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.
There is an office building under construction there right now. Either way, this is pointless because rowhouses aren't urban like buildings. Is Wrigley urban like the loop to you at street level?
I think people pay too much attention to high rises - is Wrigleyville more urban than the Loop? They're two completely different environments - one is full of real high rises and the other isn't in the immediate area until you got 1/2 mile east where there are a bunch of them, but they're both dense by different definitions. The Loop is dense in the sense that it has urban canyons and big buildings. Wrigleyville is dense is the sense that it has a pretty high population density (for US standards) and has a lot of lower rise buildings.
Like I already said, when I say "middle of the city" I'm referrring to the downtown/CBD area of the city and not everything in the city limits. So in the case of Chicago that would be The Loop/River North for which Wrigleyville is about 4-5 miles north of no?
I guess you must have some huge definition as far as area goes of what constitutes the "middle of the city".
Middle of the city to most people would mean IN the city and in the dense parts. People are too enthralled with downtown areas, and this is me saying it as someone who lives on the 25th floor in a downtown Chicago pad.
Most big cities have many centers of activity. You wouldn't literally say that the Barclay Center is not "in the city" in NYC because it's not in Manhattan or a downtown area. The overall neighborhood Wrigley Field is in actually has more people in it than River North, Streeterville, Gold Coast, and Old Town combined, which are all downtown neighborhoods. In fact, even if you added the Loop to that mix, that downtown area would not have a much larger population than Lake View. Downtown isn't even the densest overall part of Chicago - Edgewater is.
The area that Wrigley Field is in is just as dense as some downtown areas. Just because there's no high rises for 4 blocks of Wrigley Field doesn't mean it's not that urban. And comparing overall miles isn't of percentages is dangerous. DC is almost 3.5 times smaller than Chicago, physical area wise. You can't say "Oh well, it's 4 miles outside of downtown so...." It's a big lack of understanding of how larger cities work. Only 4% of the population of Chicago actually lives downtown - just because some other area doesn't have a ton of high rises doesn't mean it's less urban.
Quote:
And how exactly do you interpret "more urban" then? Either way I'm not sure how much it matters since after I clarified what I meant you still kept arguing that it was just as or even more urban.
To me if you're talking about urban you're talking about more than just building density. You're talking first and foremost about population density. While there aren't that many buildings that are right next to each other in DC, the distance between most buildings in these areas of Chicago is just a food or two. The McDonald's near Wrigley Field is a severe anomaly for the overall area. 99.9% of the area is packed together pretty nicely - not literally next to each other like area of DC, but the distance between buildings is usually no more than a 2 or 2.5 feet. This is not enough to stop and think "holy ****, I am in a suburban environment."
After that to me it's street vibrancy - which can be how many people live in an area and population density. Not only that but how many people visit there. How many people visit there is harder to determine - population density is easier since we have actual numbers for that at the census block and tract levels.
No denying that both of these places are urban and vibrant no matter what's going on but how closely packed the buildings are is just one part of the overall formula.
all the other venues are in less dense areas of Chicago? huh? Have you ever actually been to Chicago? Solider Field? United Center? These are not even close to being suburban areas.
perhaps comiskey park (what do they call it now?) and wrigleyfille are further out (Though still in the city and quite urban) but ....
Soldier Field is practically downtown.
Not that I think it really matters, as a more "urban" sports arena is not one of my priorities. The fact of the matter is all of these are relatively easy to get to and yes, woven into the fabric of Chicago (more than I'd like at times...)
More people probably spend time in Wrigleyville anyway than they do downtown.
And who said they were? Some of you have some serious reading comprehension issues and keep inferring things that were never suggested or said.
Solider Field is surrounded by grassy fields on 3 sides and seperated from the adjacent neighborhood by Lake Shore Dr and railroad tracks on the other. It is poorly integrated into the "urban fabric" of the adjacent neighborhood and not really integrated at all actually.
The United Center is completely surrounded by parking lots and located in what appears to be a slightly hollowed out neighborhood.
You honestly think those two areas are as urban as Wrigleyville?
