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.
biggest difference from today is the Midtown business district has less skyscrapers. Not as many residential high rises in the Upper East Side, Midtown East, etc either. In addition, some of the housing projects along the East River appear not to have been constructed yet. The ports are still in use, too. Today:
Most Chicagoans don't compare the density to NYC. Chicago is a dense city but not like NYC and no other city is really like that in the US. There are a few areas of Chicago which can be on par with some dense areas of NYC, but it's small - mainly Gold Coast and Lakeview which in some areas has a density of 50,000 - 70,000 per sq mile and is growing (especially around Gold Coast and River North) but it's only measured in the thousands, not millions like NYC. Overall, the north side of Chicago has a density of around 20,000-25,000 per sq mile, which is more on par with hmm..Queens. Overall though, no NYC is much denser than any major US city.
In reality, most Chicagoans who know anything about density of cities including their own would compare it to Boston, and on the north side to San Francisco.
I know Chicago is dense. The first time I went there My breath was taken away from the size of Chicago's massive skyline. I spent quite a bit of my time around Belmont and Clark and the areas around there were very dense. Up until than uptown in minneapolis was the densest I had ever seen. It's just insane that New Yorks density is so much higher. I have not been to New York but I hope to go someday.
I know Chicago is dense. The first time I went there My breath was taken away from the size of Chicago's massive skyline. I spent quite a bit of my time around Belmont and Clark and the areas around there were very dense. Up until than uptown in minneapolis was the densest I had ever seen. It's just insane that New Yorks density is so much higher. I have not been to New York but I hope to go someday.
I had the opposite perspective: I was expecting something a bit closer in density NYC when I visited. I knew it wouldn't be Manhattan, but I expected some small sections would resemble Manhattan more. The fact it's so big and has a massive skyline help me expect something closer. And yes, I still liked Chicago. Here's a typical commercial streetview outside the skyscraper districts of NYC:
about 1.3 miles south of the Empire State Building:
Brooklyn, but still denser (maybe 1.5-2 times) than Belmont & Clark:
Looks a bit more appealing once the leaves are out. A nearby commercial street:
One other difference in that neighborhood is that small stores (and even often larger stores like supermarkets) rarely have parking. You wouldn't get a Dunkin Donuts on that commercial street with parking. Some avenues in the outer boroughs are more car-oriented, see here:
biggest difference from today is the Midtown business district has less skyscrapers. Not as many residential high rises in the Upper East Side, Midtown East, etc either. In addition, some of the housing projects along the East River appear not to have been constructed yet. The ports are still in use, too. Today:
Cool video you posted earlier. I didn't realize they can do color that good going that far back. Amazing. Here's something I dug up. The Singer Building in the Manhattan skyline. It was a crime they had to destroy this building. This was like the Chrysler Building of Lower Manhattan.
Looking up at the Singer Building
Yeah, compared to the 1950's I can only imagine how many old buildings they have demolished for new ones since then. Here's are some photos I shot last October of last year a bit out dated but a stark contrast compared to previous decades.
You know the name of this new tower circled in yellow that went up? I can't be bothered going over to SSP to doing a search if I don't even know the name of it. I wonder if it's mix use or all residential. Nice looking design.
It's this one located along W. 57th near 7th Avenue behind the Essex House building near Central Park.
View of it from Central Park
Most Chicagoans don't compare the density to NYC. Chicago is a dense city but not like NYC and no other city is really like that in the US. There are a few areas of Chicago which can be on par with some dense areas of NYC, but it's small - mainly Gold Coast and Lakeview which in some areas has a density of 50,000 - 70,000 per sq mile and is growing (especially around Gold Coast and River North) but it's only measured in the thousands, not millions like NYC. Overall, the north side of Chicago has a density of around 20,000-25,000 per sq mile, which is more on par with hmm..Queens. Overall though, no NYC is much denser than any major US city.
In reality, most Chicagoans who know anything about density of cities including their own would compare it to Boston, and on the north side to San Francisco.
Correct, over all NYC over laps Chicago or any other in the country with more density. (unless we compare a Charlotte Street type area of the Bronx to another urban neighborhood in Chicago)
Cool video you posted earlier. I didn't realize they can do color that good going that far back. Amazing. Here's something I dug up. The Singer Building in the Manhattan skyline. It was a crime they had to destroy this building. This was like the Chrysler Building of Lower Manhattan.
I forgot about the Singer Building. I'll have to look that up. That's a shame, though the old Penn Station is the worst offender, especially since so many people (including me occasionally) pass through it.
