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.
Chicago's mix of courtyard buildings and 4 flats are unique and offer a different vibe than NY's 6/7 story walk-ups. They provide my favorite urban aesthetic in the city. I wish more stood today and that they were as prevelant throughout Chicago as walkups are in NY. I would prefer blocks of these over Victorian Greystones and rowhomes all day long. No modern infill even comes close to replicating their instensity and charm.
Chicago.. When you're walking in certain areas of the Loop, it looks and feels exactly like Manhattan.
I'm leaning towards Chicago as well, largely because of the parallels between Midtown and the Loop. It's also the biggest of the older northern cities by far, so there's more similarity in terms of scale. There are major obvious differences outside of each city's core, however.
My 2nd place is probably Philly. The comparable age and geographic proximity mean that the two share a lot of commonalities. Center City has shades of Manhattan as well, but not nearly on the same scale as Chicago. Outside of Center City/Manhattan, I think Philadelphia have the most in common out of these cities. But again, the scale of everything in Philly is much smaller.
3rd for me goes to Boston, like Philly, it has the similar age and topography. But Boston's irregular street grid really sets it apart from NYC and the top two choices here. The only parallel is Lower Manhattan which has a lot of resemblance to Boston's Financial District (again, obviously a much, much smaller scale). Back Bay shares some characteristics with Manhattan's Upper East Side, but the neighborhoods outside of the core have very little in common.
4th is SF. I'm surprised this one ranked so highly. Apart from the density in the core, I just don't see it all that much. I guess there are some similarities between the Financial District and the canyons of Midtown, but it's a newer, west coast city with fewer similarities architecturally. The topography of SF, even just to the north of Market is drastically different from anything in NYC. The colors, the flora, the surface running light rail/street cars, etc. are all so drastically different from anything back east, it's really hard to rank this one much higher.
5th is DC. There are some similarities in some of the residential pockets, but DC to me feels the least like NYC of all of the Northeastern cities.
LA is a distant 6th. Just entirely different on all fronts.
I'm also not sure I agree that London is all that similar to NYC. I don't think I'd rank it higher than Chicago or maybe even Philly. London has density and size in its favor. Architecturally, NYC is the most similar of the European cities (but not as similar as Chicago, Philly, or Boston). But apart from that, it feels VERY different. There's a complete lack of a street grid in London, and the street grid is one of NYC's defining features and impacts almost everything about the experience of being in the city. The Thames is central to the orientation of everything in London in a way that has no real match in NYC. Similarly, London has no match to Manhattan's urban canyons, long, wide streets/avenues, etc. There's no single business district in London that has anything approaching the scale and towering, imposing height that either Midtown or Lower Manhattan has. The pedestrian experience is completely different as London is chalk full of winding little lanes and alleyways that funnel pedestrians from place to place whereas NYC's big grid, relatively and wide sidewalks (compared to London, anyway) move through pedestrians in a very different fashion. London's outer neighborhoods have their own mini downtown areas (High Streets and Broadways) that are more akin to Boston's squares than New York's neighborhoods where the retail clusters on the grid network don't have the same effect.
I'm leaning towards Chicago as well, largely because of the parallels between Midtown and the Loop. It's also the biggest of the older northern cities by far, so there's more similarity in terms of scale. There are major obvious differences outside of each city's core, however.
My 2nd place is probably Philly. The comparable age and geographic proximity mean that the two share a lot of commonalities. Center City has shades of Manhattan as well, but not nearly on the same scale as Chicago. Outside of Center City/Manhattan, I think Philadelphia have the most in common out of these cities. But again, the scale of everything in Philly is much smaller.
3rd for me goes to Boston, like Philly, it has the similar age and topography. But Boston's irregular street grid really sets it apart from NYC and the top two choices here. The only parallel is Lower Manhattan which has a lot of resemblance to Boston's Financial District (again, obviously a much, much smaller scale). Back Bay shares some characteristics with Manhattan's Upper East Side, but the neighborhoods outside of the core have very little in common.
4th is SF. I'm surprised this one ranked so highly. Apart from the density in the core, I just don't see it all that much. I guess there are some similarities between the Financial District and the canyons of Midtown, but it's a newer, west coast city with fewer similarities architecturally. The topography of SF, even just to the north of Market is drastically different from anything in NYC. The colors, the flora, the surface running light rail/street cars, etc. are all so drastically different from anything back east, it's really hard to rank this one much higher.
5th is DC. There are some similarities in some of the residential pockets, but DC to me feels the least like NYC of all of the Northeastern cities.
LA is a distant 6th. Just entirely different on all fronts.
