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.
The most I've seen of Brooklyn are endless brick buildings. Which isn't a BAD thing per se, the same way people might look at LA architecture and think it's tacky, some might look at the architecture of BK and once again think "They're just bricks". Both BK and Chicago and LA are architecturally varied, but each of them has a specific dominant architecture. LA=Spanish Revival/Mediterranean, BK=Brownstone, Chicago=Grey stone(not too sure).
Here goes the east coast arrogance again. Who cares that its in the northeast? "It's on the east coast son!" "Brooklyn is where it's at kid!" or "I'm from New york son!" You east coast people sound ridiculous because the majority of the country don't talk like that. I used to think the new york slang was fake until i went there and here people saying "yeah son" or "yeah kid" it was hilarious.
Yeah, the folks on the east coast are hilarious. I remember walking through Manhattan and a couple of folks were literally shouting 'This is New York!' What a joke!
Yeah, the folks on the east coast are hilarious. I remember walking through Manhattan and a couple of folks were literally shouting 'This is New York!' What a joke!
I, too, want to chime in with how ridiculously off this post is. Brooklyn's architecture is anything, but plain. There's a huge mix of architectural styles since its an agglomeration of very separate communities before Brooklyn was consolidated as one. There's varied topography and several centuries of various types of build-up. And there are many parts of Brooklyn which are very leafy and green.
So Chicago, a city vastly larger than Brooklyn, doesn't have interesting architecture and some "leafy and green" neighborhoods? Come on, anyone who has seen Brooklyn knows it is a very old part of New York with huge sections of nondescript blocks; concrete jungle and nothing scenic outside sections that face the East River or Atlantic ocean. To compare Brooklyn to Chicago; the 3rd largest city in America with the tallest building in north America is blatantly absurd. What is wrong with some posters? Have they gone entirely out into an orbit of delusional self-denial?
Please, someone start posting photos of Chicago and Brooklyn so those who have not been to either area can decide how impossibly irrational this thread has become.
So Chicago, a city vastly larger than Brooklyn, doesn't have interesting architecture and some "leafy and green" neighborhoods? Come on, anyone who has seen Brooklyn knows it is a very old part of New York with huge sections of nondescript blocks; concrete jungle and nothing scenic outside sections that face the East River or Atlantic ocean. To compare Brooklyn to Chicago; the 3rd largest city in America with the tallest building in north America is blatantly absurd. What is wrong with some posters? Have they gone entirely out into an orbit of delusional self-denial?
Please, someone start posting photos of Chicago and Brooklyn so those who have not been to either area can decide how impossibly irrational this thread has become.
Maybe you need to roll your eyes back to the front of your head. There was no mention of Chicago not having interesting architecture or that it lacks leafy and green neighborhoods. You're basically in attack mode trying to defend your position so you've completely disregarded what is being said. All you can see right now is agreement and disagreement. This is why your post is entirely off.
I've lived in Brooklyn, I know it better than you. Also, Brooklyn is right behind Chicago in population. If it were to be a separate city, then it would be at 4th right behind Chicago's 3rd.
Brooklyn isn't even a city - you can't reasonably compare the two. Do you ever hear about "Brooklyn" being known as a hub for transportation, finance, world-class universities, etc?
What's pretty amazing is that some New Yorkers actually believe or desperately try to believe in the fantasy. Damn, I'd hate to see Chicago if it is anything like Brooklyn! And we know it is not, thank God. Its like comparing Staten Island to Paris or the Bronx to London. Absurd to the point of being delusional. NYC for those who have actually been there is a dynamic and highly stimulating city so long as your restrict your stay in Manhattan. The boroughs are uninteresting and very old suburbs with nothing all that much to offer. Who goes to NYC to see Brooklyn? It's like someone visiting Evanston, Illinois and claiming they saw Chicago. Brooklyn isn't very attractive and those who state otherwise are being outright deceitful and want to masquerade something that is ridiculous or they are totally nuts and have a very limited world-view\ exposure to the nation.
Actually I would say that Brooklyn's best neighborhoods are generally more densely populated and interesting than Chicago's best. Although the dense highrise residential areas in downtown Chicago are probably denser than any single area in Brooklyn. And this is coming from somebody who lives in Chicago.
I have actually stayed in Brooklyn while visiting NYC. It's like a 10-20 minute subway ride into Manhattan from the neighborhoods around downtown Brooklyn.
Who knows? I didn't ask. I got the impression that they were New Yorkers who were very proud of their city. So proud that they wanted to remind eveyone what an amazing place New York is.
Hell, I heard a guy yelling 'New York' on 53rd st in Chicago. lol
Maybe you need to roll your eyes back to the front of your head. There was no mention of Chicago not having interesting architecture or that it lacks leafy and green neighborhoods. You're basically in attack mode trying to defend your position so you've completely disregarded what is being said. All you can see right now is agreement and disagreement. This is why your post is entirely off.
I've lived in Brooklyn, I know it better than you. Also, Brooklyn is right behind Chicago in population. If it were to be a separate city, then it would be at 4th right behind Chicago's 3rd.
So you can seriously compare Chicago to a borough of New York with a straight face? The point I keep making is that some New Yorkers have to wake-up and maybe get out of NYC once in a while. Brooklyn and the Bronx were immensely unimpressive based on what I saw. It's like suggesting that Burbank has character compared to Chicago or NYC. Yeah, I guess there is a little to be said for Burbank but to compare it to Chicago would be completely nonsensical. To be quite honest, Los Angeles suburbs like Santa Monica and Pasadena have so much more to offer than Brooklyn yet I would never make the comparison since both are barely 200,000 people. Chicago compared to Brooklyn is like London compared to Mexico City; they are both very large cities with "leafy and green" neighborhoods. Sooooo?
I just got back from a weekend in nyc, and did a lot of touring of Brooklyn. I think there are many similarities between these two wonderful cities.
Has anyone else noticed any similarities between the two?
Not really. First, Brooklyn is way more built up than Chicago. Second, the borough is the West Indian mecca. Driving down Flatbush Avenue is more like a drive through Port-au-Spain than it is a drive through the Southside of Chicago.
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.