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 don't think anyone here is saying that Chicago is highly suburban; just more suburban and less urban than you might have suggested.
Yeah, no. I got what people were saying.
I'm quite familiar with this city considering I live in it, am quite familiar with a lot of neighborhoods and the housing stock, and am quite familiar with NYC, a lot of San Francisco, and DC (and parts of Boston).
I think a lot of people don't understand the housing stock that actually exists in Chicago and are "deceived" by looks sometimes. There are quite a few buildings here that look like they could possibly be a Single Family Home and are nothing of the sort. Many are actually 3flats, 4 flats, sometimes 2 flats, etc. Sometimes they have 8 apartments in them. A lot of the houses here, since it's semi dense for US standards in some areas, are skinny but they're long going backwards in the lots you don't see. Some of these places have numerous apartments for the walkups just like NYC does. They don't look like they'd hold a lot but they do in reality and have numerous units in them.
You have to go a ways outside of the Loop/River North before you actually start running into neighborhoods that have blocks of *real* single family homes. Every once in awhile in an area like Lincoln Park will someone tear down a lot and build an urban mansion there, but it's in reality pretty rare and very very expensive to own a SFH within the core of Chicago.
Most of the real single family home blocks in Chicago are either on the south side or you have to go to the NW side in areas like Dunning, Portage Park, Irving Park, or certain parts of Ravenswood, etc. Ravenswood is the closest which is about 6-7 miles outside of the core to the north. To the west, most of it starts with Logan Square or Humboldt Park before you see blocks of actual SFHs. These areas are around 5.5-6+ miles from the Loop.
The very urban parts of it are much larger than the very urban parts of San Francisco. San Francisco is surprisingly suburban in function (though not in appearance) in the western ends and at the southern ends (Outer Sunset / Richmond, Lake Merced, a lot of the neighborhoods south of 280).
Even more so for Boston, West Roxbury, Roslindale, Hyde Park are all very suburban in feel - almost like little small towns (which I believe they were before incorporation).
You can live a "Euro" lifestyle in major cities, but they're all surrounded by considerable suburbs where cars as essential. The OP's 100% question is somewhat of a misnomer, the US is mostly suburban...
I agree. That's what I was trying to say pretty much in other posts. There are cities in the US with urban components and some have it large scale, but in pretty much every major city in the US, you can still find single family homes. They aren't like the real, true suburbs, and the houses will blend in, but they account for less density of course.
I'm quite familiar with this city considering I live in it, am quite familiar with a lot of neighborhoods and the housing stock, and am quite familiar with NYC, a lot of San Francisco, and DC (and parts of Boston).
I think a lot of people don't understand the housing stock that actually exists in Chicago and are "deceived" by looks sometimes. There are quite a few buildings here that look like they could possibly be a Single Family Home and are nothing of the sort. Many are actually 3flats, 4 flats, sometimes 2 flats, etc. Sometimes they have 8 apartments in them. A lot of the houses here, since it's semi dense for US standards in some areas, are skinny but they're long going backwards in the lots you don't see. Some of these places have numerous apartments for the walkups just like NYC does. They don't look like they'd hold a lot but they do in reality and have numerous units in them.
Replace "Chicago" with "Los Angeles" and this also is 100 percent accurate.
Obviously, it's a much smaller city than others that have been mentioned. But there's proportionally a lot less suburban style development than a lot of cities listed, both in the municipality and the metro area, which is what this thread is about. Chicago has endless miles of single family homes on the South Side. Don't even get me started on their suburbs, of which there are far, far too many to count.
I agree with what you're saying, and am very well aware of the south side, which I already referenced in a few posts.
There is no single city in the US that compares to an urban european city except PARTS of various cities mentioned i.e. NYC, Chicago, San Fran, Boston, parts of LA, parts of Honolulu, etc. NYC is obviously the front runner in the US by quite a bit and if you took Manhattan to be its own city it would be like that...
I'm quite familiar with this city considering I live in it, am quite familiar with a lot of neighborhoods and the housing stock, and am quite familiar with NYC, a lot of San Francisco, and DC (and parts of Boston).
I think a lot of people don't understand the housing stock that actually exists in Chicago and are "deceived" by looks sometimes. There are quite a few buildings here that look like they could possibly be a Single Family Home and are nothing of the sort. Many are actually 3flats, 4 flats, sometimes 2 flats, etc. Sometimes they have 8 apartments in them. A lot of the houses here, since it's semi dense for US standards in some areas, are skinny but they're long going backwards in the lots you don't see. Some of these places have numerous apartments for the walkups just like NYC does. They don't look like they'd hold a lot but they do in reality and have numerous units in them.
You have to go a ways outside of the Loop/River North before you actually start running into neighborhoods that have blocks of *real* single family homes. Every once in awhile in an area like Lincoln Park will someone tear down a lot and build an urban mansion there, but it's in reality pretty rare and very very expensive to own a SFH within the core of Chicago.
Most of the real single family home blocks in Chicago are either on the south side or you have to go to the NW side in areas like Dunning, Portage Park, Irving Park, or certain parts of Ravenswood, etc. Ravenswood is the closest which is about 6-7 miles outside of the core to the north. To the west, most of it starts with Logan Square or Humboldt Park before you see blocks of actual SFHs. These areas are around 5.5-6+ miles from the Loop.
Others might be confused, but I'm not. The City of Chicago is more sprawled than San Francisco with less dense development. That's a fact.
LA is a funny case. Built much later than cities in the east or SF. But so many people boxed by mountains, desert, and ocean. Getting denser all the time.
Replace "Chicago" with "Los Angeles" and this also is 100 percent accurate.
Except it's true for both cities. Chicago is a lot more urban than LA overall EASILY, but LA is urban in its core as well. It's just at a smaller scale than San Fran, Chicago, and NYC.
It exists in Los Angeles too. My dad and his side is from LA and while people think it's suburban and it is after a little bit, the core of LA isn't all that suburban. LA has a lot more sprawl than the other cities though.
Not really, unless you draw boundaries somewhat artificially. No matter how large a city is or how it's growth is naturally bound, there are considerable suburbs around all of them - though they may be further out. I live 50 miles from downtown Chicago, but we're considered a suburb. A large number of my neighborhood residents work in Chicago (cause they can't afford to live there, better schools, etc.)
You can live a "Euro" lifestyle in major cities, but they're all surrounded by considerable suburbs where cars as essential. The OP's 100% question is somewhat of a misnomer, the US is mostly suburban...
NYC 8.24M population, metro area 19M
Chicago 2.71M, metro 9.5M
San Francisco 813K, metro 4.4M
Boston 625K, metro 4.6M
DC 618K, metro 5.7
Others might be confused, but I'm not. The City of Chicago is more sprawled than San Francisco with less dense development. That's a fact.
Are you sure about that? Chicago definitely has more low density development than SF, but I'm not so sure it has less high-density development.
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.
