U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-01-2012, 09:26 AM
 
Location: Chicago
303 posts, read 448,878 times
Reputation: 202

Advertisements

Both are located in the Midwest and were part of the Rust Belt. As a result, both were effected by factories closing and leaving. I notice on this forum , people say Detroit and South Side look the same. I disagree , Detroit's structure was made different than Chicago. I understand Detroit has lost allot, but you can still see remains of Detroit's structure. Do you think Detroit is or was urban as Chicago ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-01-2012, 09:30 AM
 
300 posts, read 427,635 times
Reputation: 89
Currently, Chicago is obviously much denser.

But you see that the cities have a very similar original form. Both have the detached homes, the back alleys, the wide arterials, and the endless bungalow belts.

This is very different from the built form in the Northeast, or out West, or down South. It's basically a Midwest vernacular.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2012, 10:10 AM
 
5,807 posts, read 10,258,640 times
Reputation: 4300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dream Chaser View Post
Both are located in the Midwest and were part of the Rust Belt. As a result, both were effected by factories closing and leaving. I notice on this forum , people say Detroit and South Side look the same. I disagree , Detroit's structure was made different than Chicago. I understand Detroit has lost allot, but you can still see remains of Detroit's structure. Do you think Detroit is or was urban as Chicago ?
Aside from the fact that Chicago south side has its denser architectural areas more intact, has more intact white, ethnic enclaves, more Mexican-Americans, and is luckier to be attached to a world class, productive urban core, I really the differences are mostly negligible. Granted you have to look harder for the blight/urban prairie on the south side, but other than that they are close brothers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2012, 10:20 AM
 
Location: SoCal
1,243 posts, read 1,478,224 times
Reputation: 848
I don't think any city is or was as urban as Chicago. Remember back at the turn of the century it was NYC and Chicago. Those cities kinda set the standard. The other cities in the midwest developed their own urban setup but usually on a much smaller scale. But yeah, I don't think any other city in the US develped the same way or with the same exact design the way Chicago and NYC came up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2012, 10:46 AM
 
7,238 posts, read 10,380,313 times
Reputation: 5563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dream Chaser View Post
Both are located in the Midwest and were part of the Rust Belt. As a result, both were effected by factories closing and leaving. I notice on this forum , people say Detroit and South Side look the same. I disagree , Detroit's structure was made different than Chicago. I understand Detroit has lost allot, but you can still see remains of Detroit's structure. Do you think Detroit is or was urban as Chicago ?
Keep in mind Detroit has lost 2/3 of its population (and the remainder lives on the outskirts of the city).

What remains is only the suburban parts of Detroit.

But Detroit's lower east side, SW side and North End were very much similar to Chicago's south side in terms of urban structure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2012, 11:13 AM
 
300 posts, read 427,635 times
Reputation: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by MB8abovetherim View Post
I don't think any city is or was as urban as Chicago. Remember back at the turn of the century it was NYC and Chicago.
Wait, what?

All the major cities in the Northeast are as urban or more urban than Chicago. This was true in 1900, and today.

And on the West Coast, SF is signficantly denser than Chicago, and is arguably more urban.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MB8abovetherim View Post
But yeah, I don't think any other city in the US develped the same way or with the same exact design the way Chicago and NYC came up.
Chicago and NYC have a totally different built form. They have nothing to do with one another in terms of city planning, execpt they're both big U.S. cities with many highrises.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2012, 11:15 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
45,713 posts, read 39,163,962 times
Reputation: 14655
Quote:
Originally Posted by MB8abovetherim View Post
I don't think any city is or was as urban as Chicago. Remember back at the turn of the century it was NYC and Chicago. Those cities kinda set the standard. The other cities in the midwest developed their own urban setup but usually on a much smaller scale. But yeah, I don't think any other city in the US develped the same way or with the same exact design the way Chicago and NYC came up.
Philadelphia was only 25% smaller in population than Chicago in 1900, and probably a bit more densely built up.

And any city?

