U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which city is more Urban
Chicago 114 79.17%
Los Angeles 30 20.83%
Voters: 144. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Old 04-13-2013, 01:30 AM
 
Location: Chicago
22 posts, read 40,951 times
Reputation: 16

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
What are "coastal tows?"
TOWS - Towns Occupied With Surferdudes. OK so I mispelled towns!! Coastal towns ok?!?! geez.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-14-2013, 07:50 PM
 
4,946 posts, read 2,969,007 times
Reputation: 3128
Quote:
Originally Posted by fightforlove View Post
I've lived in both and both of them are so different in concept and composition, it's not really possible to compare them straight-up.

Chicago is a more classical, proper city with a spectacular metropolis downtown, crowded streets and street corners, sky-scrapers, subways, taxi cabs, hustling business men and women, etc, etc. Chicago offers the urban life-style: walk-able streets, efficient transportation, parks, museums, architecture, dive bars, lounges, cafes and diverse restaurants. The near suburbs remain pretty dense, however the mid-to-more-distant suburbs around the periphery of Cook Co drop off density-wise and are noticeably less happening than the thick suburbs of Los Angeles. These burbs have really grown since my childhood though, and are feeling more and more sprawly. The quirky thing about Chicago is you can be standing on Wacker under the shadow of the Sears Tower one moment and 30 miles later you're out in these thin, wooded and even farm-y looking suburbs in Lake Co or DuPage Co. A friend of mine once said Chicago is the "world's biggest small town". Chicago is tall, attractive, happening, a good definition of a global city, but it's burbs are relatively tame and unremarkable, at least in comparison to the dense and moving 'burbs of the san fernando and san gabriel valleys.

Los Angeles is whole 'nother animal. It's a thick, seemingly endless suburb; it looks like a massive circuit board from the sky at night, the myriad of six-lane interstate freeways connecting one node to the next. Most of the Los Angeles suburbs are alive and happening, and each one has it's own distinct flavor. Downtown Los Angeles is relatively small and is a mere afterthought for most Angelenos. Of course, when you live in So Cal and have the pacific ocean, the mountains an endless jungle of cool neighborhoods to explore, maybe it doesn't matter, but you certainly will not get the genuine urban life-style in L.A. I can remember how refreshing it was to get out of L.A. and visit Chicago, San Francisco, etc and see what I was missing. Los Angeles is a beast and a breed apart and is an amazing experience, but it's lack of the vertical downtown and classical urban amenities are notable demerits. Pasadena is probably the closest thing Los Angeles can offer that gives you the more classy/cosmopolitan vibe of these other major cities.
I'll come back to this with a more thorough response later, but stop calling L.A. a suburb. That insult is so old and really no longer applies.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2013, 12:51 PM
 
2,816 posts, read 5,385,565 times
Reputation: 3758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michigantown View Post
Mexico city may have a denser population than Chicago but i wouldn't call it more urban.
Why not?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2013, 12:53 PM
 
2,816 posts, read 5,385,565 times
Reputation: 3758
Quote:
Originally Posted by PA Born View Post
Ok, I guess we all have our opinions, but I definitely disagree.

I don't know why you would compare cities by only looking at downtown areas, and ignoring the remaining 95% of the area, and even comparing downtowns, I don't know how you would reach your conclusions.

And I don't see why highrises are relevant. No way does Downtown Chicago feel denser than some city center like Madrid, Barcelona, Rome, Naples, etc. and these places have almost no highrises.

Downtown Chicago has many highrises, but it isn't dense by international standards and tends to be much more auto-oriented than most similarly-sized cities around the globe. There are big parking garages at the bases of most of those downtown highrises, and I think parking garages are pretty anti-urban.
There are plenty of (underground) parking garages in dense European cities.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2013, 10:27 PM
 
Location: SoCal
1,243 posts, read 1,570,119 times
Reputation: 848
I will say this:
Chicago is more urban at it's core while Los Angeles is more urban around the edges. In other words, if Chicago and LA's "urbanity" were features on a Topographical map, Chicago would be a steep mountain and LA would be a gradually sloped hill of equal height. Or to put it a third way lol Chicago has most of it's "urbanity" in the center while LA has its "urbanity" more evenly spread out.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2013, 09:27 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,107,696 times
Reputation: 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by MB8abovetherim View Post
I will say this:
Chicago is more urban at it's core while Los Angeles is more urban around the edges. In other words, if Chicago and LA's "urbanity" were features on a Topographical map, Chicago would be a steep mountain and LA would be a gradually sloped hill of equal height. Or to put it a third way lol Chicago has most of it's "urbanity" in the center while LA has its "urbanity" more evenly spread out.
The hill might not be quite as tall as the mountain. But that is a good way to put it.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2013, 10:59 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,266 posts, read 26,231,676 times
Reputation: 11726
Quote:
Originally Posted by MB8abovetherim View Post
I will say this:
Chicago is more urban at it's core while Los Angeles is more urban around the edges. In other words, if Chicago and LA's "urbanity" were features on a Topographical map, Chicago would be a steep mountain and LA would be a gradually sloped hill of equal height. Or to put it a third way lol Chicago has most of it's "urbanity" in the center while LA has its "urbanity" more evenly spread out.
I suppose you could say LA's fringe areas are more urban than Chicago's, but how many people would actually consider any of those areas "urban" in the first place?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2013, 11:19 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,107,696 times
Reputation: 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
I suppose you could say LA's fringe areas are more urban than Chicago's, but how many people would actually consider any of those areas "urban" in the first place?
Glendale, Pasadena, Long Beach, Hermosa Beach, Santa Monica... I'd consider them to be fairly urban.

Santa Ana, San Bernardino, Riverside? Not so much.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2013, 11:55 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,266 posts, read 26,231,676 times
Reputation: 11726
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
Glendale, Pasadena, Long Beach, Hermosa Beach, Santa Monica... I'd consider them to be fairly urban.

Santa Ana, San Bernardino, Riverside? Not so much.
I was talking about the outer fringes of the city limits. And I say that because there's been a big deal made about the outlying areas of Chicago that are more suburban in character. It may be true that the outlying areas of Los Angeles are denser, but that's not saying a whole lot since those areas are rather suburban too. At that point, you're basically engaged in a battle of "My suburbia is denser than your suburbia."
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2013, 02:35 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,832 posts, read 7,675,073 times
Reputation: 6288
Long Beach is 20+ miles from DTLA and would rank among the densest cities in the U.S. with a population over 400k. It has a higher weighted density than Washington DC, if you're into that metric. It isn't just a matter of "my suburbia is denser than yours" -- L.A. has satellite cities that give proper cities, even traditional ones, a run for their money.
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top