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)
 
Old 09-18-2015, 04:17 PM
 
13 posts, read 12,016 times
Reputation: 34

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
Chicago has a better waterfront and is definitely cleaner in the high rise areas than NYC with a higher percentage of more modern looking high rises. The street level itself though, other than being cleaner in Chicago - NYC has more of everything. Denser, more business, etc. However, Chicago is quite enjoyable too - just not as "holy crap there's literally 1000 stores one after another on this street for the longest time." Chicago has nice amount of streets with tons of shops, restaurants, bars, etc on them, but in NYC it's many more places and denser, and usually longer.

Both in the US are good on the street level though. Just depends on what you prefer with density. Even though Chicago is fairly dense with its buildings, NYC is kind of on another level in a lot of areas, especially Manhattan. Anybody who thinks Chicago looks pedestrian on the street level hasn't the slightest clue of what they're talking about either. At least downtown and on much of the north side (as well as part of the west side like Wicker Park) it's very clean and nice for a decently large city. Depends on where you are though - an area like SoHo is really enjoyable at the street level for the most part, but if you were to ask me whether I find certain parts of Midtown more enjoyable than places in downtown Chicago? I'd pick Chicago for that, an area like SoHo, West Village, etc for others
You're forgetting Downtown Manhattan as is nearly every poster on this thread. Downtown Manhattan is fabulous these days and much better than Downtown Chicago. Downtown Manhattan is spotless and is growing leaps and bounds with new skyscrapers, train stations and structures everywhere, unlike Chicago. The new World Trade Center area especially is truly a masterpiece, with world-class amenities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-18-2015, 04:23 PM
 
Location: Upper West Side, Manhattan, NYC
14,304 posts, read 17,924,050 times
Reputation: 6255
^ My office, with my desk with my name on it is in "Downtown Manhattan" - I'm not forgetting about it at all. I'm there every single week and walk around a lot. Parts of FiDi are cool and quaint especially not far from South Ferry. I love Stone Street when it's nice out after a long day at work.

However, your spotless comment shows you really don't know much about Chicago and it shows. Anybody who has been to Chicago, especially much of downtown would tell you that your comments are ridiculous. The downtown is very, very clean nowadays. And as someone who has the privilege of having residences in both cities right now, I can tell you with utter certainty that your comments shouldn't be taken very seriously. Even my most pro-NYC friends who have experienced Chicago would never say that an area like Midtown is cleaner. FiDi is not bad, but still no more clean than anywhere in an area like downtown Chicago.

Chicago has the better waterfront than Manhattan and cleaner on average, but from an urban perspective the choice is NYC - that's a no brainer. But Chicago is not pedestrian when it comes to this at all in the least bit. NYC is just on another level. There's only a few other cities in the country that are on the level of Chicago after NYC (San Francisco, Philadelphia, Boston, and DC in some areas in my opinion).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2015, 04:26 PM
 
13 posts, read 12,016 times
Reputation: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
^ My office, with my desk with my name on it is in "Downtown Manhattan" - I'm not forgetting about it at all. I'm there every single week and walk around a lot. Parts of FiDi are cool and quaint especially not far from South Ferry. I love Stone Street when it's nice out after a long day at work.

However, your spotless comment shows you really don't know much about Chicago and it shows. Anybody who has been to Chicago, especially much of downtown would tell you that your comments are ridiculous. The downtown is very, very clean nowadays. And as someone who has the privilege of having residences in both cities right now, I can tell you with utter certainty that your comments shouldn't be taken very seriously. Even my most pro-NYC friends who have experienced Chicago would never say that an area like Midtown is cleaner. FiDi is not bad, but still no more clean than anywhere in an area like downtown Chicago.
Now you're putting words in my mouth. When did I say Midtown was cleaner? Downtown Manhattan is just as clean as Downtown Chicago.

I know cleanliness is the only thing Chicagoans can hold onto these days since the city is massive decline. I'll give it to you - Downtown Chicago is certainly cleaner than Midtown Manhattan. That's really the only area in which it wins, though.

Last edited by jack sparrow; 09-18-2015 at 04:38 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2015, 04:36 PM
 
Location: Upper West Side, Manhattan, NYC
14,304 posts, read 17,924,050 times
Reputation: 6255
Quote:
Originally Posted by jack sparrow View Post
Now you're putting words in my mouth. When did I say Midtown was cleaner? Downtown Manhattan is just as clean as Downtown Chicago.

