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.
Is it really better at a street level however? most of the amazing shots of the Chicago skyline I've seen are taken from helicopters over lake Michigan. Whenever I was in Chicago, I can't remember being overtly impressed.
But the view of the Manhattan skyline from the top of some brownstone in Brooklyn, is just fantastic. Mostly because of the length of the skyline.
The best, by far skyline, in the world is in Hong Kong.
So you are comparing Chicago’s view from street level to a rooftop view of Manhattan from another borough?
There are plenty of great skyline views of Chicago from the west. Take this one from Wicker Park for example:
Is it really better at a street level however? most of the amazing shots of the Chicago skyline I've seen are taken from helicopters over lake Michigan. Whenever I was in Chicago, I can't remember being overtly impressed.
But the view of the Manhattan skyline from the top of some brownstone in Brooklyn, is just fantastic. Mostly because of the length of the skyline.
The best, by far skyline, in the world is in Hong Kong.
Chicago has its lakefront for skyline vistas and its Grand Parks and river. Liking a skyline better if one of the top skylines on the world.... becomes subjective. Though we generally think of the scope the Manhattan skyline is miles long. Anyone taking a boat tour into lake Michigan.... sees Chicago's spans its lakefront to for miles. But of course, there is more to the sheer volume of NYC's. But its best view from a distance where Chicago has more open vistas to view its skyline .
But how is Chicago not just a poor man's NYC? Pretty much everything it offers, NYC has and more:
Chicago has a lakefront, NYC has the Atlantic Ocean.
Chicago has history, NYC has even richer history.
Chicago is pedestrian friendly, NYC is even more pedestrian friendly
Chicago is diverse, NYC is even more diverse
Chicago has parks, NYC has grander parks.
[/Devil's Advocate]
Chicago's lakefront is better than New York's lakefront, btw. No point in arguing with you, because you are biased. Chicago is a beautiful city worth seeing, as many do. I lived there for years, and met many, many people from foreign countries, there for a few days. Sorry, but many disagree with you. Actually, I guess I'm not sorry.
Chicago's lakefront is better than New York's lakefront, btw. No point in arguing with you, because you are biased. Chicago is a beautiful city worth seeing, as many do. I lived there for years, and met many, many people from foreign countries, there for a few days. Sorry, but many disagree with you. Actually, I guess I'm not sorry.
There is no doubt that Chicago's lakefront is better than at least what Manhattan has (and Bronx, in my opinion). Even my most biased of friends who live here in NYC who think that NYC is the best at literally everything in the world admit that Chicago's lakefront is superior to what Manhattan has to offer as far as waterfront's go. There is no comparison of Chicago's lakefront to the East River or Hudson River. Lake Michigan in Chicago is simply superior.
The best of the waterfront for NYC is far away from Manhattan in Queens in places like Rockaway or Roxbury. Of course there is places like Coney Island, but I am personally not a huge fan and don't think that's superior. Staten Island has some beaches too like South Beach and Midland Beach.
As far as city cores go - Chicago's Lake Michigan is definitely superior to what Manhattan has and I'd also say to what Bronx has, mostly and I'd go as far as saying even places like Brooklyn Bridge Park, which is a decent park with a nice view.
There is no doubt that Chicago's lakefront is better than at least what Manhattan has (and Bronx, in my opinion). Even my most biased of friends who live here in NYC who think that NYC is the best at literally everything in the world admit that Chicago's lakefront is superior to what Manhattan has to offer as far as waterfront's go. There is no comparison of Chicago's lakefront to the East River or Hudson River. Lake Michigan in Chicago is simply superior.
The best of the waterfront for NYC is far away from Manhattan in Queens in places like Rockaway or Roxbury. Of course there is places like Coney Island, but I am personally not a huge fan and don't think that's superior. Staten Island has some beaches too like South Beach and Midland Beach.
As far as city cores go - Chicago's Lake Michigan is definitely superior to what Manhattan has and I'd also say to what Bronx has, mostly and I'd go as far as saying even places like Brooklyn Bridge Park, which is a decent park with a nice view.
I'm not sure if Chicago's lakefront is really relevant to this thread. While nicer than the Hudson River, and cleaner (and less trashy) than Coney Island, it's not something I see many tourists bothering with.
I'm not sure if Chicago's lakefront is really relevant to this thread. While nicer than the Hudson River, and cleaner (and less trashy) than Coney Island, it's not something I see many tourists bothering with.
LOL..................as someone who lived in Chicago for nearly a decade, I can tell you right now it's obvious you don't really know what tourists do in Chicago. The lakefront is a decently big draw for tourists downtown, even outside of Navy Pier which is on the lake and literally the top visited tourist attraction in the entire state of Illinois.
Chicago beats NYC for urban waterfront. I'd take the hamptons over Lake Michigan though granted further away. If I hadn't seen either and I could only see one I'd see NYC. Since that's probably not the case I'd recommend seeing both.
For cycling or jogging I would take Chicago's waterfront over Manhattan -- although Riverside Park (on the west side) and the east side river park from 14th to Williamsburg Bridge are pretty analogous to the lakefront infrastructure in Chicago. Of course we also don't have beaches right in the innercity, like Chicago. One of my most memorable experiences in Chicago was hanging out in the packed North Avenue Beach with Chicago's skyline in the background. Pretty awesome.
What I think NY does better is what I would call mixed use waterfront development. If you look at Battery Park City, Long Island City or the new riverfront development in Brooklyn. Or if you cross the river to NJ and look at the continuous 8 mile stretch from Port Imperial to Jersey City with a lot of great stuff there (especially in Hoboken). In Chicago you have LSD segregating the waterfront from the city, which is a liability.
So while I can see why people laud Chicago's waterfront it's not as clear-cut as some think. It depends more on what you like to do.
For cycling or jogging I would take Chicago's waterfront over Manhattan -- although Riverside Park (on the west side) and the east side river park from 14th to Williamsburg Bridge are pretty analogous to the lakefront infrastructure in Chicago. Of course we also don't have beaches right in the innercity, like Chicago. One of my most memorable experiences in Chicago was hanging out in the packed North Avenue Beach with Chicago's skyline in the background. Pretty awesome.
What I think NY does better is what I would call mixed use waterfront development. If you look at Battery Park City, Long Island City or the new riverfront development in Brooklyn. Or if you cross the river to NJ and look at the continuous 8 mile stretch from Port Imperial to Jersey City with a lot of great stuff there (especially in Hoboken). In Chicago you have LSD segregating the waterfront from the city, which is a liability.
So while I can see why people laud Chicago's waterfront it's not as clear-cut as some think. It depends more on what you like to do.
I think your experience with the lakefront in Chicago though is probably not as big as you think. Lake Shore Drive does not go the entire length of the waterfront for the city. In the north in Edgewater and Rogers Park, there are numerous high rises literally right next to the lake with no road separating them. Some basically have beaches right outside of the building. Walk out the back of the buildings and you are right near the water. There are some high rises on the lake in South Shore as well.
As far as the park stuff goes, if you go a bit north of North Ave Beach then Lincoln Park greatly expands in green space east of the road. Montrose Beach area has 10 or 15 acres of green space next to the beach. Remember that Lincoln Park, the actual park, is over 1200 acres, and over 50% of it is next to the lake with no road separating it.
I'm familiar with the park in LIC, and while it's pretty nice, I still wouldn't take it over chicago's waterfront parks. I think the best waterfront in nyc is far out of Manhattan in areas like Rockaway which has a completely different vibe than Manhattan.
At the end of the day though, the thread is about if you should visit one. Both have waterfronts, but the actual niceness of the waterfront around both cores are quite different.
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.
