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 don't anyone (well, almost anyone, there are a few silly posters here) Chicago not urban — far from it. However, with a few exceptions, it's far less urban than NYC. Or Tokyo or London.
Not accusing you just saying people in general. I like NYC, and most New Yorkers, but you certainly have a lot of arrogant posters there.
I get that and not denying that there is more streetlife in NYC, but it bother me that people don't consider Chicago urban because it's not to the standard of NYC, or Tokyo or London.
Chicago is certainly urban. Only caveat is Chicago *does* have more suburban features esp in Bungalow belt. Some of these are similar to what you will find in Queens or BK, and those areas in NYC, people in NYC consider them suburban, so same should be so for Chicago.
Chicago is certainly urban. Only caveat is Chicago *does* have more suburban features esp in Bungalow belt. Some of these are similar to what you will find in Queens or BK, and those areas in NYC, people in NYC consider them suburban, so same should be so for Chicago.
Chicago is definitely more suburban than NYC, but Chicago overall itself, is not suburban at all, just certain areas are.
Suburburan cities to me are cities like Houston, Dallas Charlotte, etc.
You need to go farther out into the boroughs to mimic that feel... Maybe something like Forest Hills, Queens which is 7 miles outside of Manhattan or something feels like walking down Lincoln or Clark Street in Chicago in those neighborhoods, of course diff demographics, different nightlife, but similar. Areas like Park Slope and Williamsburg seem busier and are certainly denser population wise than any of the Chicago neighborhood areas. But Queens is also kind of weird, b/c as nei has posted it's really developed along the transit routes. Somewhere like Flushings Chinatown is even farther out and feels like you have left the country and is busier than any neighborhood area I've seen in Chicago.
Forest Hills (North of Queens Blvd, south of it has lots of detached houses and attached homes scattered among green space) is still denser. And it's a good example of a non-high rise area reaching Chicago high rise densities. Here's a dense block in Forest Hills:
Oddly, the style looks identical project (NYCHA) buildings. I don't think they area, judging by subtle desging cues — the garage, red covering over the entrance I suspect Chicago private high rises never built private high rises that are identical in exterior appearance to housing projects. Nor nearly adjacent to office skyscrapers or city hall:
DId you even read the report? It broke Michigan down into different segements. It never said that all of Michigan Avenue. It is only accounting for the 14 blocks north of the river. There are about 20 blocks south as well. They only studied HALF of Michigan alone. Its says North of the River, which is only half of Michigan Avenue, it doesn't take consideration the south half.
Perhaps you should study up on Chicago geography before you make yourself look foolish
I didn't say anything about all of Michigan Avenue. I said the "Mag Mile," which even appears in the post you quoted.
Are you intentionally misreading things because this thread frustrates you so? I didn't say anything about all of Michigan Avenue. And NOBODY ever said that Chicago wasn't urban.
I didn't say anything about all of Michigan Avenue. I said the "Mag Mile," which even appears in the post you quoted.
Are you intentionally misreading things because this thread frustrates you so? I didn't say anything about all of Michigan Avenue. And NOBODY ever said that Chicago wasn't urban.
You do realize that the 44,000 though was only in a two block segment?! Water Tower is a plaza with a mall across the street. It's said highest counted was 44,000 at Water Tower, meaning out of the 14 blocks of the Mag Mile that was only in two blocks.
Look up Flotard and others, they have said Chicago outside of downtown is nothing but suburban.
Refer to page 29: Mag Mile sees 600k pedestrians on Saturdays......
Like I said next time you should do better research. And I am not trying to embarass you or anything.
How are you arriving at 600K pedestrians?
According to the study I posted, Times Square only sees 118,000 pedestrians per day. Oxford Street in London sees only 129,830 pedestrians between 8am and 8pm.
So how is it that the Mag Mile sees nearly six times the volume of Times Square or Oxford Street?
According to the study I posted, Times Square only sees 118,000 pedestrians per day. Oxford Street in London sees only 129,830 pedestrians between 8am and 8pm.
So how is it that the Mag Mile sees nearly six times the volume of Times Square or Oxford Street?
Maybe because Times Square isn't 14 blocks long?! Did you not look at the study? I even told you the page number. It was the study you provided, just expanded.
I think Times Square is about the same size (maybe slightly largers) than the Water Tower place. so if Times Square saw 118k pedestrians and Water Tower place 44k, it makes sense to me.
Last edited by Chicagoist123; 08-14-2013 at 02:58 PM..
Maybe because Times Square isn't 14 blocks long?! Did you not look at the study? I even told you the page number.
You didn't look at the NYC link I posted. It says the following:
Quote:
Times Square
118,000
Total length surveyed: 3.4 miles
East Fordham Road
80,570
Total length surveyed: 1.1 miles
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.