Well I don't care what your priorities are, in case you forgot the original question at hand is which one is best integrated into the urban fabric of the city. Being surrounded by parking lots and separated by an 8-lane highway are awful examples of integrated into the urban fabric of the surrounding area. I'm talking about URBAN FABRIC buy the way and no cultural fabric which you seem to be referring to.
To be fair Nationals Ballpark and FedEx field aren't either which is why I didn't mention them.
well one could say say that no area of DC is urban under that definition, there are really are no true high rises in DC
I don't by that definition either way as DC has very urban areas without true high-rises
I also don't buy that rowhouse neighborhoods are not urban. Personally I find them some of the most urban areas in the country actually
honestly I think your mantra and rules are well a little academic and miss many aspects
the best of areas of DC to me today are a mix of both but again that is me
When I say high-rises, I'm talking about anything over 10 stories and above. How does a building over that height affect the feel on the street? It's going to be the same regardless.
Soldier Field and United Center are not that urban - that is very true. Not even close to the urbanity of Wrigley Field. US Cellular Field is pretty much the same way - there is stuff when you walk a few blocks away but there's still a few huge surface parking lots. Soldier Field at least has a bunch of high rises to the west, but still it's not that urban. The only true urban pro sports venue in Chicago is Wrigley Field. The others are **** and United Center - don't even get me started. Luckily some things are being built right around there again though.
Middle of the city to most people would mean IN the city and in the dense parts. People are too enthralled with downtown areas, and this is me saying it as someone who lives on the 25th floor in a downtown Chicago pad.
Most big cities have many centers of activity. You wouldn't literally say that the Barclay Center is not "in the city" in NYC because it's not in Manhattan or a downtown area. The overall neighborhood Wrigley Field is in actually has more people in it than River North, Streeterville, Gold Coast, and Old Town combined, which are all downtown neighborhoods. In fact, even if you added the Loop to that mix, that downtown area would not have a much larger population than Lake View. Downtown isn't even the densest overall part of Chicago - Edgewater is.
The area that Wrigley Field is in is just as dense as some downtown areas. Just because there's no high rises for 4 blocks of Wrigley Field doesn't mean it's not that urban. And comparing overall miles isn't of percentages is dangerous. DC is almost 3.5 times smaller than Chicago, physical area wise. You can't say "Oh well, it's 4 miles outside of downtown so...." It's a big lack of understanding of how larger cities work. Only 4% of the population of Chicago actually lives downtown - just because some other area doesn't have a ton of high rises doesn't mean it's less urban.
To me if you're talking about urban you're talking about more than just building density. You're talking first and foremost about population density. While there aren't that many buildings that are right next to each other in DC, the distance between most buildings in these areas of Chicago is just a food or two. The McDonald's near Wrigley Field is a severe anomaly for the overall area. 99.9% of the area is packed together pretty nicely - not literally next to each other like area of DC, but the distance between buildings is usually no more than a 2 or 2.5 feet. This is not enough to stop and think "holy ****, I am in a suburban environment."
After that to me it's street vibrancy - which can be how many people live in an area and population density. Not only that but how many people visit there. How many people visit there is harder to determine - population density is easier since we have actual numbers for that at the census block and tract levels.
No denying that both of these places are urban and vibrant no matter what's going on but how closely packed the buildings are is just one part of the overall formula.
You think it's more vibrant than Gallery Place? You have been to Gallery Place right?
Wrigleyville, Boystown just to the east, and the Belmont area south of Wrigleyville? Yeah it can be just as vibrant as Gallery Place. There's a lot more people living in these areas than you think - and they are full of nightlife and all three of those together form one of the top 3 or 4 nightlife areas in the entire city (by sheer number of people out most nights and number of places to drink or see a show at, or eat late night). So yes, they can be very vibrant especially when it's not cold out. But even when it's not cold out it's still vibrant, but it's not as persistent since people aren't hanging out on the street as much.
