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.
I think Chicago has a San Francisco-sized area of pretty human-scaled neighborhoods. They aren't quite as tight and human-scaled as some of their SF equivalents, but they are mostly pretty close. I'd say the streets of Chicago feel just about as busy as those in SF. However, the two cities look quite different - makes sense because Chicago is a Midwestern city and SF is a Western city.
I do agree that there is more green space in cities like Chicago, DC, LA, Boston than in a places like NYC, SF and PHI.
Most of Chicago is not high rise. Hell, most of Chicago isn't even mid rise. There are many high rises, but most of the city is below about 5 or 6 stories.
But the best street-level neighborhoods in Chicago are lowrise, which makes sense, as highrises tend to deaden blocks.
Mainly, though parts of the Gold Coast are very vibrant and are mainly high rise (though there are some low rise mixed into the areas I'm thinking of, but not many). I'm thinking specifically on Rush from about Chestnut on up to Division Street. Though one of my favorite parts of it from Walton to Bellevue is pretty low rise and makes it feel better. I mainly agree with what you say though but there's some exceptions here and there.
I also don't think that high rises inherently ruin street vibe, but I think it's more of the division of commercial/retail along the street. The thing that pisses me off in some of the newer high rises is that some will dole out an enormous space for just one business instead of dividing it into like 5. I think that ruins things to be perfectly honest and also in some of the high rent places, it's kind of dumb. There's a building near me, very expensive, and it's yet to have a single retail/commercial tenant in the 6 years I've been here. They could have EASILY made it into 6 spaces and I guarantee at least a few would have had something in them already.
Parking podiums most definitely do ruin it too 75% of the time. I've seen some that don't though. There's one near my office in the Loop with a handful of businesses on the ground level of it. If you didn't look upwards, you would never know it's a parking garage. This isn't really normal though in the US but sometimes does exist.
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,278,704 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531
SF is more walkable than Chicago IMO. Skyscrapers don't really mean more walkable or urban. The human scaled nature of Sf apart from it's central inner core makes it easier to walk through. It ain't a NYC or Paris, but it's walkable enough.
I don't get this SF more Walkable or merely having mostly Row Homes makes it automatically more dense AND Walkable.
SF has many Hills to climb and is NOT noted as tree-lined city. SF has wider streets the other Eastern Row house cities like Philly. Actually SF street with is more like Chicago's and its Row homes are nothing like Eastern cities. More like Chicago's 2-3 flats connected or Boston Triple-Decker's. But it does NOT have the narrow sidewalks of MANY Philly built for the masses neighborhoods in sub-divided streets that got as many assembly line Rows in as they could.
Forget tree-lining many of them on Alley sized streets in Philly. Colonial neighborhoods have trees. Gentrified other areas added trees. Later 20th century Rows have setbacks and big trees and even yards.
STREETS ACCUALLY IN THE ORIGINAL STREET GRID OF WILLIAM PENN'S GREEN CITY CONCEPT.... were suppose to be literal alleys. Till developers thought to squeeze in more Rows. Forgo Alleys as a alleyway.... and some yard space for a garden. As William Penn planned.
documentation; For Philly Rows William Penn
In William Penn's "Greene Country Towne" plan. Each quadrant WAS TO HAVE A public square with open green space, today known as Logan, Franklin, Washington, and Rittenhouse Squares. Evenly spaced lots allowed residents to have private outdoor space for gardens and retain a sense of country living within the city. Penn’s was a example, for planning in many early American cities. THE COLONIAL BLOCKS HAD THIS.
Row Houses | Encyclopedia of Greater Philadelphia
Ambitious colonists began to break up the big city blocks of William Penn’s “Greene Country Towne” with secondary streets, alleys, and courts, speculative developers and builders constructed rows of houses that matched varied budgets and taste.
The row house serves as evidence of residents’ defiance of the green country town that William Penn envisioned. Easy to construct and affordable, the row house enabled a high rate of home ownership and thus earned its place as a symbol of the city’s landscape. As a result, Philadelphia’s streets, alleys, and courts were lined with relatively homogenous structures of predictable form and design.
