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.
a little perspective: all this emphasis on height and density, on critical mass for the sake of critical mass. isn't it uniquely american (although I would say Asia has caught the bug from us very nicely, it would seem, particularly on height).
my point is: wouldn't truly great cities like London and Paris find our discussions here ludicrous? don't Europeans, on the whole, look for quality of life issues in their great cities to a greater extent than Americans and, when they rate greatness, tend to look less at economics and height and density and more at culture and amenities and the ability for their cities to work for people?
We live in a time of capitalism-gone-made in America, a time when corporations rule, a time when all is about the bottom line. NYC is the capital of this empire. And I suspect that NYC will grow in high rises (both residential and commercial) at a rate that far exceeds any other city. The Manhattan of today has two separate, rather far removed, skylines downtown and midtown. At the rate of growth that occurs on the island, at some point they will fill in and become one (ok….years down the pike, but it will happen). What does that mean: virtual wall to wall high rises from the tip of the Bowery to a couple blocks north of 57th St where Central Park begins. what type of hell-on-earth will NYC be at that time, especially when some of that density will flow across the East River, particularly in the DT Bkyn area?
Endless growth, everything being the biggest and tallest is a cancer and is totally out of tune with the realities of a finite world, a natural world, a world we were once a part of and no longer are, that we ignore at our peril as we build our sand castles in the sky.
The irony of New York is that it is all about looking up; it's future is all about looking down. Here in the second most vulnerable city to the damages of hurricanes and floods and rising sea levels, behind only New Orleans, the city most responsible for the capitalism-on-steriods (aka fascism with its melding of business and state) will he threatened as is so vulnerable to the very monster it created.
that doesn't let Chicago off the hook; as I noted, we're all in the same boat (no one is immune). But we choose neither to see that boat or all the other signs that out there that there is something incredibly wrong about where this technologically driven juggernaut is leading us.
but nobody wants to listen. Germany entered its own era of total insanity by choosing not to see the vital signs that stared it in the face and lived life like a cabaret. well, old chum, i'm not sure we're any different in that respect.
a little perspective: all this emphasis on height and density, on critical mass for the sake of critical mass. isn't it uniquely american (although I would say Asia has caught the bug from us very nicely, it would seem, particularly on height).
my point is: wouldn't truly great cities like London and Paris find our discussions here ludicrous? don't Europeans, on the whole, look for quality of life issues in their great cities to a greater extent than Americans and, when they rate greatness, tend to look less at economics and height and density and more at culture and amenities and the ability for their cities to work for people?
We live in a time of capitalism-gone-made in America, a time when corporations rule, a time when all is about the bottom line. NYC is the capital of this empire. And I suspect that NYC will grow in high rises (both residential and commercial) at a rate that far exceeds any other city. The Manhattan of today has two separate, rather far removed, skylines downtown and midtown. At the rate of growth that occurs on the island, at some point they will fill in and become one (ok….years down the pike, but it will happen). What does that mean: virtual wall to wall high rises from the tip of the Bowery to a couple blocks north of 57th St where Central Park begins. what type of hell-on-earth will NYC be at that time, especially when some of that density will flow across the East River, particularly in the DT Bkyn area?
Endless growth, everything being the biggest and tallest is a cancer and is totally out of tune with the realities of a finite world, a natural world, a world we were once a part of and no longer are, that we ignore at our peril as we build our sand castles in the sky.
The irony of New York is that it is all about looking up; it's future is all about looking down. Here in the second most vulnerable city to the damages of hurricanes and floods and rising sea levels, behind only New Orleans, the city most responsible for the capitalism-on-steriods (aka fascism with its melding of business and state) will he threatened as is so vulnerable to the very monster it created.
that doesn't let Chicago off the hook; as I noted, we're all in the same boat (no one is immune). But we choose neither to see that boat or all the other signs that out there that there is something incredibly wrong about where this technologically driven juggernaut is leading us.
but nobody wants to listen. Germany entered its own era of total insanity by choosing not to see the vital signs that stared it in the face and lived life like a cabaret. well, old chum, i'm not sure we're any different in that respect.
If NYC grows then the rule would suggest Chicago will too and if the patterns of neglected southside and overly built-up northside continue the quality of life will diverge even more rapidly...
I was considering more than just architecture-- Things like density of businesses, types of businesses, languages used on the signs, number and type of signs, number of people on the street, diversity of people on the street, bicycles, cars, amount of trash on the street, etc. The whole overall look, vibe, feel, or whatever you want to call it, not just the architecture. The 18th Street I know is more similar to the first street picture you posted of Green Point than the old 18th Street pictures you posted.
Architecturally I agree that Pilsen has been and is still more diverse than Greenpoint.