New York City was filling some of its new neighborhoods with blocks like thes in the first decade of the 1900s:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Inwoo...15.06,,0,-12.6

built directly from farmland. Chicago was building new neighborhoods at much lower density. Not really comparable outside of the immediate downtown.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2012, 11:54 AM
 
5,807 posts, read 10,258,640 times
Reputation: 4300
Quote:
Originally Posted by MB8abovetherim View Post
I don't think any city is or was as urban as Chicago. Remember back at the turn of the century it was NYC and Chicago. Those cities kinda set the standard. The other cities in the midwest developed their own urban setup but usually on a much smaller scale. But yeah, I don't think any other city in the US develped the same way or with the same exact design the way Chicago and NYC came up.
Chicago was the birthplace of the skyscraper, and the Loop with its shoulder to shoulder high rises and the elevated train became the standard of urban.

Since then the urbanness of the loop obviously has extended beyond the confines of the Loop first to the near north side, then in a thin strip along the lakefront.

However if you are talking the surrounding residential neighborhoods, its totally different. East coast cities became dominated by narrow streets and rowhouses, with only sidewalks between the building and street. No strips of grass/trees in most places.

In the midwest St. Louis and Cincinnati became large towns/cities before Chicago did, and therefore has some of that east coast urban neighborhood that is less present in Chicago. The dominant residential neighborhods were dominated by what were called workers cottages, which depending on who you talk to are considered two or three flat buildings, but look more like houses compared to what you see on the east coast.

The north side was always more urban than the south side. Here are some pictures of what I am talking about:

Bridgeport, Chicago

Bridgeport, Chicago, IL - Google Maps

Hamtramck, Detroit

Hamtramck, MI - Google Maps

Similar historic working class white ethnic neighborhoods for both cities. Both are between 3 and 5 miles from respective downtowns. Obviously the HUGE difference is of course is how much high density building remain between the loop and Brideport, as well as how many bigger, taller, buildings have been built in the last 40-50 in Chicagos core, whereas in Detroit, you get the sense that they just tore buildings down, and the vacant lots just became overgrown.

Here is another comparison:

Cass Corridor, Detroit

Cass Corridor, Detroit, MI - Google Maps

South Loop, Chicago

South Loop, Chicago, IL - Google Maps

Here you can see areas that were historically similar, similar vintage architecture, but Chicago obviously looks more intact with a lot more new high rise construction of the last 10-15 years. Sadly you can see what remains of Detroits Cass Corridor.

Now the north side, was always a little more "New York-ish", but I think it is in no way a stretch to say that the south side of Chicago grew up very similar.

Also Chicago has similar suburban areas of the city with similar vintage single family homes as Detroit. As well as Chicagos most notorious ghettos look more "rustbelt ghost town" more so than New Yorks Bronx borrough at over 30,000 pp/sqmi

Englewood, Chicago, IL - Google Maps


I don't think I have to bother posting a Detroit example as sadly, most people on C-D know that most of Detroit looks like that. Difference is in Chicago you have to go look for this. But be safe in any case if you "explore".

Here are examples of similar "posh" neighborhoods in both cities that have a large upscale Black community.

Beverly, Chicago

Beverly, Chicago, IL - Google Maps

University District, Detroit

University District, Detroit, IL - Google Maps

So in conclusion, obviously Chicago and Detroit are VERY different cities today. 50 years ago, they were much more similar, although the north side of Chicago was a little more like an east coast city. But the south side was very similar to Detroit.

Here is another website to check out, to see Detroits density at its heyday, by looking at aerial images from pre-1970:

NETR Online • Historic Aerials
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2012, 10:59 AM
 
Location: Chicago
303 posts, read 448,878 times
Reputation: 202
I just visited Detroit and I have to say Detroit is suburban. Allot of Detroit is houses with driveways, two way residential streets, red lights on wire and little more spacious. Yes Detroit has or had its dense areas but not like Chicago neighborhoods. Dont forgot at Detroit and Chicago's peak, Chicago had twice the population of Detroit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2012, 11:53 AM
 
10,996 posts, read 21,415,062 times
Reputation: 10630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davis Street View Post
Currently, Chicago is obviously much denser.

But you see that the cities have a very similar original form. Both have the detached homes, the back alleys, the wide arterials, and the endless bungalow belts.

This is very different from the built form in the Northeast, or out West, or down South. It's basically a Midwest vernacular.
I feel that detached homes are more of the landscape in Detroit though.

Chicago's bungalows and detached homes make up just 25% of the total housing stock in the city. The city has single family homes/bungalows - but they're just a minority of the total.

Detroit always seemed to have more of its built enviornment and housing be single family larger homes on bigger lots.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top