I know cleanliness is the only thing Chicagoans can hold onto these days since the city is massive decline. I'll give it to you - Downtown Chicago is certainly cleaner than Midtown Manhattan. That's really the only area in which it wins, though.
I'd still give the edge to Chicago over downtown Manhattan in cleanliness. You're right that downtown Manhattan isn't that dirty. However, downtown Chicago has more newer sidewalks on average in a lot of places, and especially in the summertime more flowers are out though parts of FiDi can be nice for that too depending on where you go. I can show you many instances around my office in Manhattan where the sidewalk has needed repair for the better part of 5-7 years and is in really bad shape. Every city around the planet has this, even in prime areas. When you get tons of foot traffic, your stuff is going to eventually wear down.


Apart from cleanliness, the waterfront is definitely better too IMO. The Hudson side of things isn't bad for a little bit like down near Chelsea Market, but I'd pick Chicago any second of the year for waterfront. In the words of my friend from NYC when he came up on the water front for the first time ever about a month ago and had only been there during the winter: "Well this certainly changes everything....I can now see why living here is so attractive" which he later said "I can see why this would be a good alternative to NYC if you don't want to pay as much."

I also personally find the skyline of Chicago more attractive, and that's because I like more modern things and think that from a little bit aways, it shows that off better than NYC (NYC being the older city has more older architecture). The skyline coming from an area like Queens isn't very attractive, however it's better from the Hudson side of things like if you were in Jersey City at Newport looking east into Manhattan.


In any case, this isn't a competition. Anybody who's an urban fanatic can't deny NYC is amazing when it comes to its sheer urbanity, number of shops/restaurants/etc and pure energy. It's #1 in this regard in the US easily. However, being #1 in everything is not a requirement to live in a place fully. Just because you're #2 or #3 or #4 doesn't mean the place sucks and your life is a miserable hell hole. The funny thing is that my friend above was kind of inquiring how much I pay in Chicago too. When I told him "yeah but it's not NYC - NYC has more of everything" his response was "it doesn't matter. it's good enough." He's not moving to Chicago anytime soon, but his response to me trying to push him away from any thoughts of leaving NYC is what I'm getting at.


By the way, downtown Chicago as well as some other neighborhoods are actually growing a bit right now. The most population loss comes from the west and south sides of the city. If you pay attention to only the overall population numbers, you see it's about nullified. If you spend all your time downtown and in some other areas of the city, that wouldn't be your first though. The city has been in the middle of a shift for awhile economically - manufacturing jobs have been replaced with white collar office jobs. The last unemployment numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) pegs NYC at 6.1% and Chicago at 6.5%. That is a lot closer than many people realize right now. Los Angeles is at 7.1%.

These people leave the city for other places in search of those old jobs that have shored up in the face of a changing economic climate, but there's been no shortage of the white collar jobs coming in (which is why the unemployment percentage is 4% lower than it was just 2 years ago). Other people leave the bad neighborhoods because of the violence in there, instead of realizing that many neighborhoods in the city don't have it. The north side is a completely different planet than these areas of the city (save a few areas on the south side like Hyde Park, Kenwood, etc). Anybody who has experienced both can tell you this. It's night and day.

Last edited by marothisu; 09-18-2015 at 04:46 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2015, 04:49 PM
 
Location: MPLS/CHI
553 posts, read 446,074 times
Reputation: 382
Of course NYC wins this thread, but bigger is not always better. Many people visit NYC and find it too overwhelming, especially Manhattan. From people I know who've visited, most say they like it but couldn't live there. Too many cars, too many people, too much garbage, too many rats etc. Chicago is actually growing in its core areas and is desirable, but the climate holds it back. Its not plain and boring and to me it is the best summer city. It has mag mile, beaches, tours, events, museums, attractions, architecture, bars, food etc. Chicago has its own vibe and is vibrant by US standards, plus there were over 50 million visitors last year.

NYC wins in urbanity and it awes people with it massiveness. Chicago awes people with its combination of beauty and urbanity. Chicago gets compared to NYC a lot but it isn't trying to be NYC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2015, 04:49 PM
 
13 posts, read 12,016 times
Reputation: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
I'd still give the edge to Chicago over downtown Manhattan in cleanliness. You're right that downtown Manhattan isn't that dirty. However, downtown Chicago has more newer sidewalks on average in a lot of places, and especially in the summertime more flowers are out though parts of FiDi can be nice for that too depending on where you go. I can show you many instances around my office in Manhattan where the sidewalk has needed repair for the better part of 5-7 years and is in really bad shape. Every city around the planet has this, even in prime areas. When you get tons of foot traffic, your stuff is going to eventually wear down.


Apart from cleanliness, the waterfront is definitely better too IMO. The Hudson side of things isn't bad for a little bit like down near Chelsea Market, but I'd pick Chicago any second of the year for waterfront. In the words of my friend from NYC when he came up on the water front for the first time ever about a month ago and had only been there during the winter: "Well this certainly changes everything....I can now see why living here is so attractive" which he later said "I can see why this would be a good alternative to NYC if you don't want to pay as much."