The idea that Rows on narrow streets (not the Colonial cobblestone or brick ones). Narrow side-walks especially where 2 can't walk side by side is not highly Walkable to me. I'd MUCH rather Walk a Tree-lined street with some frontage or a bit of a front lawns as Chicago's Bungalow belt and other parts of the city built after the bungalow belt. Is pleasantly Walkable.
You don't need retail all long to be Walkable either. Row home cities still have solid blocks of Rows not retail mixed in.
As for Downtown Chicago. Anyone knows even the Loop has fairly broad streets and sidewalks. But even as streets can be canyon-like. The city in Summer adding hanging Flowers ADD TO WALKABILY PLEASURE. The Loop even has a few Plazas or Open Air areas around a few buildings Pleasantly added to give a area to sit, to open for markets and fairs or just as not to feel too squeezed in.
Also Chicago has Magnificent Millennium Park always full of people and Larger Part Grant Park Downtown to ....
get away sit, and take a pleasant walk,
Eat lunch.
Take in the expanse of the Lakefront. Despite Lake Shore Drive. You just cross it to the Lakeside park space.
Even along the River it opens and the city is expanding its River-walk (phase 1 just opened)of quadrants of restaurants with Outdoor Cafe's.
TO ME THIS ADDS TO WALKABILITY NOT DETRACTS from it. Michigan Ave shopping being with green space and seasonal flowers planted, adds to WALKABILITY to the street level NOT takes away.
No one would say Central Park in Manhattan TAKES AWAY WALKABILITY? WE SAY IT ADDS MORE.
I believe Chicago's North shore neighborhoods with HUGE TREES, setbacks and assess to the Lakefront and beaches and jogging, bike lanes ADDS TO WALKABILITY. The option to own a car not as a Luxury living Downtown and near. Does not detract from WALKABILITY. Alleys provide garages and access to them and High-rises with their garages for tenants.
Another plus is Access to Mass transit and even Under-ground parking for 2000cars under Grant Park frees the surface a bit.
You can find a area in Chicago that has your preferred density to your idea of WALKABILITY. Without being FORCED to be car-less. But you SURELY can be Car-less, if you choose. Living in the city.
MY 2-CENTS IN SUPPORT OF CHICAGO'S URBANITY ...... AND WALKABILITY.
Without being FORCED to be car-less. But you SURELY can be Car-less, if you choose. Living in the city.
In america urban living doesn't really begin to happen unless you are "forced" to be carless. Americans will always drive and live suburban like so long as they can.
In america urban living doesn't really begin to happen unless you are "forced" to be carless. Americans will always drive and live suburban like so long as they can.
Did you means Americans on average will drive and live suburban? Because there are plenty of people who have chosen to live in cities and go carless (not forced but chosen).
SF feels much more dense and vibrant than Chicago. Chicago feels big and spread out in comparison.
I strongly disagree on the vibrancy comment in regards to SF and it's street level in regards to Chicago.
Not only Chicago, but New Orleans and LA all feel much more vibrant to me at street level than San Francisco, especially after 8PM!
Maybe San Francisco can compete for it's "day scene" (Boston also is extremely vibrant during the day and gives SF a run for it's money) - but Chicago, to me, is much more happening, vibrant, and fun at night.
I strongly disagree on the vibrancy comment in regards to SF and it's street level in regards to Chicago.
Not only Chicago, but New Orleans and LA all feel much more vibrant to me at street level than San Francisco, especially after 8PM!
Maybe San Francisco can compete for it's "day scene" (Boston also is extremely vibrant during the day and gives SF a run for it's money) - but Chicago, to me, is much more happening, vibrant, and fun at night.
SF is not exactly the most happening city on earth, but I would not judge a city's vibrancy by "after 8 PM"; you're basically then saying (in a U.S. context) does the city have a bar scene. And somewhere like New Orleans is more of a tourist/party economy that isn't directly comparable to a SF or Chiago.
