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.
Don't all cities have freeways. And honestly when you look at the road maps, Cincy actually seems to have really few freeways. Its really just I-71 and I-75. Many other cities have more freeways. In fact there is no freeway north of downtown at all. I-71 borders downtown to the east, and I-75 to the west.
I would say Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland might have more freeways per capita and have torn through neighborhoods.
There is a reason why OTR is considered the largest intact historical district in the country. Many buildings may be falling apart, but it more or less all 19the century through and through.
Agree with this, generally. I've commented on here and similar sites that people lament the freeways that slice through the west side of Cleveland, yet the west side of the city proper has far more stable, intact, and integrated neighborhoods than the east side.
My neighborhood in Chicago (Noble Square) is arguably THE neighborhood gutted worst by freeway construction, and it's one of the hottest spots in the city. I understand the role freeways played in the initial destruction of neighborhoods, but I think they're overrated as an impediment to urban development today. This goes for lakefront freeways as well, which is why I don't support, for example, the West Shoreway demolition in Cleveland.
Manhattan and San Fran I think has a much wider range of backgrounds of rich white people from all over the country/world and of all ages compared to Lincoln Park.
As others have said there are other neighborhoods in Chicago that have a lot of rich white people, yet they see those neighborhoods as being more eclectic, etc. than Lincoln Park. (IE: Hyde Park has university of Chicago and brings people from all over the world (its very "ivy league", near north side again is the center of Chicago nightlife and is where tourists would be, and if celebrities are in town that is where they would be.
Lincoln Parks vibe is dominated by young college graduates from Big Ten universities who grew up in midwestern suburbs.
Keep in mind, there is NOTHING wrong with that. If I thought there is, I wouldn't be defending and promoting cities of Michigan and Ohio the way I do.
I was pointing out areas with a lot of white people in them, not saying Lincoln Park was a copy of Manhattan or San Fran. Lincoln Park is like 65K people.
Just cause it has white people who might not have been raised in hardcore urban areas doesn't mean it isn't an urban neighborhood in itself. As far as the USA goes, it's extremely urban compared to most areas. 20K people per square mile, a majority of housing units don't have a car, over half the housing built before WWII, most people take transit to work, the average age is over 30 for the neighborhood. It's certainly not old school Chicago, extremely diverse or as edgy as many places, but it's still 20% minority and has a lot of people from a lot of backgrounds. The poster who'd said that sounded like you took Schaumburg and threw it along the lake.
I was pointing out areas with a lot of white people in them, not saying Lincoln Park was a copy of Manhattan or San Fran. Lincoln Park is like 65K people.
Just cause it has white people who might not have been raised in hardcore urban areas doesn't mean it isn't an urban neighborhood in itself. As far as the USA goes, it's extremely urban compared to most areas. 20K people per square mile, a majority of housing units don't have a car, over half the housing built before WWII, most people take transit to work, the average age is over 30 for the neighborhood. It's certainly not old school Chicago, extremely diverse or as edgy as many places, but it's still 20% minority and has a lot of people from a lot of backgrounds. The poster who'd said that sounded like you took Schaumburg and threw it along the lake.
Actually the Schaumburg area is a lot more diverse than urbanophiles think it is. Have you ever walked around Woodfield?
If your definition of "urban" as it is for many on this forum has to do with high population density and use of public transportation then yes Lincoln Park is etremely urban.
Don't all cities have freeways. And honestly when you look at the road maps, Cincy actually seems to have really few freeways. Its really just I-71 and I-75. Many other cities have more freeways. In fact there is no freeway north of downtown at all. I-71 borders downtown to the east, and I-75 to the west.
I would say Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland might have more freeways per capita and have torn through neighborhoods.
There is a reason why OTR is considered the largest intact historical district in the country. Many buildings may be falling apart, but it more or less all 19the century through and through.
Yea, I'm also not bothered by the freeways. If they put the decks over 71 through Fort Washington Way like has been discussed, then they'll almost be forgotten. And it will create some awesome new urban space.
If your definition of "urban" as it is for many on this forum has to do with high population density and use of public transportation then yes Lincoln Park is extremely urban.
For me, that is definitely the definition of "urban" I lean towards as well.
Premier urban districts have:
- Public Transportation
- Amenities (grocery stores, restaurants, barber shops, etc)
- Walkability
- Art and Culture
- Density
- Architecture
- Safety
- Character/Diversity
For me, that is definitely the definition of "urban" I lean towards as well.