I'm not saying the neighborhoods are the same, or even close to the same, and I'm not the one who made the comparison. I'm just saying, now that it has been pointed out, there are some similarities I hadn't considered before, and that one pic (which, ironically, you posted in an attempt to point out difference) really captured the similarity, to me.
If that is the case there truly is far less similarity and it'd be hard to make the case. I'd say there aren't really any places that much up between Chicago and NYC then except a few street in the Loop when it's busy. I posted to show what they looked like, I do think they are different but I am just providing pictures of both, not to scheme and be like oh these pics are from 5 years ago, this will fool them! I posted them b/c they were high resolution. In particular, the # of people on the street is almost impossible to judge from a picture or streetview. In reality, NYC is FAR busier in terms of pedestrian activity and it isn't close, that's actually one of the biggest differences between the two cities.
^^ for edgs, not really sure how to respond, getting too much into odd politics. I think NYC is fine growing larger and denser, it's the least wasteful city and preserves the rest of the country by making it that dense. There are plenty of chill areas outside of Manhattan that are dense residential but not hectic. I'm not sure why you use Europe, most of Europe is quite a bit denser than most of America and crammed in. They don't have something that matches up to NYC, but London, Paris, Madrid, Barcelona, Moscow, Naples etc are all denser both structurally and actually than any of our next cities in line. Chicago could use being denser also and has plenty of gaps, the city was designed to hold way more people, there are probably close to 100 el stops and entire branches that do not exist anymore and the city had close to 1million more people.
If NYC grows then the rule would suggest Chicago will too and if the patterns of neglected southside and overly built-up northside continue the quality of life will diverge even more rapidly...
i have no doubt that the rule would suggest as such. unfortunately we are creating wholly unsustainable cities that will barely be able to function as resources become even more scarcer.
i don't know where you stand, chet, but for many of us, this is a seminal moment in history when the old system will die, by necessity, of its own accord, because it simply doesn't work. It's the forces of nature that are doing it in, our endless supply for endless demand is destroying us. I doubt that you believe this will happen and I don't have a crystal ball to prove it to you; suffice it to say that it is becoming more and more a mainstream idea, many,many of us convinced that that will be the case.
As for Chicago, I would imagine under our current system, that the large areas of the west and south sides that are underpopulated will become a gift, in many respects, comparable to the gift of endless rail road right of way and old industrial property that once surrounded the Loop and whose underuse was translated into massive development to create the Super Loop. It was a gift of property that no city had to the degree of Chicago. Rail land south of Congress created much of the South Loop and Museum Park. Underutilized industrial propeties gave us River North and River East and much of the warehouse areas west of Greektown.
We already have an inkling of what south, southwest, and south side redevelopment can look like that came in the form of the orange line to Midway, much of it built without massive infrastructure expense due to rail right-of-way that already existed. and stops throughout that line created business zones that help to revive the area.
at present, both the near west and near south sides have been revived due to their proximity to the greater downtown area; in effect, these areas have been incorporated into downtown.
as development spreads outward (since the growth really does seem core-to-extremity), it passes out of areas that will even be considered "downtown" but ones that benefit from their proximity to the new expanded central region. I'm thinking Bridgeport here, which seems to be turning into a pretty healthy place residentially.
Hyde Park, of course, remains the one place where growth is not related to this core-to-edge spread: Hyde Park and the U of C are its own world and has been stable for years. I suspect that further south with the massive South Works project on the lake, we will see more quality growth, well removed from downtown.
and the city is doing its part, trying to make the south side lakefront parks the inviting environment of Lincoln Park to the north. I don't know how this will play out residentially, but it wouldn't surprise me if the advantage of the lakefront will produce a N LSD type of strip on S LSD from McCPl to Hyde Park.
The cost of energy is and will even be more such that Chicago may well become an attraction for young families in south and west side redevelopment which, I assume, will be less expensive than the north side and offer transportation cost savings that more than make up for the attraction of suburbia. Schools remain an issue, of course, but then again, I'm not sure that much of suburban Chicago is delivering on that promise any more so than CPS is. There are fewer and fewer places (although they exist and generally do in the wealthiest of communities) where schools become the attractions. Indeed, if we ever turn into more a California model, where public schools once a source of pride for the state became underfunded, and are not avoided even in the best communities, the ones where folks would have automatically sent their kids there. It could happen here and elsewhere across the nation.
meanwhile, large scale projects go head, admittedly slowly in underutilized west and southwest properties. there is a new Chicago being built there and, yes, I do believe that Chicago will once again become home to three useful and functioning sides, north, south, and west.