During the day (when vibrancy is best measured as that's when people are actually out) SF is as vibrant as those cities. It's probably as vibrant as any U.S. city except for NYC, of course. What you're doing is comparing across the least relevant timeframe. It's like people who argue a transit system is better if there's one train at 3 AM as opposed to none at that hour, and then ignore when 99% of people are actually traveling.
I would agree that at night, though, I would give the edge to Chicago over SF, though SF has more weird stuff going on. But Chicago definitely has more nightlife overall. West Coast cities tend to be earlier to bed/earlier to rise than places east of the Mississippi.
I don't get this SF more Walkable or merely having mostly Row Homes makes it automatically more dense AND Walkable.
SF has many Hills to climb and is NOT noted as tree-lined city. SF has wider streets the other Eastern Row house cities like Philly. Actually SF street with is more like Chicago's and its Row homes are nothing like Eastern cities. More like Chicago's 2-3 flats connected or Boston Triple-Decker's. But it does NOT have the narrow sidewalks of MANY Philly built for the masses neighborhoods in sub-divided streets that got as many assembly line Rows in as they could.
Forget tree-lining many of them on Alley sized streets in Philly. Colonial neighborhoods have trees. Gentrified other areas added trees. Later 20th century Rows have setbacks and big trees and even yards.
STREETS ACCUALLY IN THE ORIGINAL STREET GRID OF WILLIAM PENN'S GREEN CITY CONCEPT.... were suppose to be literal alleys. Till developers thought to squeeze in more Rows. Forgo Alleys as a alleyway.... and some yard space for a garden. As William Penn planned.
documentation; For Philly Rows William Penn
In William Penn's "Greene Country Towne" plan. Each quadrant WAS TO HAVE A public square with open green space, today known as Logan, Franklin, Washington, and Rittenhouse Squares. Evenly spaced lots allowed residents to have private outdoor space for gardens and retain a sense of country living within the city. Penn’s was a example, for planning in many early American cities. THE COLONIAL BLOCKS HAD THIS.
Row Houses | Encyclopedia of Greater Philadelphia
Ambitious colonists began to break up the big city blocks of William Penn’s “Greene Country Towne” with secondary streets, alleys, and courts, speculative developers and builders constructed rows of houses that matched varied budgets and taste.
The row house serves as evidence of residents’ defiance of the green country town that William Penn envisioned. Easy to construct and affordable, the row house enabled a high rate of home ownership and thus earned its place as a symbol of the city’s landscape. As a result, Philadelphia’s streets, alleys, and courts were lined with relatively homogenous structures of predictable form and design.
The idea that Rows on narrow streets (not the Colonial cobblestone or brick ones). Narrow side-walks especially where 2 can't walk side by side is not highly Walkable to me. I'd MUCH rather Walk a Tree-lined street with some frontage or a bit of a front lawns as Chicago's Bungalow belt and other parts of the city built after the bungalow belt. Is pleasantly Walkable.
You don't need retail all long to be Walkable either. Row home cities still have solid blocks of Rows not retail mixed in.
As for Downtown Chicago. Anyone knows even the Loop has fairly broad streets and sidewalks. But even as streets can be canyon-like. The city in Summer adding hanging Flowers ADD TO WALKABILY PLEASURE. The Loop even has a few Plazas or Open Air areas around a few buildings Pleasantly added to give a area to sit, to open for markets and fairs or just as not to feel too squeezed in.
Also Chicago has Magnificent Millennium Park always full of people and Larger Part Grant Park Downtown to ....
get away sit, and take a pleasant walk,
Eat lunch.
Take in the expanse of the Lakefront. Despite Lake Shore Drive. You just cross it to the Lakeside park space.
Even along the River it opens and the city is expanding its River-walk (phase 1 just opened)of quadrants of restaurants with Outdoor Cafe's.
TO ME THIS ADDS TO WALKABILITY NOT DETRACTS from it. Michigan Ave shopping being with green space and seasonal flowers planted, adds to WALKABILITY to the street level NOT takes away.