I also personally find the skyline of Chicago more attractive, and that's because I like more modern things and think that from a little bit aways, it shows that off better than NYC (NYC being the older city has more older architecture). The skyline coming from an area like Queens isn't very attractive, however it's better from the Hudson side of things like if you were in Jersey City at Newport looking east into Manhattan.


In any case, this isn't a competition. Anybody who's an urban fanatic can't deny NYC is amazing when it comes to its sheer urbanity, number of shops/restaurants/etc and pure energy. It's #1 in this regard in the US easily. However, being #1 in everything is not a requirement to live in a place fully. Just because you're #2 or #3 or #4 doesn't mean the place sucks and your life is a miserable hell hole. The funny thing is that my friend above was kind of inquiring how much I pay in Chicago too. When I told him "yeah but it's not NYC - NYC has more of everything" his response was "it doesn't matter. it's good enough." He's not moving to Chicago anytime soon, but his response to me trying to push him away from any thoughts of leaving NYC is what I'm getting at.


By the way, downtown Chicago as well as some other neighborhoods are actually growing a bit right now. The most population loss comes from the west and south sides of the city. If you pay attention to only the overall population numbers, you see it's about nullified. If you spend all your time downtown and in some other areas of the city, that wouldn't be your first though. The city has been in the middle of a shift for awhile economically - manufacturing jobs have been replaced with white collar office jobs. The last unemployment numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) pegs NYC at 6.1% and Chicago at 6.5%. That is a lot closer than many people realize right now. Los Angeles is at 7.1%.

These people leave the city for other places in search of those old jobs that have shored up in the face of a changing economic climate, but there's been no shortage of the white collar jobs coming in (which is why the unemployment percentage is 4% lower than it was just 2 years ago). Other people leave the bad neighborhoods because of the violence in there, instead of realizing that many neighborhoods in the city don't have it. The north side is a completely different planet than these areas of the city (save a few areas on the south side like Hyde Park, Kenwood, etc). Anybody who has experienced both can tell you this. It's night and day.
Most normal people could not tell the difference between Downtown Manhattan and Downtown Chicago in terms of cleanliness.

Chicago's population is dropping but that's not what I meant when I said declining. Look at all of those magnificent buildings going up in New York. Chicago has been left in the dust. New York has a better skyline and certainly has far more modern buildings going up. It's also the taller city these days, and I don't think that will ever change.

In terms of modern buildings, New York is already spanking Chicago with Hudson Yards and in terms of waterfront, it doesn't make up for the fact that Chicago is in the middle of the county and people there have no access to real beaches.

Last edited by jack sparrow; 09-18-2015 at 05:00 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2015, 05:00 PM
 
Location: Upper West Side, Manhattan, NYC
14,304 posts, read 17,924,050 times
Reputation: 6255
Quote:
Originally Posted by jack sparrow View Post
Most normal people could not tell the difference between Downtown Manhattan and Downtown Chicago in terms of cleanliness.
I'm not disagreeing that downtown Manhattan is not dirty. It's not that dirty. However, if we are going to be talking about cleanliness and a nice walk, apart from "wow there's so many shops" (which honestly FiDi isn't necessarily as packed as other parts of Manhattan), then I'd pick Chicago. There are definitely charming parts of that area in Manhattan though that are really great though. It's not like I'd be upset with either choice.

Quote:
Chicago's population is dropping but that's not all I meant when I said declining. Look at all of those magnificent buildings going up in New York. That used to be Chicago a decade ago. New York certainly has a better skyline and far more interesting buildings under construction. Chicago used to be the taller city but it isn't anymore. Sad.
New York has some nice, tall buildings going up without a doubt. However, downtown Chicago has a lot going up right now too with a lot more planned in the very near future. Yes, it's shorter on average, though there's enough not very tall buildings going up in NYC too of below 400 feet right now. Nothing as tall as the tallest in NYC except for the planned Wanda Vista building (which is a year or two from from starting).

There are two buildings going up right next to each other in Chicago as we speak that are 750+ feet each in an area where there was really nothing before to fill a massive gap on the skyline and on the river fork. Across from that is a piece of land the Kennedy family owns. These three buildings will tie the skyline along the river together for once in the only area currently where it's not tied together. The Kennedy family is currently almost done with their first residential high rise (500 or so feet). They have plans for two more - one will be 700+ feet and the other will be 900+ feet. I have no doubt at least one will happen. The Wanda Vista building is slated to be 1150 feet as well so that's legitimately tall. That will be the first US project from the richest man in China.

