piece and are 4 stories high. Chicago housing is scatter brained like that. Some of the better neighborhoods such as Lakeview look like this, but has density over 30K...Looks can be deceiving and it certainly doesn't have the same gritty look as say Baltimore or tight streets.

The thing is there are a few areas that have "tight" streets and the homes are not too far from the street. And most likely they were built before the fire.

They're are not as common place Like in Baltimore or Philly but If you look hard enough you'll find em.

mas23

[14thandYou]

Originally Posted by Dncr

This thread should have been over after Danny made his post. He pretty much summed up everything I was going to say, but didn't bother to. D.C offers pretty much everything Chicago offers, Chicago just obviously has more because of its larger size. There really isn't anything to argue about in this thread as there is no clear winner in any category. D.C and Chicago are essentially urban equals. Chicago may have a slight edge on D.C because of its size, but both cities stack up well against each other, as well as many others.

Agreed. Both are great cities, and highly enjoyable. Two of my favorite in the country, up there with San Francisco.

[EastBay-NowDCarea]

Originally Posted by grapico

Yes it is true...

you could just go down the lake and getting close to Their pops in 16 square miles.


16388 1.6 loop
63484 1.8 rogers park
62198 2.7 edgewater
63551 2.4 uptown
94817 3.2 lake view
64320 3.2 lincoln park
72811 2.7 near north side

421181 population 16 sq miles 26,323k density

could just add in say logan square or west ridge or really any other combination depending on where you want to go west and jump their populations in another 5-6 sq miles.

these #'s are actually a bit LOWER than they are, Near North Side is now 97,811k for example.

that is why people say Chicago has that "big city" feel...

here is a good pic as example... might need to enlarge it.



This is 12 miles north of downtown...

As said with near north community area, the North/NW sides of Chicago continue to get denser while the south side continues to lose population.

This has noting to do with amenities, just like density, even though Chicago Metro is larger, there is more commercial office space in DC metro..

Info from another thread posted over a year ago:

Information obtained from Grubb-Ellis.

CBD:

Chicago: 125,301,390
Washington: 103,329,163

Metro:

Chicago: 232,353,064
Washington: 299,939,676

With all of the development in DC metro, and the many more that are in construction, DC is going to even higher in this category..and this doesn't even include Baltimore metro..since Bmore is considered in CSA metro terms.

[Libohove90]

Originally Posted by EastBay-NowDCarea

This has noting to do with amenities, just like density, even though Chicago Metro is larger, there is more commercial office space in DC metro..

Info from another thread posted over a year ago:

Information obtained from Grubb-Ellis.

CBD:

Chicago: 125,301,390
Washington: 103,329,163

Metro:

Chicago: 232,353,064
Washington: 299,939,676

With all of the development in DC metro, and the many more that are in construction, DC is going to even higher in this category..and this doesn't even include Baltimore metro..since Bmore is considered in CSA metro terms.

And what does office space have anything to do with amenities? Are you implying that because DC metro has more office space it is more of a business/financial hub than metro Chicago is? I would seriously disagree. Los Angeles has more office space in its metro than Chicago does but that does not mean it is a more important center of business and financial activities.

Lets argue restaurants, Chicago is a top 3 city in that regard with its own Michelin guide. Would you consider that as a better amenity? How about nightlife? Education? How do these two metro areas stack up? Does the DC metro have a better transit system than Chicago does? This thread is not about whether the metros have certain amenities or not, its about which metro offers *better* amenities.

[DC's Finest]

Mas,

I understand what you are saying, but if you look at my statement, I said pound for pound. The same can be said of SF. Pound for pound it is urban as Chicago. The problem lies in what urbanity is to some people who post here. Of course the Loop is more urban than DT Baltimore but the Loop is one neighborhood in a huge city. The rest of Chicago is not like the Loop. It's mostly residential. I have been to Chicago plenty of times and I know all about the Northside but the Southside and Westside are totally different, hence the pound for pound analogy. I know Baltimore is not an urban mecca because of its blighted areas but the city is very urban from a residential standpoint. If you poll 100 people on city data and show them pics of Baltimore's neighborhoods filled with rowhouses and then show Chicago's flats, I would bet my paycheck that most would choose Baltimore's residential urbanity, which is more consistent throughout the entire city. Chicago has huge swaths of areas around Midway that look like the burbs.