No one would say Central Park in Manhattan TAKES AWAY WALKABILITY? WE SAY IT ADDS MORE.
I believe Chicago's North shore neighborhoods with HUGE TREES, setbacks and assess to the Lakefront and beaches and jogging, bike lanes ADDS TO WALKABILITY. The option to own a car not as a Luxury living Downtown and near. Does not detract from WALKABILITY. Alleys provide garages and access to them and High-rises with their garages for tenants.
Another plus is Access to Mass transit and even Under-ground parking for 2000cars under Grant Park frees the surface a bit.
You can find a area in Chicago that has your preferred density to your idea of WALKABILITY. Without being FORCED to be car-less. But you SURELY can be Car-less, if you choose. Living in the city.
MY 2-CENTS IN SUPPORT OF CHICAGO'S URBANITY ...... AND WALKABILITY.
Thank you for your dissertation on the streets of Philadelphia Pa. .
But the best street-level neighborhoods in Chicago are lowrise, which makes sense, as highrises tend to deaden blocks.
Well, I guess going by your argument then Manhattan has a lot of deaden blocks due to highrises. It really comes down to this. It doesn't matter how floors a building has as long as you have amenities at street level. You can also have an area with 2-3 story buildings with dead blocks as well contrary to Michigan Avenue or another busy pedestrian block area of Chicago. Yes, people do live in these areas with vibrant street level activity on many blocks downtown.
Quote:
Obviously this is completely untrue. Cities that have highrises with giant parking garages at the base tend to have worse street-level environments. You even see it in Chicago, which is one of the most urban U.S. cities.
However, not all parking garages are walled up along the perimeters of a highrise building. THere are highrises that do have amenities at street level. If it's that bad I guess these people are walking around with no purpose here. Here's an example: https://goo.gl/maps/cR6DV
Again, it doesn't matter how many floors is above the street. It's what's at the base of any building. Manhattan also has plenty of highrises with amenities at street level so your claim that they can't do it has been proven wrong with an illustrative link I just posted. You can also have the street level vibrancy outside the outer neighborhoods in downtown Chicago. Downtown is loaded with street level vibrant activity crowded with amenities and pedestrians. To say that this doesn't exist is rather silly.
Quote:
Saying that it makes no difference, and therefore Oklahoma City has the same street-level urban environment as Rome, is complete nonsense.
Oklahoma City doesn't have as many highrises with amenities at street level that Chicago has so that analogy is inaccurate.
Quote:
Actually, no, in most major cities around the world, people don't have cars, for the most part.
False, I lived and have been to the busiest cities in Japan and South Korea. There are a lot of cars in Tokyo and Seoul. The difference however compared to most American cities is those cities having a much broader network of transit systems as an option. Keep in mind though that many people in Chicago also have the red and blue lines which run 24 hours in which they don't have to have a car during after hours.
Quote:
And we are not talking about "urban vertical". It has zero to do with the thread. We are only talking about street level vibrancy in this thread, nothing else. And cars do have a (negative) impact on street-level feel, no question. Street level garages kill urbanity.
You also have many cars parked along the side of many neighborhood streets in a lot of cities across the country not just in Chicago. I'm not a huge fan of parking garages but they do exist in all cities including Manhattan. However, there are plenty that have amenities along the perimeter of these garages at street level that contribute to the pedestrian activity. The people do shop and eat at these places. Saying they don't exist means you are in denial of this fact.
Thank you for your dissertation on the streets of Philadelphia Pa. .
Steeps doesn't actually know much about Philadelphia. He never lived there. Never worked there. Doesn't seem to know about the massive parks: Fairmount, Pennpack, FDR, Hunting Park in addition to the any number of smaller parks within the city limits including 3 that were part of W. Penn's original plan and are covered with trees.
There are plenty of tree-lined streets too and houses that are not rows. All of which were pointed out to him on the Philadelphia CD board with sufficient links as evidence which he chose to ignore.
He doesn't live in Chicago either although he once did.
I do live in Philadelphia, fwiw.
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.