When I say high-rises, I'm talking about anything over 10 stories and above. How does a building over that height affect the feel on the street? It's going to be the same regardless.
ten stories is not a high rise
and IMHO there are areas with 2 and 3 story buildings interspersed with taller that are far more interesting and active than uniform height - that to me is worse than mixed heights
uniformity detracts and makes a place feel sterile
DC is in a tough spot with height restrictions and demand creating many mono feeling buildings/blocks why i prefer some more mixed areas of DC - they feel more organic and energetic to me - but again that is me
also why monotonous row house nabes can feel a bit mono as well
You think it's more vibrant than Gallery Place? You have been to Gallery Place right?
actually wrigleyville is also very vibrant and active
benefit of gallery place is its more urban yet far more sterile and chain feeling
wrigleyville is less urban yet more organic and unique feeling
Gallery place feels like it could be many places around the country wrigley not as much but more because of the unique setting for a baseball stadium and street spectacle today
I appreciate both but outside of attending a game would choose neither as a destination in either city honestly - prefer other areas of both Chicago and DC
Middle of the city to most people would mean IN the city and in the dense parts. People are too enthralled with downtown areas, and this is me saying it as someone who lives on the 25th floor in a downtown Chicago pad.
I don't agree at all. There is something called "a city" and then there is the "center" of it. If every area in the actual city is the "center of the city" then there really isn't a center is there? So when someone says the "center of the city" when it comes to LA do you think of Venice or Century City? The Mission or Marina District in SF?
Quote:
Most big cities have many centers of activity. You wouldn't literally say that the Barclay Center is not "in the city" in NYC because it's not in Manhattan or a downtown area. The overall neighborhood Wrigley Field is in actually has more people in it than River North, Streeterville, Gold Coast, and Old Town combined, which are all downtown neighborhoods. In fact, even if you added the Loop to that mix, that downtown area would not have a much larger population than Lake View. Downtown isn't even the densest overall part of Chicago - Edgewater is.
Great, I already explained what I meant so I'm not sure if you're trying to change what I define it as or what. Now you know what I meant so again I don't get why you're still babbling about what you think.
Quote:
The area that Wrigley Field is in is just as dense as some downtown areas. Just because there's no high rises for 4 blocks of Wrigley Field doesn't mean it's not that urban. And comparing overall miles isn't of percentages is dangerous. DC is almost 3.5 times smaller than Chicago, physical area wise. You can't say "Oh well, it's 4 miles outside of downtown so...." It's a big lack of understanding of how larger cities work. Only 4% of the population of Chicago actually lives downtown - just because some other area doesn't have a ton of high rises doesn't mean it's less urban.
I don't care, it's still farther away from downtown than a lot of other cities sports venues which are located downtown. Do you want me to name off all the cities that have professional sports arena's in their downtown areas, aka the "center of the city"? It's a lack of you comprehending my definition, and probably others as well, for "center of the city" because you want to make Wrigleyville seem like its the most urban, centrally located, happening place in Chicago or something.
Quote:
To me if you're talking about urban you're talking about more than just building density. You're talking first and foremost about population density. While there aren't that many buildings that are right next to each other in DC, the distance between most buildings in these areas of Chicago is just a food or two. The McDonald's near Wrigley Field is a severe anomaly for the overall area. 99.9% of the area is packed together pretty nicely - not literally next to each other like area of DC, but the distance between buildings is usually no more than a 2 or 2.5 feet. This is not enough to stop and think "holy ****, I am in a suburban environment."
Okay, again I clarified what I meant so I don't get why you're still going on about this as it doesn't change any point I made. I still find Gallery Place more urban, less interesting or fun, but more urban.
Also no said anything about a "suburban environment" so I don't know why you and the other poster keep acting like anyone was.
Quote:
After that to me it's street vibrancy - which can be how many people live in an area and population density. Not only that but how many people visit there. How many people visit there is harder to determine - population density is easier since we have actual numbers for that at the census block and tract levels.
No denying that both of these places are urban and vibrant no matter what's going on but how closely packed the buildings are is just one part of the overall formula.
Again, I clarified what I meant already several times and it doesn't change anything I said or my opinion. VZ Center is more CENTRALLY located and MORE URBAN IMHO.
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.