I don't understand the compelling need to compare Chicago and Manhattan. Greater NYC may include five boroughs, but when push comes to shove, where it's at is in Manhattan. Chicago is unique in that it is thee dominate city in the Midwest (12 states). It is the third largest city in the second largest county in the nation and it does not have an ocean view, but it is the transportation hub of the Midwest with the busiest airport. It also doesn't have hurricanes or earthquakes on a regular basis. It isn't the oldest city in Illinois or in the United State. The Dutch were beginning to settle around Nieuw Amsterdam as earler as 1625. So what? The things the two do have in common are people, architecture, water, traffic, food, sports and museums; surely there is enough to please the most discriminating.
This isn't exactly true, many people choose Brooklyn over Manhattan these days and many parts of Brooklyn are more expensive than Manhattan. In terms of art scene/shows/cool factor, you could say Brooklyn is where it's at! There are many other neighborhoods that people would want to live in. And in terms of where it's at, most people would say, aaaaye, stay below belmont! or something like that. I mean, would you knock somebody for choosing Ravenswood, Lincoln Square, Andersonville, Evanston, or other nice areas in Chicago and directly on the border? They don't really match up to NYC neighborhoods, but NYC has many more less intense experiences and equivalent lower key neighborhoods and this is multiplied. There are plenty of great and interesting neighborhoods that tourists never step foot in. Living in Manhattan gets old, just as living in Gold Coast or Lincoln Park could get old. I would probably disagree about your last sentence, I can notice pretty significant nuances in all of those. I mean yes they both have them, but a lot of cities have all those things, how they express themselves is noticeably different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by linicx
It doesn't make any difference. Manhattan is where it is at; it is the dominate city, just as Chicago is the dominate city. .
This is even more wrong, Manhattan is a bit over 20 sq miles and not all of it is very nice. I would write more but see maro already covered basically what I was going to say.
Your post flipped around and considering scale is somewhat along the lines of saying... The Loop or Near North Side is where it's at, it is the dominant city, just as New York is the dominant city. See how silly that sounds?
This isn't exactly true, many people choose Brooklyn over Manhattan these days and many parts of Brooklyn are more expensive than Manhattan.
Even back in the day it wasn't true. My great great and great great great grandparents were in the extreme upper class in NYC at the turn of the 20th century and their address was in the Bronx just outside of Manhattan/Harlem. Of course, that area is different today but it gives you a little perspective.
Even back in the day it wasn't true. My great great and great great great grandparents were in the extreme upper class in NYC at the turn of the 20th century and their address was in the Bronx just outside of Manhattan/Harlem. Of course, that area is different today but it gives you a little perspective.
wasn't Bronx's Grand Concourse one of NYC's most exclusive addresses "back in the day"?
wasn't Bronx's Grand Concourse one of NYC's most exclusive addresses "back in the day"?
I don't know about that part of history. We have some addresses of their stuff (they were in the fashion industry back into the 19th century and made quite a fortune) and their residence was in the Bronx..unless they did address changes like Chicago did and it's actually Manhattan. My g-g-g grandpa did die on Broadway while doing regular, everyday stuff.
This is the same guy who ragged on me for living near sacramento, who then promptly declared it underrated when he moved to la. Even though he had never set foot in the city. It appears he knows just as little about chicago. Tex il, your act is phony and tired. Typical of a transplant in la.
Care to bring up the posts where I "ragged on you for living in Sacramento??"
Besides what if this is the case? When I moved here, I noticed that people around me said Sacramento is boring. Well I did research on it, and learned more about it. I don't understand why this is bad? Its called expanding your horizons. I learn EVERYTHING about a place if I have the slightest chance of every going there. And since I've moved to California I HAVE been in MANY towns and cities across the state for work.
I truly don't follow your reasoning. If you hear enough people saying a place is boring I'm going to do research to find out whats fun or good about it. If I hear enough people talk about nothing but good about a city, I'm naturally going to see if its all that its cracked up to be. Many places that are considered lame are oftentimes underrated, places that are raved about, by definition may be overrated.
its called research. And I really don't care what you say, I've received countless compliments from people from all walks of life, about how much I have learned about the state since I moved.
no doom-and-gloom. reality. no nation can survive with the amount of income disparity the United States has or a government completely turned over to corporate and monied interests. check out Thom Hartmann's The Crash of 2016 for one of the most well documented and intelligent review of how we have to come to where we are…and where we are going. there are two americas out there, Tex, and it's going to kill us.
How is this different from the turn of the century?? Railroad, steel, and oil tycoons had more money and property than we could imagine.
The golden era of Americas middle class was almost an anomaly, a product of being the only industrial power still standing, with half the world embracing economy suppressing communism.
I do believe that we do have some real problems:
1. Politics is more polarized than ever before, and that could bring us down.
2. The media has scared Americans bombarding them with images of shootings, etc., which keeps americans fearful making problems worse.
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.
Lots to agree with...
