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.
If I had to pick two downtowns with a heck of a lot of overlap in what they offer, I'd go with DT Chicago and DT San Francisco. Neither, of course, are on the scale of the combination of NYC's two cores, downtown and midtown. But, IMHO, not other downtowns in the US are such magnets to the degree that Chicago's and San Francisco's are.
Both have an incredible critical mass, are well connected to their respective hinterlands, the Bay Area and Chicagoland by extensive transportation options. And when it comes to transit that literally screams which city it's in, there are few as evocative as SF's cable cars and Chicago's Loop el. Both are real centers of culture, entertainment, dining and both are incredible attractions for tourists. Both have a large number of downtown residential high rises (although admittedly this is more true of Chicago). The shopping options are quite similar with the same high end stores, including major dept. stores (N-M, Bloomingdale's, Saks, Nordstrom, etc.).
Both downtowns are enormous business centers. Outside of Wall Street, the two most important streets for finance and the exchanges are Chicago's LaSalle Street and San Francisco's Montgomery Street.
Hotels abound in both hotel, many doing strong convention business and both Chicago's McCormick Place and San Francisco's Moscone Center are major convention centers. Both cities are highly walkable (although SF makes it a bit tougher with its hills).
And both downtowns are deeply rooted in time, major centers that were well in place and thriving well before the automative era. Both downtowns were affected by being able to start over after disasters, the Chicago Fire and the San Francisco earthquake.
the size difference between the cities is not overly important. far more meaningful is metro population and Chicagoland and the Bay Area are very close in population.
I'm certainly not suggesting that other US downtowns like Boston, Philadelphia, Seattle, Minneapolis and the like don't have a lot going for them. They do. It just seems to me that Chgo and SF are a notch above and their draw is greater.
again, just my opinion, but to me there is so much in common with DT Chicago and DT San Francisco. Would be interested in what others think.
DT SF is much smaller than DT Chicago as anyone who has ever visited both cities knows. Greater DT Boston is at least as big as greater DT SF with far better transit and a higher rating as a financial center.
DT SF is much smaller than DT Chicago as anyone who has ever visited both cities knows. Greater DT Boston is at least as big as greater DT SF with far better transit and a higher rating as a financial center.
actually lived in both cities and know them intimately; indeed the only two cities I ever lived in and the only two that I have been in all through my life. yes, DT Chgo is bigger. Obviously more areas outside the Loop have been incorporated into downtown. the DT area really does spread from the southern end of Lincoln Park down to McCormick Place and from the lakefront arguably to the United Center.
Downtown SF has spread from areas north of Market to SoMa. But I think a lot has to do with how one defines DT SF. Union Square, the Financial District and SoMa are its high rise core. But one can look at the northeast sector of the city…including Nob, Russian, and Telegraph Hills, North Beach and the north waterfront from Acquatic Park to Pier 39 as being part of the greater DT area. One can also consider areas west to the Civic Center and Van Ness as being part of the greater downtown area.
That's in the same sense that lower scaled areas are part of DT Chgo…..Old Town, Greektown, parts of River North…..not all high rises.
I visited San Francisco for the first time about a year ago and know Chicago very well. While I was in DT SF, I couldn't help but think that it basically seemed like Chicago with hills for the exact reasons you mentioned, especially the retail options. I'd also agree with your point that each city's downtown is more of a draw than others in the United States (excluding NYC). Toronto has the other North American DT that I think you could put in the same category, but retail is different since it's in Canada.
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.