I find Chicago's skyline to be better as it looks more modern and diverse in styles on average, but that's my own opinion (and I know many others who share that opinion including a few friends of mine in NYC who are more all glass high rise fans than brick ones). I know many people who prefer NYC's skyline over everything in the world, and I know others who like Chicago's the best, and others who don't hold either one of them to be #1 in the world. The skyline coming from the east into Manhattan is not very attractive. It's full of non-descript buildings like the 110 buildings in Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town that are all the same and not very attractive. IMO the two cities are definitely #1 and #2 for skylines though. The pure size of Manhattan's skyline is downright impressive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2015, 05:56 PM
 
9,701 posts, read 6,669,821 times
Reputation: 9775
In the western world, cleanliness is generally a proxy for sterility and suburban feel. So it's insane to use as a measure of urban appeal. The most vibrant urban centers, places like Paris and Rome, tend to be a bit dirty and messy, because there are tons of people around, at all hours, and they live their lives in the streets, eating, socializing and the like.

I mean, Schaumburg is much cleaner than Chicago. Tuscon is much cleaner than Chicago. Is that the argument being made?

And Chicago isn't notably cleaner than NYC. I have no idea where people came up with this, as if I go to a random place in Chicago, like Little Village, or Rogers Park, or Pullman, and it supposedly has sparkling clean streets, like you were in a Austrian or Swiss village or something, and the grandmas are scrubbing down their sidewalks every morning. It's complete nonsense.

Chicago is relatively dirty like all major urban cities in the U.S. Most of the city is very working class and gritty, and does not have a particular squeaky clean, orderly feel like some Midwest Singapore or something. It's also quite vibrant for American standards, and this does not lend itself to a spotless feel. You aren't exactly going to want to eat off the pavement at Belmont & Clark, to take an example, especially on a weekend night, when the neighborhood can get slightly gross (which is largely a function of vitality).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2015, 06:05 PM
 
Location: Upper West Side, Manhattan, NYC
14,304 posts, read 17,924,050 times
Reputation: 6255
^ While I agree with the overall sentiment, I don't agree with that necessarily. I think it's very possible for a city to be clean and urban at the same time. Regardless of that, being clean in an urban environment has some merit to it. It's not going to win for anything as far as urbanity goes, but any city that can manage to keep it clean is doing a service to its inhabitants, though I don't think squeaky clean like Singapore is all that great. That was actually a turn off to me about Singapore. While clean, in some areas it was almost too clean and weird. I don't find that to be the case in Chicago, but I find it to be clean for urban standards in many areas. Chicago is not dirty unless you're comparing it to some non-descript sub division in a suburb of Minneapolis where all the houses were built less than 15 years ago, no customer facing business is within 1/2 mile of the center, and nobody ever walks anywhere except for an evening walk with a spouse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2015, 07:04 PM
 
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,539 posts, read 2,310,375 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by jack sparrow View Post
Most normal people could not tell the difference between Downtown Manhattan and Downtown Chicago in terms of cleanliness.

Chicago's population is dropping but that's not what I meant when I said declining. Look at all of those magnificent buildings going up in New York. Chicago has been left in the dust. New York has a better skyline and certainly has far more modern buildings going up. It's also the taller city these days, and I don't think that will ever change.

In terms of modern buildings, New York is already spanking Chicago with Hudson Yards and in terms of waterfront, it doesn't make up for the fact that Chicago is in the middle of the county and people there have no access to real beaches.
DOWNTOWN CHICAGO IS STILL BOOMING. It and some other cities are experiencing Black flight and some White Middle-Class for more White Suburban Schools. Latino influx has slowed but still double-digits. YOUNG URBAN PEOFESSIONAL GRWTH IS STILL RISING.

Chicago's DOWNTOWN had the Largest Growth of a city BY THE USA CENSUS. 2000- 2010. They count a downtown as 2-mile radius from its City Hall. For Chicago this includes Grant and Millennium Park too.

Chicago had largest downtown population growth from 2000 to 2010

48,288 increase in these 2-miles. This when the city Bu census was to have lost 200,000. Dispite that loss the metro still managed a 362,789 increase.

The new census says Chicago grew again.... mere 82 people.... but not a loss again....? Downtown areas still should show nice growths.

Another
Chicago’s real estate market is booming - FT.com
Chicago second most active Central business district office market in the nation 2014.

THIS IS STILL A BEACH.... palm trees city put in the sand and planters foe one year. 2012 think...



So spare us DECLINES.... NOT DOWNTOWN IT ISN'T....

THIS IS A WATERFRONT.... You cannot knock it....



Last edited by steeps; 09-18-2015 at 07:43 PM..
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.

2005-2018, 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