I'm also not sure I agree that London is all that similar to NYC. I don't think I'd rank it higher than Chicago or maybe even Philly. London has density and size in its favor. Architecturally, NYC is the most similar of the European cities (but not as similar as Chicago, Philly, or Boston). But apart from that, it feels VERY different. There's a complete lack of a street grid in London, and the street grid is one of NYC's defining features and impacts almost everything about the experience of being in the city. The Thames is central to the orientation of everything in London in a way that has no real match in NYC. Similarly, London has no match to Manhattan's urban canyons, long, wide streets/avenues, etc. There's no single business district in London that has anything approaching the scale and towering, imposing height that either Midtown or Lower Manhattan has. The pedestrian experience is completely different as London is chalk full of winding little lanes and alleyways that funnel pedestrians from place to place whereas NYC's big grid, relatively and wide sidewalks (compared to London, anyway) move through pedestrians in a very different fashion. London's outer neighborhoods have their own mini downtown areas (High Streets and Broadways) that are more akin to Boston's squares than New York's neighborhoods where the retail clusters on the grid network don't have the same effect.
IMO, Chicago in the Loop and surrounding neighborhoods is the best comparison to Manhattan from around 14th St up to around 86th St. Philly is the better comparison to everything below 14th St except for FiDi in Manhattan and then some extremely condensed version of Brooklyn and Queens. Boston compares to FiDi with non-gridded urban feel. Combine those three and blow them up on a huge scale and you have NYC...at least to me.
Outside of FiDi, Union Square, and SoMa, SF doesn't really feel like NYC. The general lack of subways, the wider streets, the architecture, etc. I mean, there are similarities, but not more than with Chicago or Philly.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,568,606 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
I'm leaning towards Chicago as well, largely because of the parallels between Midtown and the Loop. It's also the biggest of the older northern cities by far, so there's more similarity in terms of scale. There are major obvious differences outside of each city's core, however.
My 2nd place is probably Philly. The comparable age and geographic proximity mean that the two share a lot of commonalities. Center City has shades of Manhattan as well, but not nearly on the same scale as Chicago. Outside of Center City/Manhattan, I think Philadelphia have the most in common out of these cities. But again, the scale of everything in Philly is much smaller.
3rd for me goes to Boston, like Philly, it has the similar age and topography. But Boston's irregular street grid really sets it apart from NYC and the top two choices here. The only parallel is Lower Manhattan which has a lot of resemblance to Boston's Financial District (again, obviously a much, much smaller scale). Back Bay shares some characteristics with Manhattan's Upper East Side, but the neighborhoods outside of the core have very little in common.
4th is SF. I'm surprised this one ranked so highly. Apart from the density in the core, I just don't see it all that much. I guess there are some similarities between the Financial District and the canyons of Midtown, but it's a newer, west coast city with fewer similarities architecturally. The topography of SF, even just to the north of Market is drastically different from anything in NYC. The colors, the flora, the surface running light rail/street cars, etc. are all so drastically different from anything back east, it's really hard to rank this one much higher.
5th is DC. There are some similarities in some of the residential pockets, but DC to me feels the least like NYC of all of the Northeastern cities.
LA is a distant 6th. Just entirely different on all fronts.
I'm also not sure I agree that London is all that similar to NYC. I don't think I'd rank it higher than Chicago or maybe even Philly. London has density and size in its favor. Architecturally, NYC is the most similar of the European cities (but not as similar as Chicago, Philly, or Boston). But apart from that, it feels VERY different. There's a complete lack of a street grid in London, and the street grid is one of NYC's defining features and impacts almost everything about the experience of being in the city. The Thames is central to the orientation of everything in London in a way that has no real match in NYC. Similarly, London has no match to Manhattan's urban canyons, long, wide streets/avenues, etc. There's no single business district in London that has anything approaching the scale and towering, imposing height that either Midtown or Lower Manhattan has. The pedestrian experience is completely different as London is chalk full of winding little lanes and alleyways that funnel pedestrians from place to place whereas NYC's big grid, relatively and wide sidewalks (compared to London, anyway) move through pedestrians in a very different fashion. London's outer neighborhoods have their own mini downtown areas (High Streets and Broadways) that are more akin to Boston's squares than New York's neighborhoods where the retail clusters on the grid network don't have the same effect.
It definitely has the most demographic similarity with NYC especially in its outer neighborhoods but I wouldn't rank it above Philly or Chicago, maybe just a little ahead of DC because it has taller buildings and narrower streets.
It definitely has the most demographic similarity with NYC especially in its outer neighborhoods but I wouldn't rank it above Philly or Chicago, maybe just a little ahead of DC because it has taller buildings and narrower streets.
I see the comparison but id put Philly ahead. Boston is too European designed (roadwise) and quaint in feeling over NYC. The grit and cleanliness is certainly on a Philly level too.
I see the comparison but id put Philly ahead. Boston is too European designed (roadwise) and quaint in feeling over NYC. The grit and cleanliness is certainly on a Philly level too.
It is interesting how empty feeling Boston looks. I think Philly is more gritty and dirty feeling. Both feel more quaint compared to NYC or Chicago.
Boston isnt empty by a long shot, definitely some spots 10 years ago... Its more or less designed in a different way than NY. But those photos are not the most flattering images lol
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.
