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.
By city both Chicago and Los Angeles are close, almost a tie. Chicago has a much larger core downtown and neighborhoods surrounding it are more active. Los Angeles is huge just about everywhere you go.
It's true that downtown Chicago is larger, but depending on what direction you are coming from that the surrounding areas are more active IMO. Boyle Heights to the east is busy, and so is the areas west of downtown LA which happens to be some of the densest hoods in the country. Southeast of downtown is also pretty active as well as crowded, take a drive down Central Avenue and you know what I'm talking about. These areas are not on the radar as Chicago's north side because they are much poorer communities. Also the neighborhoods south of downtown LA is more active than the areas south of the loop. One thing I will add is LA South Park reminds me quite a bit of the South Loop.
Now the area USC is quite active and full of students, not to mention the busy commercial corridor of Figueroa heading south from downtown to USC. It's a rather busy area and it's pretty congested with activities at the Coliseum, and there are also many museums, the Rose Garden, USC, and St Mary's College. So in my opinion the neighborhoods of South LA (famously known as South Central) seem to be more active and there are numerous blvd that runs south where carries more traffic and seem to have more commercial activity than of the avenues in south Chicago. To me that's where I personally sense LA feels more active and larger. Different built environment, but those blvd's are more congested, active and you just get a sense you're in a much bigger city than the average American city.
BTW I've been to Boston, Philly, and Washington, a few times and none of them felt larger than LA city IMO. I actually thought Philly was the one city that didn't feel as large as I would have thought. Center City area for sure feels quite large, but after that even as dense as the city is it felt smaller than I thought it should feel. In some ways Boston felt larger, and so did Washington.
Although I will admit the first time I visit Philly it felt fast pace like a smaller New York, but that was back in the 1980's. The last visit back in October I didn't get that feeling. It did't feel like a large important city like the very first time I visit. Great city it is yet a strange one in many ways to me. Nice to visit but don't think I would like living there.
It's true that downtown Chicago is larger, but depending on what direction you are coming from that the surrounding areas are more active IMO. Boyle Heights to the east is busy, and so is the areas west of downtown LA. Southeast of downtown is also pretty active and crowded. Although it's not on the radar as Chicago's north side because they are much poorer communities. The neighborhoods south of downtown LA to much is much more active than the areas south of the loop. Around USC it's a busy area and quite congested. The neighborhoods of South LA (famously known as South Central) have numerous blvd s that much more active and congested compared to many avenue and blvd s in south Chicago. To me that's where I personally sense LA feels more active and larger. Different built environment, but those blvd's are more congested, active and you just get a sense you're in a much larger city than the average American city.
BTW I've been to Boston, Philly, and Washington, a few times and none of them felt larger than LA city IMO. I actually thought Philly was the one city that didn't feel as large as I would have thought. Center City area for sure feels quite large, but after that even as dense as the city is it felt smaller than I thought it should feel. In some ways Boston felt larger, and so did Washington.
Although I will admit the first time I visit Philly it felt fast pace like a smaller New York, but that was back in the 1980's. The last visit back in October I didn't get that feeling. It did't feel like a large important city like the very first time I visit. Great city it is yet a strange one in many ways to me. Nice to visit but don't think I would like living there.
I've also noticed that Philly doesnt have the "big city" feel despite how populated, urban and dense it is. I thought it was just me that felt like that. Honestly, Philly doesnt feel any more like a big city than Baltimore, and i've been to philly on weekdays, weekends, summer, spring, fall...etc.
It's true that downtown Chicago is larger, but depending on what direction you are coming from that the surrounding areas are more active IMO. Boyle Heights to the east is busy, and so is the areas west of downtown LA. Southeast of downtown is also pretty active and crowded. Although it's not on the radar as Chicago's north side because they are much poorer communities. The neighborhoods south of downtown LA to much is much more active than the areas south of the loop. Around USC it's a busy area and quite congested. The neighborhoods of South LA (famously known as South Central) have numerous blvd s that much more active and congested compared to many avenue and blvd s in south Chicago. To me that's where I personally sense LA feels more active and larger. Different built environment, but those blvd's are more congested, active and you just get a sense you're in a much larger city than the average American city.
BTW I've been to Boston, Philly, and Washington, a few times and none of them felt larger than LA city IMO. I actually thought Philly was the one city that didn't feel as large as I would have thought. Center City area for sure feels quite large, but after that even as dense as the city is it felt smaller than I thought it should feel. In some ways Boston felt larger, and so did Washington.
