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 is a Midwestern city and ought to be compared to other Midwestern cities just as Boston ought to be compared with North-Eastern cities. What is problematic with Chicago is that there are no Midwestern cities close to what Chicago is when it comes to size. Cites like Detroit, Minneapolis, Cleveland, St. Louis, Kansas City, Columbus, Indianapolis, Cincinnati and Milwaukee are large metropolitan areas but the core city is really small and not very dense. These cities have very little of a big city feel and bad public transport. Northern Eastern cities like Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Washington DC (Borderline state like Pittsburgh) and Baltimore are in my view much similar at least when it come to size and vibrancy than Chicago and other Midwestern cities. From a “big city” perspective Chicago ranks among the large cities in United States. I would say that New York, Chicago, Washington DC, Philadelphia, Boston, LA and San Francisco are really the only cities which I would consider to be “cosmopolitan” and comparable to cities outside the US. In that sense I think I think Chicago is comparable to New York and Boston. I personally feel more at home in Boston and New York than in Chicago although I think Chicago is better for the middle class than NY and Boston because of affordability. New York is really just an “elite project” for the very wealthy and the killing of that overweight poor black man really shows what New York City with all its BS-liberalism is all about.
Cites like Detroit, Minneapolis, Cleveland, St. Louis, Kansas City, Columbus, Indianapolis, Cincinnati and Milwaukee are large metropolitan areas but the core city is really small and not very dense. .
I doubt you've been to Cincinnati. The city proper is extremely dense. Actually it looks and feels more like Baltimore or a smaller version of Philly than a Midwestern city. I'm not sure why. Nearby cities like Columbus, Lexington, Indianapolis, and Louisville aren't anything like Cincinnati at all.
I doubt you've been to Cincinnati. The city proper is extremely dense. Actually it looks and feels more like Baltimore or a smaller version of Philly than a Midwestern city. I'm not sure why. Nearby cities like Columbus, Lexington, Indianapolis, and Louisville aren't anything like Cincinnati at all.
Because of when the cities grew. Cincinnati and St. Louis were the earliest cities in the midwest to become some large. Back when EVERYTHING had to be within walking distance. Those other cities were basically just villages at that time.
Chicago is a Midwestern city and ought to be compared to other Midwestern cities just as Boston ought to be compared with North-Eastern cities. What is problematic with Chicago is that there are no Midwestern cities close to what Chicago is when it comes to size. Cites like Detroit, Minneapolis, Cleveland, St. Louis, Kansas City, Columbus, Indianapolis, Cincinnati and Milwaukee are large metropolitan areas but the core city is really small and not very dense. These cities have very little of a big city feel and bad public transport. Northern Eastern cities like Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Washington DC (Borderline state like Pittsburgh) and Baltimore are in my view much similar at least when it come to size and vibrancy than Chicago and other Midwestern cities. From a “big city” perspective Chicago ranks among the large cities in United States. I would say that New York, Chicago, Washington DC, Philadelphia, Boston, LA and San Francisco are really the only cities which I would consider to be “cosmopolitan” and comparable to cities outside the US. In that sense I think I think Chicago is comparable to New York and Boston. I personally feel more at home in Boston and New York than in Chicago although I think Chicago is better for the middle class than NY and Boston because of affordability. New York is really just an “elite project” for the very wealthy and the killing of that overweight poor black man really shows what New York City with all its BS-liberalism is all about.
This is partially based on perception.
Leaving out Indianapolis and Columbus, because of the city county merging, we are only looking at city propers that are hemmed in my fully developed suburbs.
NYC is over 8 million people with 26,000 pp/sqmi. Philly is 1.5 million people with 11,000 pp/sqmi. Boston is about 700,000 and about 13,000 pp/sqmi.
Conversely Chicago is 2.7 million people with 11,000 pp/sqmi, while Detroit is 700,000 with about 5,000 pp/sqmi. Minneapolis is about 400,000 and about 7,000 pp/sqmi
NYC is over 5 times larger than the next largest Northeast city, Philly.
Chicago is less than 4 times larger than the next largest midwest city, Detroit.
NYC has twice the pop density of the 2nd most dense northeast city, Boston
Chicago has a little over 1.5 times the pop density of the 2nd most dense midwest city, Minneapolis
As we can see the difference between Chicago and the 2nd and 3rd largest cities in the midwest is less of proportionate difference between NYC and its 2nd and 3rd largest, most vibrant cities.
Also keep in mind that specifically cities like Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis at their peak had a population density not that far off from Chicago.
And as far as affordability. Sure, Chicago maybe more affordable, however whatever data on housing/rent costs in Chicago, is skewed by the fact that a much larger % of Chicago neighborhoods are dangerous and run down. The desirable urban, vibrant parts of Chicago are still pretty expensive.
And what happened in New York can happen anywhere. That in no way can reflect the attitudes of a whole city.
