Los Angeles and Chicago - which is more urban? (San Francisco: vs., transportation)

[Tex?Il?]

Chicago's core area (within 5 miles of city center) is more urban than LAs counterpart, but Chicagos middle and outer ring suburbs are clearly more bucolic than the counterparts of what you find in California. DuPage and Lake County feel like small town rural midwest more than Orange County feels like rural California. If that makes any sense.

Also, LAs red car line system led to a greater amount or pre-war compact railroad suburbs, the most obvious being Pasadena for example, but there are many others.

Because of topography, public lands, etc separate city from countryside/wilderness more clearly in California. Chicago has a a more gradual change from urban to rural, and a much greater distinction between city and suburb.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by Mezter

Why is this in the LA forum? This has been done on the City vs City forum many times, and Chicago always wins by a lot. I personally prefer the urbanity of LA over Chicago.

It's specifically to gauge what the people who are familiar with Los Angeles feel.

[MB8abovetherim]

At the core: Chicago
20 minutes from Downtown: Los Angeles

Here's my thing. I don't think at all that Chicago is "way ahead" of Los Angeles. Why should I feel that way? because there are more skyscrapers in Chicago than LA? that's cheap. Chicago outside of the loop is easily less urban than Los Angeles in most parts. The fact that people from the East Coast complain about how "suburban" LA is is a testiment to the different styles between the Northeast and California...and their own stupidity. Also, people tend to overstate LA's sprawl. They speak of it as if Riverside and San Bernardino didn't exist 25 years ago. Those places have existed for a very long time, the "sprawl" really just filled in the gaps.

Chicago is much more central than LA is. That doesn't make it more urban. It just concentrates all of it's "urbanity" in a tighter core than LA does. LA more or less spreads it all over the place. Chicago most certainly "peaks" higher than LA does but LA carries it more consistently over it's size.

[jimmykem]

Los Angeles, because it is more densely populated and more continuously built and developed beyond its core.

[Count David]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

Sorry, Quick Addendum to the Above:

If you're voting, please state what you voted for (and why if you can) as well as what neighborhood/part of the LA metro you reside in (i.e. Westwood, Historic Core, Bell, Glendale, Echo Park, San Pedro, Rosemead, Van Nuys, Boyle Heights, Huntington Beach, Pomona, etc.).

I'm not in LA, but am a LA County born, OC babied, IE native.

I stayed in The Loop last summer, and it blew my So Cal native butt away in terms of urbanity (and all that goes with it). No, I've never been to NYC.

Aside from the convenience of the train thing, I don't think I'd have much desire to live such a lifestyle, however.

Originally Posted by Mezter

Why is this in the LA forum? This has been done on the City vs City forum many times, and Chicago always wins by a lot. I personally prefer the urbanity of LA over Chicago.

As OP said, we're looking for the LA perspective. If it turns into TOO MUCH of a CvC type thread, I'll close it.

[hockfan86]

I'll note I live in Westwood. Also an interesting side note that many people are unaware of is that LA has the third most highrises in the country behind NYC and Chicago. Now that is not the only measure of urbanity, but I like to point it out because a lot of people seem to think that places like Miami or Atlanta have way more highrises than LA when in fact LA has way more they just aren't all in the same location. LA's decentralization confuses people and skues the perception for many people, I personally like it because there is always somewhere new to explore. That being said I love Chicago and LA, I chose LA over Chicago because weather trumps all for me and after 24 years in Minneapolis I was ready to be done with winter.

[hipcat]

Hey! I started this thread earlier in the CvC forum.

Core. Chicago.

Urban Area. Los Angeles.

[acp0]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

Sorry, Quick Addendum to the Above:

If you're voting, please state what you voted for (and why if you can) as well as what neighborhood/part of the LA metro you reside in (i.e. Westwood, Historic Core, Bell, Glendale, Echo Park, San Pedro, Rosemead, Van Nuys, Boyle Heights, Huntington Beach, Pomona, etc.).

This is why the poll doesn't make sense to me. Rosemead? Glendale? The city of Chicago proper is close to 3 million people. You couldn't compare any of these small cities to it. The only comparison that makes sense is the City of Los Angeles.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by acp0

This is why the poll doesn't make sense to me. Rosemead? Glendale? The city of Chicago proper is close to 3 million people. You couldn't compare any of these small cities to it. The only comparison that makes sense is the City of Los Angeles.

There's no direct comparison of them. I said city or metro, and that I asked about your location to get an idea of how people from different parts of LA and its metro see the city in comparison to another.

[JohnSoCal]

My definition of urban is the strength of the downtown core area. On that basis, Chicago wins hands down.