Is Chicago as stressful as NYC? (Washington, Manhattan: rental, to live in, vs)

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by FAReastcoast

While I agree with your overall premise, you are really underestimating how much more dense New York is than Chicago. There isn't a single neighborhood in Chicago that is near manhattan density, and no much of the north side does not have a density similar to Brooklyn, there is only one neighborhood in Chicago that matches the density of all of Brooklyn (37k/sq mi).
All that said Chicago is an awesome city and doesn't need to be compared to nyc

I never said any full neighborhoods have it. Streeterville's density is similar to Brooklyn's and probably higher now, and Gold Coast has 50,000 per sq mile density, possibly more. The numbers are out of date on this site for the populations. It says River North only has 3000 residents now. It's higher than that now, so who knows.

EDIT: River North's population is around 18,000 now, meaning the density is around 40,000 per sq mile. Add in 4000 more people and the density would jump to around 50,000/sq mi

Never said full neighborhoods though. The lifestyle is still in a number of areas similar to what you will find in areas of NYC. I'll say it again, Chicago is like NYC, DC, a tiny bit of Boston, and a little bit of Detroit mixed together.

You'll see things in certain areas here get denser though anyway. River North and Streeterville have a number of high rises being built and a number of them are residential. Also in the Near North Side next to Gold Coast used to be one of the worst projects of Chicago, Cabrini Green. It's pretty much all been torn down and I wouldn't be surprised to see high rises go in here. I know there's plans for the outside of it and high rises going up, and a Target actually just broke ground right outside of it. There's also a few new high rises in Lincoln Park that will fill up, a few mid rises in areas like Wicker Park, etc.

Check back at the next census and IMO a few of these neighborhoods will be more like Brooklyn density and possibly more. There is a lot of space on the western side of the Near North Side that's pretty much prime real estate that developers are probably salivating over.


Actually a little history for you. In 1950, the Douglas neighborhood had close to 50,000/sq mile. In 1960, the North Lawndale neighborhood was 40,000/sq mi. West Town was 41,000/sq mi in 1930, Lakeview was 40,000/sq mi in 1950. Washington Park in 1950 was close to 40,000/sq mile too. Just a few. I bet there are more like this.

[marothisu]

A little more about the construction.

River North/Streeterville/Lakeshore East current construction -
435 North Park - 800 more units apparently
Coast - 500 more units
500 N Lakeshore - 500 more units
360 W Hubbard - 450+ more units
AMLI River North - 405+ more units
Optima Center - 325 more units

Plus others. Just with those that adds about 3000 more units to the area (possible 3000-6000+ person jump in population if they fill up with new to the area residents).

Also, there is Wolf Point, which just got approved for some stuff. The plan is to build 3 skyscrapers along the river to a tune of over 1400 more units for River North.

[andrew61]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Actually a little history for you. In 1950, the Douglas neighborhood had close to 50,000/sq mile. In 1960, the North Lawndale neighborhood was 40,000/sq mi. West Town was 41,000/sq mi in 1930, Lakeview was 40,000/sq mi in 1950. Washington Park in 1950 was close to 40,000/sq mile too. Just a few. I bet there are more like this.

East Lakeview is still more than 42,000/sq mile, according to City-Data:

//www.city-data.com/neighborhoo...hicago-IL.html

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by andrew61

East Lakeview is still more than 42,000/sq mile, according to City-Data:

//www.city-data.com/neighborhoo...hicago-IL.html

Yeah. That was kind of my point, there are sections that are more. Lincoln Park and part of Lakeview also have deflated density numbers because of the Lincoln Park park itself just like in parts of NYC too. Other parts of town like Humboldt Park, Garfield Park, etc have the same deal with their big parks.

The numbers on these sites are off though I think. Look at River North's page. It says the population is only 3000. It's around 18,000 now.

[FAReastcoast]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I never said any full neighborhoods have it. Streeterville's density is similar to Brooklyn's and probably higher now, and Gold Coast has 50,000 per sq mile density, possibly more. The numbers are out of date on this site for the populations. It says River North only has 3000 residents now. It's higher than that now, so who knows.

EDIT: River North's population is around 18,000 now, meaning the density is around 40,000 per sq mile. Add in 4000 more people and the density would jump to around 50,000/sq mi

Never said full neighborhoods though. The lifestyle is still in a number of areas similar to what you will find in areas of NYC. I'll say it again, Chicago is like NYC, DC, a tiny bit of Boston, and a little bit of Detroit mixed together.

You'll see things in certain areas here get denser though anyway. River North and Streeterville have a number of high rises being built and a number of them are residential. Also in the Near North Side next to Gold Coast used to be one of the worst projects of Chicago, Cabrini Green. It's pretty much all been torn down and I wouldn't be surprised to see high rises go in here. I know there's plans for the outside of it and high rises going up, and a Target actually just broke ground right outside of it. There's also a few new high rises in Lincoln Park that will fill up, a few mid rises in areas like Wicker Park, etc.