Premier urban districts have:
- Public Transportation
- Amenities (grocery stores, restaurants, barber shops, etc)
- Walkability
- Art and Culture
- Density
- Architecture
- Safety
- Character/Diversity
Of course there is quite a bit of gray area in some of these criteria:
Particularly Character/Diversity. For better of worse, it is very difficult to find an area that has both character/diversity or even arts/culture and safety at the same time.
Because as a neighborhood becomes more expensive (and safety correlates), only those who have high paying jobs who are more consumers of arts and culture rather than producers can afford to live there.
And in a city with lots of great urban neighborhoods, each neighborhood actually becomes less diverse, because there are so many neighborhoods to choose from that people will gravitate to those neighborhoods where they fit in the best, and therefore the neighborhoods become less diverse, even if the whole city is diverse.
Also architecture: Historic architecture? Modern architecture? A mixture of both?
Of course there is quite a bit of gray area in some of these criteria:
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il?
Particularly Character/Diversity. For better of worse, it is very difficult to find an area that has both character/diversity or even arts/culture and safety at the same time.
Because as a neighborhood becomes more expensive (and safety correlates), only those who have high paying jobs who are more consumers of arts and culture rather than producers can afford to live there.
Agreed again. The perfect balance is what makes a neighborhood great. I see diversity as a good thing, but note that I listed it last. And "Character" is probably the most subjective, but in a way, it's an x-factor at times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il?
And in a city with lots of great urban neighborhoods, each neighborhood actually becomes less diverse, because there are so many neighborhoods to choose from that people will gravitate to those neighborhoods where they fit in the best, and therefore the neighborhoods become less diverse, even if the whole city is diverse.
eh....agree somewhat. At least University Circle in Cleveland in becoming more diverse with its rise. It used to be only Italians and Blacks. Now there's a rise of Chinese (up like 15-20%), Indian, Middle Eastern, etc etc. If we're talking socio-economic, then yes, wealthier people are continuing to move in, which could create the change you're talking about. Due to the institutions, ethnically it'll remain mixed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il?
Also architecture: Historic architecture? Modern architecture? A mixture of both?
Yes, definitely both.
Last edited by usaf_1832; 09-29-2011 at 02:41 PM..
So even though it's a pretty tightly packed area of 20,000 people per square mile about 10 minutes north of downtown with a ton of cultural activities, a large university and a ton of ammenities - we're going to disclude it because there are rich white people living there?
We might as well throw out Manhattan, San Fran and quite a few other places as well. Should we start listing depopulated black neighborhoods instead?
I agree with your points. I will nominate a combination of Lincoln Park / Lakeview as the best neighb in the midwest. I know they are two seperate official neighborhoods, but they (at least to me) seem to have seemless integration and a similar demographic.
I guess I dont understand why being White, Educated, with disposable income is a negative on this site.
Im a New Yorker, but I went to a Big Ten School (Go Blue!), was in a fraternity, and I have never heard this disdain for the Big Ten before I moved to Chicago. Chicago is the hub of the Big Ten, I would expect a huge alumni base here.
I agree with your points. I will nominate a combination of Lincoln Park / Lakeview as the best neighb in the midwest. I know they are two seperate official neighborhoods, but they (at least to me) seem to have seemless integration and a similar demographic. I guess I dont understand why being White, Educated, with disposable income is a negative on this site.
Im a New Yorker, but I went to a Big Ten School (Go Blue!), was in a fraternity, and I have never heard this disdain for the Big Ten before I moved to Chicago. Chicago is the hub of the Big Ten, I would expect a huge alumni base here.
Well, I wouldn't say its negative, at least not for me per se.
I guess one can look at "urban" from two different perspectives.
A place can be very physically urban. And many people on this site highly value that. Yet, there is the cosmopolitan, demographically mixed, probablty libanything goes environment of urban areas that one might be attracted to.
For me personally I love the demographically mixed, eclectic, anything goes, environment that many urban areas would have. However I am not a big fan of the high population density and heavy use of public transportation that comes with urban areas. But if a neighborhood is mixed, eclectic, quirky, and anything goes and dense, and not car oriented, than thats I'll deal with the structurally physically urbanness of an areas.
So for me, if I wanted to be around the demographic of Lincoln Park and Lakeview, I would stick to me trees, grass, and space of the suburbs.
And it is why I would personally prefer Oak Park, Evanston, and Hyde Park to Lincoln Park and Lakeview because it is more mixed/liberal, but also a bit more suburban and walkable. And it is also why at the same time I would actually prefer Naperville, Schaumburg, or the better south suburbs (east of I-57 to LP and LV.
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.