[EastBay-NowDCarea]

Originally Posted by Libohove90

And what does office space have anything to do with amenities? Are you implying that because DC metro has more office space it is more of a business/financial hub than metro Chicago is? I would seriously disagree. Los Angeles has more office space in its metro than Chicago does but that does not mean it is a more important center of business and financial activities.

Lets argue restaurants, Chicago is a top 3 city in that regard with its own Michelin guide. Would you consider that as a better amenity? How about nightlife? Education? How do these two metro areas stack up? Does the DC metro have a better transit system than Chicago does? This thread is not about whether the metros have certain amenities or not, its about which metro offers *better* amenities.

I guess you didn't read my post. I said I realize that my post has absolutely nothing to do with amenities. Since chicago posters were posting items that had nothing to do with amenties such as density, I decided to be like some of the Chicago posters and mention something that had nothing to do with amenties...so I pointed out the fact that DC metro has more commercial office space than Chicago.

Going back to amenities, it's pretty much a draw between the two cities, but with a slight edge to Chicago for its large core. However, as soon as you consider the outer areas of the two cities then the edge goes to DC metro.

Western outer areas of DC:

[the resident09]

DC wins on location, weather, and proximity to East Coast destinations alone. Both cities are great, of course Chicago is way larger in the city proper. DC's suburbs blow Chicago's out the water in terms of importance and amenities...7 of the top 10 wealthiest counties in the country are DC suburbs, Chicago's are not even in the top 10. I agree though haven't we seen these DC vs Chicago threads before??

[14thandYou]

Originally Posted by DC's Finest

If you poll 100 people on city data and show them pics of Baltimore's neighborhoods filled with rowhouses and then show Chicago's flats, I would bet my paycheck that most would choose Baltimore's residential urbanity, which is more consistent throughout the entire city. Chicago has huge swaths of areas around Midway that look like the burbs.

And what do you consider places like Roland Park, Guilford, Homeland, Fort Washington, Northwood, Govans and pretty much all of South Baltimore? They're hardly meccas of urbanity. Comparing the more urban parts of Baltimore to the Midway Airport region is a purely faulty comparison.

I think you're cherry picking neighborhoods in each city in an attempt to further your point. Sure, if you compare Federal Hill with, say, Rogers Park, Baltimore will look more "urban". But that's not an apt comparison. Compare Federal Hill to Lincoln Park, Bolton Hill to Old Town, Fells Point to Wicker Park, Canton to Bucktown, and so on. You'll find that Chicago has, in sum and proportionately, far more "residential urbanity" than Baltimore.

[the resident09]

Originally Posted by Chicago South Sider

Good points but as another poster already pointed out, Cook county is only around 960 square miles or so. Anyway, Chicago's urbanized area is still more populated than DC-Baltimore's CSA and it's only 2200 square miles. You have to go a long way in DC to find 8 million people. It's not really comparable to Chicagoland.

This whole square milage vs density thing can be misinterpreted easy. You do not have to go "That far" to find the majority of that 8 million. The majority of the DC MSA square milage is stretched out beyond the NOVA suburbs and Frederick county MD in places where the population is much more spaced out. Within a 20 mile border of DC you have 5 counties over 600 or 700,000 people Montgomery, Fairfax, both over 1 million, you still have PG county over 800,000 and AA county and Howard (20 miles from DC) are around 700,000 but a part of Baltimore's MSA. This of course is still not counting the population of both DC and Baltimore which are over 600,000 a piece.

Keep in mind the entire DC-Baltimore CSA doesn't yet even have a building over 40 stories, which if so in that case would really begin to trump Chicago