Check back at the next census and IMO a few of these neighborhoods will be more like Brooklyn density and possibly more. There is a lot of space on the western side of the Near North Side that's pretty much prime real estate that developers are probably salivating over.


Actually a little history for you. In 1950, the Douglas neighborhood had close to 50,000/sq mile. In 1960, the North Lawndale neighborhood was 40,000/sq mi. West Town was 41,000/sq mi in 1930, Lakeview was 40,000/sq mi in 1950. Washington Park in 1950 was close to 40,000/sq mile too. Just a few. I bet there are more like this.

Well i wouldnt call what you described as "much of the north side". Unless your comparing densities over a similar area it is a useless activity. I think we can agree with this statement:
Brooklyn's densest areas are on average twice as dense as chicagos densest areas, chicagos densest areas are about as dense as an average Brooklyn neighborhood.

I actually much prefer Chicago to Brooklyn, but Brooklyn is crazy dense, the densest census tracts in NYC are actually as we'll represented in Brooklyn as manhattan.

[simon22]

I guess a better question would be, is Chicago as boring as NYC? I found NYC to be incredibly boring at times.

[reppin_the_847]

The commute from Philly to NYC via Amtrak would be offset by the crazy high prices out there to ride this train. A monthly pass would cost more than rent prices in some Chicago & Philly apartments and take out any savings one might get from commuting to NYC for a job unless it's a super high paying job. If you have a very high paying job in NYC, why commute 1.5 hours on the train when most likely you can afford a Manhattan apartment or a home in an affluent inner-ring suburb closer to the city. If anything, compare it to the Milwaukee - Chicago Amtrak route and the commuters on that ride. Sure, there's a decent amount of them, but it's nothing close to the amount of commuters that get into Chicago on the Metra (and likewise into NYC on the LIRR, Metro North & New Jersey Transit).

Originally Posted by Heyooooo

Enough.

I lived in Central Jersey, and had plenty of reasons to be in Philly over the years.

It has a similar feel but its not the 6th borough. Philadelphians would castrate you for suggesting it, and not some transplant hipster *******s that cant make it in Williamsburg either, im talking real Philadelphians.

The amount that commute isnt very high, regardless. Its not large enough for a CSA.

[Northern Matt]

I visited both this last summer, i have to say that i thought Chicago was much more relaxing than NYC. You have the hustle and bustle from those rushing to work. Then you have the tourists, walking at a ever so patient pace, taking in everything, taking photos of everything. Same as what i did really.

If the city is too busy and not your thing, you head to Lake Michigan where you can find Navy Pier, the Aquarium, the Planetarium and the museum, as well as Soldier Field a little further on. Very pleasant to walk along. The only thing you need to be aware of is people will be running by the Lake, and therefore, stay out of their way.

NYC is different. Even the tourists seem to be on edge and skeptical. NYC offers little road side parking, and the lots they do have are expensive and you have to leave you keys with them. Something we weren't prepared to do having never been in the city. I'm sure it would have been fine though. Driving through NYC is hell, if you can drive a manual through NYC with no issues, you can drive most places. Chicago is no picnic, it is far easier than NYC.

Ace Rothstein - In NYC, i'm unsure on the road but you can buy a lovely large thin crust pizza slice for $1, and 2 slices and a drink for $2.50. Fantastic it is as well. Worth all 250 cents.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by FAReastcoast

Well i wouldnt call what you described as "much of the north side". Unless your comparing densities over a similar area it is a useless activity. I think we can agree with this statement:
Brooklyn's densest areas are on average twice as dense as chicagos densest areas, chicagos densest areas are about as dense as an average Brooklyn neighborhood.

I actually much prefer Chicago to Brooklyn, but Brooklyn is crazy dense, the densest census tracts in NYC are actually as we'll represented in Brooklyn as manhattan.

Densest WHOLE neighborhoods maybe. Parts of the near north side like Streeterville, River North, and Gold Coast are a lot denser, and double a few of them would peg that over 100,000 per sq mile. I have been to parts of cities in the world that are that dense and Brooklyn has nothing even close to it. Most of NYC doesn't have that. I've been to areas where the densest parts of Manhattan would be an after thought in these other cities. But I would agree that say, Brooklyn's densest areas are twice as dense as Lakeview as a whole, sure.

NYC is a great city but yeah, Chicago is great as well.

[FAReastcoast]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Densest WHOLE neighborhoods maybe. Parts of the near north side like Streeterville, River North, and Gold Coast are a lot denser, and double a few of them would peg that over 100,000 per sq mile. I have been to parts of cities in the world that are that dense and Brooklyn has nothing even close to it. Most of NYC doesn't have that. I've been to areas where the densest parts of Manhattan would be an after thought in these other cities. But I would agree that say, Brooklyn's densest areas are twice as dense as Lakeview as a whole, sure.

NYC is a great city but yeah, Chicago is great as well.

Brooklyn has areas over 100,000 people per sq mile. So yeah about double Gold Coast, streeterville, river north, etc...