Although I will admit the first time I visit Philly it felt fast pace like a smaller New York, but that was back in the 1980's. The last visit back in October I didn't get that feeling. It did't feel like a large important city like the very first time I visit. Great city it is yet a strange one in many ways to me. Nice to visit but don't think I would like living there.
I don't think theres' even one part of your post that I disagree with, you're speaking my language my man.
On your point of Los Angeles' neighborhoods feeling larger, I am inclined to agree. Los Angeles's neighborhoods to the south of downtown Los Angeles, east, and west feel larger than those same sides for downtown Chicago, east being one side Chicago lacks (the lake). Chicago's northside, especially north of downtown is very urban however and would put it on par with urban neighborhoods of Los Angeles. Both Chicago and Los Angeles in many ways suffer in the feel IMO when it comes to arterial road passages and highways than most other cities. But that is a non-factor IMO and shouldn't take away from either city's urban environment. Agree also that Los Angeles and even Chicago and San Francisco feel larger and more expansive than Boston, Philadelphia and Washington D.C. While Center City is a fabulous example of an urban core, IMO gets overrated on this blog by locales specifically those whom live there, IMO FD SF and FD Boston feel more urban than CC Philly despite CC Philly having more residential population.
Also agreed on your experience in Boston's financial district, I too feel its larger than Philadelphia's from my very own experience. The neighborhoods in Boston city like Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Chinatown, Mission Hill, South End to me all flow with uniform urbanity throughout Boston city in an older more East Coast fashion of San Francisco into the core. IMO feels more connected than comparable neighborhoods in D.C and Philly.
D.C. for me feels much newer than Boston or Philly, just as urban but also feels more sterile and gives off a "put together in a haste" feeling in many of the neighborhoods but is on par with Boston on an urban standpoint IMO.
I don't think theres' even one part of your post that I disagree with, you're speaking my language my man.
On your point of Los Angeles' neighborhoods feeling larger, I am inclined to agree. Los Angeles's neighborhoods to the south of downtown Los Angeles, east, and west feel larger than those same sides for downtown Chicago, east being one side Chicago lacks (the lake). Chicago's northside, especially north of downtown is very urban however and would put it on par with urban neighborhoods of Los Angeles. Both Chicago and Los Angeles in many ways suffer in the feel IMO when it comes to arterial road passages and highways than most other cities. But that is a non-factor IMO and shouldn't take away from either city's urban environment. Agree also that Los Angeles and even Chicago and San Francisco feel larger and more expansive than Boston, Philadelphia and Washington D.C. While Center City is a fabulous example of an urban core, IMO gets overrated on this blog by locales specifically those whom live there, IMO FD SF and FD Boston feel more urban than CC Philly despite CC Philly having more residential population.
Also agreed on your experience in Boston's financial district, I too feel its larger than Philadelphia's from my very own experience. The neighborhoods in Boston city like Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Chinatown, Mission Hill, South End to me all flow with uniform urbanity throughout Boston city in an older more East Coast fashion of San Francisco into the core. IMO feels more connected than comparable neighborhoods in D.C and Philly.
D.C. for me feels much newer than Boston or Philly, just as urban but also feels more sterile and gives off a "put together in a haste" feeling in many of the neighborhoods but is on par with Boston on an urban standpoint IMO.
BTW I've been to Boston, Philly, and Washington, a few times and none of them felt larger than LA city IMO. I actually thought Philly was the one city that didn't feel as large as I would have thought. Center City area for sure feels quite large, but after that even as dense as the city is it felt smaller than I thought it should feel. In some ways Boston felt larger, and so did Washington.
Washington felt larger than Philadelphia? I have been to Washington countless times (my brother went to college there). We both felt Washington was way smaller than Philadelphia. Like not even close. DC's core is definitely very large and impressive from an urban standpoint. But when you venture around in longer distances, you will see that Philadelphia is much, much bigger with a far more continuous urban sprawl. I felt the exact opposite as you did.
Esthetically I feel that Chi looks and feels larger than LA, as far as the hustle and bustle of the city they are almost on par with a slight edge to Chicago, now Philly once again has that architecture that makes it feel larger as well as Boston, the problem with LA to me is that pretty much everything south of Slauson for the exception of the Southeast cities feels more toned down and suburban yet urban at the same time, I think the main thing for me is that cities that have pedestrian friendly city fabric are more likely to have more hustle and bustle in and around their cores.
8-tied Atlanta 8-tied Detroit 8-tied Houston 8-tied Miami 8-tied Philadelphia
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.