Neither, The two times I visited Chicago, the city felt just as distinct as any of the other larger cities of the US, but if I had to pick one.... I really do think it feels a hair closer to NY than Boston. Restaurant Culture, Finance, Skyscraper Architecture, national airline hubs, extreme tourist zones, African American Culture.
Neither, The two times I visited Chicago, the city felt just as distinct as any of the other larger cities of the US, but if I had to pick one.... I really do think it feels a hair closer to NY than Boston. Restaurant Culture, Finance, Skyscraper Architecture, national airline hubs, extreme tourist zones, African American Culture.
I agree with this post. If I had to pick one, I'd go with NYC as well. It is modeled more in this fashion than Boston is. The lifestyle, business, skyscraper, subways, nightlife, food options, etc. also lean more towards NYC than Boston. Boston is really more a stand out in terms of being different compared to the others
I agree with this post. If I had to pick one, I'd go with NYC as well. It is modeled more in this fashion than Boston is. The lifestyle, business, skyscraper, subways, nightlife, food options, etc. also lean more towards NYC than Boston. Boston is really more a stand out in terms of being different compared to the others
Yeah I like how the Comedian Bill Burr described his hometown of Boston as a racist version of San Francisco. Chicago couldn't be farther away from being that ha.
Yeah I like how the Comedian Bill Burr described his hometown of Boston as a racist version of San Francisco. Chicago couldn't be farther away from being that ha.
Thats your opinion. I personally think that is closer to chicagos description. San Francisco while being a third tge size of chicago, does pulls its weight inn urbanity, urban amenities that make it more neck and ne k with chicago. Besides SF is part of of a multicentered metropolis of three anchir cities, which if you were to glue together would approximate chicagos size and multifacted nature (SF, oakland, and san jose).
And as far as the next point, even the most feverish Chicago boosters will acknowledge that Chicago is behind on race relations compared to the other large cosmopolitan cities in the US. In that way it is more similar to boston than NYC
Boston is old, white and American. Chicago is really nothing like Boston in terms of the way it feels. I've lived in both cities and I think Chicago is like a cleaner, newer, more spread out, less grumpy NYC. Aesthetically, I think Chicago and San Francisco look much more similar in terms of architecture and layout, but SF has all the hills and natural beauty surrounding it and gives it a unique look.
I doubt you've been to Cincinnati. The city proper is extremely dense. Actually it looks and feels more like Baltimore or a smaller version of Philly than a Midwestern city. I'm not sure why. Nearby cities like Columbus, Lexington, Indianapolis, and Louisville aren't anything like Cincinnati at all. https://goo.gl/maps/ge8hF
I have been to Cincinnati but I have not been in Indianapolis. I have just been in Baltimore for a short period of time. When it comes to Cincinnati, it is not a cosmopolitan city nor even close to anything which would be defined as a large city. What I’m talking about is major cities and Cincinnati is not a major US city but a medium-sized city. United States is unique in the sense that there are so few major cities. People tend to live in suburban cities and Cincinnati (Although a bit different being old) is not very different from the larger US city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il?
This is partially based on perception. Leaving out Indianapolis and Columbus, because of the city county merging, we are only looking at city propers that are hemmed in my fully developed suburbs. NYC is over 8 million people with 26,000 pp/sqmi. Philly is 1.5 million people with 11,000 pp/sqmi. Boston is about 700,000 and about 13,000 pp/sqmi. Conversely Chicago is 2.7 million people with 11,000 pp/sqmi, while Detroit is 700,000 with about 5,000 pp/sqmi. Minneapolis is about 400,000 and about 7,000 pp/sqmi NYC is over 5 times larger than the next largest Northeast city, Philly. Chicago is less than 4 times larger than the next largest midwest city, Detroit. NYC has twice the pop density of the 2nd most dense northeast city, Boston,Chicago has a little over 1.5 times the pop density of the 2nd most dense midwest city, Minneapolis As we can see the difference between Chicago and the 2nd and 3rd largest cities in the midwest is less of proportionate difference between NYC and its 2nd and 3rd largest, most vibrant cities. Also keep in mind that specifically cities like Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis at their peak had a population density not that far off from Chicago. And as far as affordability. Sure, Chicago maybe more affordable, however whatever data on housing/rent costs in Chicago, is skewed by the fact that a much larger % of Chicago neighborhoods are dangerous and run down. The desirable urban, vibrant parts of Chicago are still pretty expensive. And what happened in New York can happen anywhere. That in no way can reflect the attitudes of a whole city.
You are very correct. There is plenty which defines a large city. When it come to density you may find a higher density in certain cities but high density is just one factor which defines a city. There are plenty of things which need to be discussed such as where the density is. There are cities which are dense but they don’t feel very dense. When I talk about a major city I talk about the size of the downtown and other factors.
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.