Quote:
Yeah, compared to the 1950's I can only imagine how many old buildings they have demolished for new ones since then. Here's a photo I shot last October of last year a bit out dated but a stark contrast compared to previous decades.
Most of the time I'd assume demolished buildings were small and probably not all that special. While I don't think Chicago has better skyscrapers than NYC, I do agree Midtown has a lot more generic buildings in it which detracts. Outside of Midtown, not that much has been demolished since the 50s, in fact a lot of the streetscapes look near identical to today. The median age of Midtown buildings (all buildings, not just skyscrapers) is some time in the 1940s.
But not all those demolished were generic. Skyscrapers in NYC preferred to build on larger lots rather than buying up a number of smaller lots (occupied often by low-rise buildings), which might be hard to assemble together or run the risk of getting an odd owner that won't sell at any price. For this reason, the Empire State Building was built over the site of the historic Waldorf-Astoria hotel:
Today, near there are a bunch of bland low-rise buildings nearby, but they ended up surviving. At least this nearby hotel (got turned to condos) is still around:
Quote:
You know the name of this new tower circled in yellow that went up? I can't bothered going over to SSP to doing a search if I don't even know the name of it. I wonder if it's mix use or all residential. Nice looking design.
Yep, it's One57. Got media attention after its construction crane fell to the ground in Hurricane Sandy. All-residential, final height will be 1004 height. Another Midtown residential high rise, 432 Park Avenue, will be even taller: 1398 feet. By roof height, excluding spires and antennae, it will be the tallest in the city. Why couldn't they make it 100 feet taller and beat the Willis Tower?
Correct, over all NYC over laps Chicago or any other in the country with more density. (unless we compare a Charlotte Street type area of the Bronx to another urban neighborhood in Chicago)
Does Chicago have anything equivalent to Charlotte Street, as in sections of the city where the housing was deliberately destroyed by arson?
Yep, it's One57. Got media attention after its construction crane fell to the ground in Hurricane Sandy. All-residential, final height will be 1004 height. Another Midtown residential high rise, 432 Park Avenue, will be even taller: 1398 feet. By roof height, excluding spires and antennae, it will be the tallest in the city. Why couldn't they make it 100 feet taller and beat the Willis Tower?
I thought 432 Park Ave would be the tallest in America as far as overall roof height/occupied. Technically it'll be taller than the Willis as it seems the height occupied is only 1354 Feet. But including spires and everything else Willis will still be taller.
I forgot about the Singer Building. I'll have to look that up. That's a shame, though the old Penn Station is the worst offender, especially since so many people (including me occasionally) pass through it.
Most of the time I'd assume demolished buildings were small and probably not all that special. While I don't think Chicago has better skyscrapers than NYC, I do agree Midtown has a lot more generic buildings in it which detracts. Outside of Midtown, not that much has been demolished since the 50s, in fact a lot of the streetscapes look near identical to today. The median age of Midtown buildings (all buildings, not just skyscrapers) is some time in the 1940s.
But not all those demolished were generic. Skyscrapers in NYC preferred to build on larger lots rather than buying up a number of smaller lots (occupied often by low-rise buildings), which might be hard to assemble together or run the risk of getting an odd owner that won't sell at any price. For this reason, the Empire State Building was built over the site of the historic Waldorf-Astoria hotel:
Today, near there are a bunch of bland low-rise buildings nearby, but they ended up surviving. At least this nearby hotel (got turned to condos) is still around:
I hate to see some of the classic train stations around the country being destroyed by something "new" along with the old theaters.
Chicago's lost train stations:
Grand Central Station demolished 1969 (at first I never knew there was one in Chicago)
North Western Station demolished in 1984
Concourse next to Union Station demolished in 1969
This was State Street back then when Chicago's version similar to the buildings with the fluted column windows along Greene Street. It's a shame they aren't there any more.
Hard to believe so many old buildings in Chicago like this one destroyed
Quote:
Yep, it's One57. Got media attention after its construction crane fell to the ground in Hurricane Sandy. All-residential, final height will be 1004 height. Another Midtown residential high rise, 432 Park Avenue, will be even taller: 1398 feet. By roof height, excluding spires and antennae, it will be the tallest in the city. Why couldn't they make it 100 feet taller and beat the Willis Tower?
We'll just have to wait and see. No telling what Chicago will put up next.
This what the Southside looked like back in the day before the surface lots. The Mecca Building must have been big. I believe this was near State and 34th. I'm sure there some arson but to what degree I'm not sure.
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.
No telling what Chicago will put up next.
