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.
Though I'll add Midtown was developed relatively late, maybe 1860s. I don't think age affects much how much the shop concentration is.
I'd guess Wriggleyville might compare somewhat well with an outer borough neighborhood, though still less dense. Haven't been Wriggleyville; have been to Wicker Park.
I think they're only similar in the city centers. Outside Chicago isn't that similar to NYC. In some ways by scale and archecture, the closest Northeastern city to Chicago residential neighborhoods is Boston — lots of two and three family buildings, and both have a lot of wooden buildings. Densities are fairly similar except in the Chicago high rise neighborhoods by the lake, and Boston has a bunch of with 5 story ish apartment block surrounding downtown which nearly the same density. Chicago's gridded and goes on for much longer than Boston of course.
Chicago also has more residential highrises than both Boston and Philly combined. When it comes to vertical urban living (highrise residents/skyscraper office workers) Chicago easily beats any area of the Northeast outside NYC.
I agree that quite a lot of the Loop is, first and foremost, Chicago's CBD. Even with the increased number of residents over previous decades, a lot of the Loop outside of Michigan Ave by the parks and the Art Institute, the shopping on State Street, etc, is dead outside of standard of business hours. If you want a lively part of downtown, a neighborhood like River North is where someone is better off.
That being said, I'm not getting the idea that Wrigleyville is "edgy." Parts of the Clark strip certainly need some TLC, which makes me get the rustic comment, but I didn't ever think I'd here edgy and Wrigleyville used in the same sentence. Could you two elaborate what you mean by that?
By edgy I merely meant cool and hip. It's kind of known as a party district, especially amongst Cubs fans. The general populace seems to be younger as well.
Wrigleyville is the polar opposite of edgy. It's a neighborhood centered around a baseball stadium, and filled with suburbanites and frat-boy types. It most definitely isn't "cool and hip", unless you think sports bars and fast food are "cool and hip".
Wrigleyville is the polar opposite of edgy. It's a neighborhood centered around a baseball stadium, and filled with suburbanites and frat-boy types. It most definitely isn't "cool and hip", unless you think sports bars and fast food are "cool and hip".
Your definition and my definition of "edgy" differ. And it is "cool" and "hip" from what I've seen, and there's a lot more to it than fast food joints, which I don't remember seeing any of, and sports bars. You can't argue semantics on what's cool and what's not, so please don't even try.
By edgy I merely meant cool and hip. It's kind of known as a party district, especially amongst Cubs fans. The general populace seems to be younger as well.
It's popular, but not edgy by any means. Lots of frat bros and sorority basics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
Wrigleyville is the polar opposite of edgy. It's a neighborhood centered around a baseball stadium, and filled with suburbanites and frat-boy types. It most definitely isn't "cool and hip", unless you think sports bars and fast food are "cool and hip".
Its bars are full of college students and recent grads/transplants every weekend. The suburbanites only make it more congested, but they aren't the crowd that's filling the bars every weekend.
I can only stand a few of the bars there at this point, but its overall popularity can't be questioned. I agree that it's not edgy though.
Shops seemed to be a bit more generic / chains. Food places seemed to be either be chains or sit-down restaurants, though I could have missed something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment
From my time spent in Chicago I do have to agree there are an awful lot of chain stores and restaurants, there's a good mix of local and regional places as well.
Wait I'm confused, what's actually being considered to be more chain dominated here, Midtown or Loop? Or are you guys talking of just Chicago and New York in general?
Also, are you actually considering size difference here?
Wait I'm confused, what's actually being considered to be more chain dominated here, Midtown or Loop? Or are you guys talking of just Chicago and New York in general?
Also, are you actually considering size difference here?
Well the size difference is obvious, but it doesn't really affect what the main question is, how are the two cities visually different at ground level.
Wait I'm confused, what's actually being considered to be more chain dominated here, Midtown or Loop? Or are you guys talking of just Chicago and New York in general?
I was considering Midtown with the Loop. Not saying Midtown doesn't have plenty of chains, but there are non-chains [see some of the streetviews I posted]
Well the size difference is obvious, but it doesn't really affect what the main question is, how are the two cities visually different at ground level.
The land area of Chicago is about the same as New York City excluding Staten Island. Obviously that's not what you mean by size, but in one respect the city sizes are similar.
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.
