Random neighborhood Streetview urbanity battle: Lower Haight in SF vs. Ukranian Village in Chicago (south, better)
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.
I think they're definitely both urban in terms of density. Looked like a commercial node of the Lower Haight, though...plenty of businesses and activity.
For Ukranian Village type
"Damen and Division Chicago, IL"
Then hit enter and drag the guy to that intersection, then head SOUTH on Damen.
It would be a better comparison to head down Division since it, like Haight, is mostly a commercial street. Damen is mostly residential. Anyway, the Lower Haight looks more urban because it has narrower streets with less building set-back. In reality they are probably pretty even.
It would be a better comparison to head down Division since it, like Haight, is mostly a commercial street. Damen is mostly residential. Anyway, the Lower Haight looks more urban because it has narrower streets with less building set-back. In reality they are probably pretty even.
Definitely a fair comparison, given what he said though I voted otherwise.
the narrower vs. wider streets is going to be everywhere though, Chicago just has wide streets period, at least compared to sf/nyc/boston, b/c of the obvious grid system after the fire.
often as much going on, but not as many bottlenecks.
Just returned from Chicago and spent some time in Ukranian Village and East Village. Would definitely say Lower Haight is more urban, but I found Ukranian Village to be cooler...
Just returned from Chicago and spent some time in Ukranian Village and East Village. Would definitely say Lower Haight is more urban, but I found Ukranian Village to be cooler...
How in the Sam Hill do you get more "urban" than the West Side of Chicago? Because there are gangways? (We used to stop and smoke in the gangways on the way to Catholic school, smoking squares not pot, it was 1960)
Well yeah, you have the young suburban transplants that are displacing the Ukrainians, Poles, Hillbillys and Italians, that's true. The people are getting less urban in nature; less neighborhood loyalty and tightness and more interest in trendy breakfast places than the local parish. But I'm guessing that's at work in San Francisco too.
lol..i sense a bit of animosity from the chicagoers ... its like every one of them has an excuse as to why everyone else says SF is more urban(2nd densest in the nation)
that mission/16th area looks way cool...all the palm trees and urbanity ...etc
lol..i sense a bit of animosity from the chicagoers ... its like every one of them has an excuse as to why everyone else says SF is more urban(2nd densest in the nation)
that mission/16th area looks way cool...all the palm trees and urbanity ...etc
My point is what makes something urban? If we go purely by density then I reckon places like Mexico City and Calcutta are more "urban" than San Francisco and Chicago.
I would argue that any neighborhood in a large city is de facto "urban", even the Bronx.
Then we have the nature of the people who live in neighborhoods; is an "old neighborhood" full of people born in the city and carrying on traditional city ways more urban than a neighborhood of suburban transplants who seldom socialize with each other and put fences in front of their stoops?
Just wondering.
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.