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.
NYC is bigger, we get that. How many different ways does it have to be said????? No one has tried to say it's not. This is getting ridiculous, as every possible angle is tried, by those who seem to desperately need to drive this point home. Was that the point of this thread, anyway? No, it wasn't. It's just always something that, I guess, we need to be reminded of, because we wouldn't know, otherwise. Pure, redundant silliness. Give the OP some credit...I'm sure he/she knows NYC is bigger.
Of course I know NYC is bigger and basically wanted to know if downtown Chicago offered something similar to Manhattan like Toronto. And it was confirmed that downtown chicago offer tourists anything similar to Manhattan but it does offers three things to tourists that manhattan doesn't which makes me excited for my trip.
OK, so fine. We've established that you don't care about density, urbanity or vibrancy.
Then what are we talking about, exactly? Can't someone argue that Peoria has a better core than Paris? What is the point about comparing urban cores if we don't care about urbanity? That's the whole point, no?
You may have missed gladhands' post above where he opined that there is no difference in urbanity between Manhattan and Chicago. There is only a difference in "housing density", which is apparently just a number on a piece of paper that has no relevance to any other urban characteristics
OK, so fine. We've established that you don't care about density, urbanity or vibrancy.
Then what are we talking about, exactly? Can't someone argue that Peoria has a better core than Paris? What is the point about comparing urban cores if we don't care about urbanity? That's the whole point, no?
This is incredibly facile and betrays a lack of knowledge of both cities. I'm of the belief that there's a threshold at which cities/neighborhoods reach peak urbanity, and increased density only makes the area more crowded...not more urban. I don't believe midtown is any more "urban" than Park Slope, and I certainly don't believe Manhattan is more urban than the areas of Chicago we're discussing.
This is incredibly facile and betrays a lack of knowledge of both cities. I'm of the belief that there's a threshold at which cities/neighborhoods reach peak urbanity, and increased density only makes the area more crowded...not more urban. I don't believe midtown is any more "urban" than Park Slope, and I certainly don't believe Manhattan is more urban than the areas of Chicago we're discussing.
Yes, there is certain point density becomes like traffic-jams. But with people. They dislike tourist who dare stop to look up. You no longer have a quiet block to go home too unless locked in your apartment. You rush but still another sees you in the way. Aesthetics are unimportant to add green or flowers because you don't take the time to enjoy passing them and trees are in the way. You need room for trash bags. (I jest).
But the point is density can reach overkill too. Then it no longer adds. Its threshold is reached and a downside can begin. My point in Manhattan can lose aspects we are to see its greatest asset in a degree of over-crowding that matches the traffic-jam on the streets. You just have no time to stop.
Midtown is like 100x more urban than Park Slope, obviously. Giant supertall canyons of towers packed with mobs of people are just a tad more urban than quiet leafy brownstone blocks with back yards.
Your definition of "urbanity" doesn't seem to make any sense. It seems to be "whatever you feel like" or something.
How do you define urbanity? How can a place with x density be as urban as a place with 4x density? Is Chicago as urban as Orlando too?
Midtown and Park Slope are simply different types of urban neighborhoods. Some urban neighborhoods are residential, some are business districts, some-mixed use. Midtown is a business district with some residences. Park Slope is a residential neighborhood with some businesses. The central part of the Village (around NYU is probably the best example of true mixed-use.
You seem to place a lot of importance on high rise buildings.
Urbanity has little to do with highrises, or mixed uses. Even suburban sprawl is sometimes highrise and mixed use.
If you think Midtown and Park Slope are the same in terms of density, then I can reasonably say that Tampa and Chicago are the same in terms of density.
After all, they're just "different types of urban neighborhoods" as you say.
I never said Park Slope and Midtown had the same density. I same they are equally urban.
I've never been to Tampa, so I can't speak on it's urbanity. You seem intent on arguing that density and urbanity, are one-in-the same. While density is a component of urbanity, not the totality. Favelas are incredibly dense, but I wouldn't call them urban.
What a dumb thread. You can break Midtown Manhattan up into 3 sections and it is still better than Chicago. Now Chicago has a great downtown, number 2 in the US but Manhattan is just on another level
What a dumb thread. You can break Midtown Manhattan up into 3 sections and it is still better than Chicago. Now Chicago has a great downtown, number 2 in the US but Manhattan is just on another level
Chicago still offers tourists 3 things that Manhattan is unable to but of course still a great city
Only things I can come up with are a beach, and a river running through downtown.
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.