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.
In november last year I visited a Swedish friend currently living in Chicago working in research. I have been to United States a few times. I have visit different cities in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts. I have visit a fair amount of cities in those states including New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Pittsburgh, Newark, Buffalo, Jersey City, Rochester, Yonkers, Niagara Falls, Syracuse and Albany. My general perception of American cities is that they have a small city core consisting of high rises surrounded by sea of suburbs. My initial conception of Chicago was a highly cosmopolitan urbanized city and very similar to New York. I imagined a very large inner-city with a very high density financial district surrounded by kilometers of interconnected five to ten floors apartment buildings. If vibrancy is defined through high rises and five-ten floor high row-houses in which people from all over the world lived. Chicago would be it.
The Loop and downtown Chicago
The most impressive feeling of being in a major city is when walk through downtown Chicago. The Michigan Avenue and the surrounding streets are impressive and a few times you get the feeling of being “enclosed” into a major urban city. The Loop and Eastern near North has an impressive height and density of the buildings. You soon discover that downtown Chicago is very small in size. The distance from West North Avenue to East 26th street is not more than 6-7 km. Downtown Chicago seem not to be broader than 4-5 km at the most widest part in the Near North Side. A large part of the Western part of Near North Side and Near South Side is underdeveloped and it’s notable amount of parking space and empty land. When you are in Near South Side, and stand on the bridge over Stevenson’s Expressway towards the East 25th Street you feel that you are leaving the city. The lake front in Chicago is clearly developed. If you keep to the coast it is actually pretty dense all the way up to Evanston were you by the North Shore Channel come across an unexpected Baha’i House of Worship. In a city like Chicago you would expect high rises and 5-10 floor apartment buildings stretching far. You find that most of the city looks like less dense neighborhoods in Queens or Brooklyn. What you encounter in North Side and West Side and Chicago has a similar density to what is called “near suburbs” (Which are defined as suburbs within the city) in European cities. You discover small row-houses with two and sometimes three floors. Most houses seem to be single family homes outside the blocks close to the lake. What you get is a constant ever ending small town and a dense suburban feeling.
Comparative statistics: Why Chicago feels smaller than Stockholm
When you visit Chicago and usually live in a major Northern European city it is easy to get the impression of Chicago being a small city. If I compare Chicago to my hometown Stockholm it can be better explained. Stockholm County has an area of 6520km2 which is clearly larger than Cook County which has an area of 4230km2. When you compare the two counties population wise you find that Chicago is clearly larger. Stockholm County has a population of 2.2 million and Cook County has an impressive population of 5.2 million people. Such numbers do shape the density of both counties. Stockholm County holds only 330 people/km2. Cook County has 2140 people/km2 which makes it a much denser county. Stockholm city has an area of 215km2 and Chicago has an area of 606km2. Chicago is clearly a larger city area wise. Chicago have also a population of 2.75 million people comparing to the one in Stockholm which is only 900 000 people. Comparing those numbers Chicago has a higher density with 4480km2 comparing to 4200km2 but when you comparing land density (a large percent of Stockholm City is water) you find that Stockholm City has a density of 4810km2 comparing to Chicago that has a land density of 4620km2. These numbers only partly explains why Stockholm feels like a larger city than Chicago. What we have to look at is the size of the downtowns or inner-cities. The inner-city of Stockholm is 48km2 large and consisting almost exclusively of row-houses with five to six floors including many major parks. Downtown Chicago, (defined as near north side, near south side and the Loop) is only 15-16km2.
Currently, 320 000 people claim Stockholm Inner City has their home comparing to only 185 000 people in Chicago downtown. The density in downtown Chicago is much higher with a staggering 8376 people/km2 comparing to Stockholms inner city with 6667 people/km2. But one needs to look at land density to get the true density. The inner city of Stockholm may be 48km2 but 27.7km2 is water. Most of Stockholm is built on numerous of small to medium sizes islands connected with bridges. The land density in Stockholm inner-city is actually pushing 17 000 people//km2 which makes it as dense as some neighborhoods in New York.
Stockholms inner-city lack skyscrapers but with a city filled with only 5-6 floor row-houses, narrow streets, much higher land-density, large parks that creates even more density in housing areas, and the fact that the inner-city is much larger than Chicago- Stockholms feels like the larger city at least for a tourist. If we were including Near West side -Chicago would have an impressive inner-city off 94 km2 but then the density would be shy of 2000 people/km2. Even much smaller cities in Northern Europe tend to have a larger downtown, a higher inner-city population and are more structural dense with enough height to give you an impression you are in a city and not a suburb. Few European cities are not built around the car – which stem from the pre-car history.
A underdeveloped - Rapid Transit System
In my mind a cosmopolitan city should have a large and extensive Rapid Transit System. One of the first things that come in mind is the over 100 year old design of their Rapid Transit System. Chicago has most of their stations above ground on 100 year old steel constructions. I believe that is the most notable in Chicago but it also gives it a gritty and disturbing look on the city. Chicago still use elevated steel constructions even in the heart of the Loop. I cannot think of any international and cosmopolitan city that still uses a 100 year old design and allow it be above ground.
The rapid transit system is not very impressive in Chicago. Stockholm Metro has 7 lines with 100 stations including 53 Subway stations. Chicago L has 8 lines with 145 stations including 15 subway stations. Stockholm Metro has 320 million riders a year. Chicago L has 230 million riders a year. Stockholm subway-stations are also much larger in size with high ceilings, designed with the traveler in mind than the Chicago L. Chicagoan subways seems to have more similar subway stations as in New York with narrow platforms, dirty and from appearance unsafe. Chicago L has small stations, outdated wagon designs, unsafe and dirty with some exceptions. Stockholm has new clean wagons with modern design and fairly high security. The best part with Chicago L is the price for the tickets. Tickets are very cheap but you do not pay for any good services or coverage so prices seem to be fair.
Chicagoan Economy
The Swedish GDP per capita is 58 000 in Sweden and 53 000 in the United States. Taxes are also much higher in Sweden than in United States. The Swedish tax rate is 45.8 percent of GDP comparing to USA were taxes is only 26.9 percent of the GDP. This effect of course prices. Shopping is clearly cheaper in Chicago compared to Stockholm. Statistically, consumer prices are 29 percent lower in Chicago than in Stockholm. Going to a restaurant is 35 percent cheaper in Chicago. Groceries cost 19 percent less than in Stockholm. Only rents are 22 percent higher in Chicago than in Stockholm. Chicago is cheap for any Scandinavian tourist.
Housing
Chicago has beautiful row Midwestern row houses all around the city. They seem to be quite affordable not considering the unjust property tax that according to my friend, his American fiancée and their American friends hurt housing development just like in Detroit. In more expensive cities like NY and Boston only the very wealthy seem to been able to afford a row house within close proximity to the downtown but in Chicago the middle class or at least the upper middle class could afford living in their own beautiful townhouse. The Chicagoan housing market seem to be inviting for them with an income beginning at 50 000 US dollars and up. I was told it was much homeless in Chicago but I saw little of that sort when I was there comparing to Stockholm with over 5000 homeless and shanty towns (Hidden in less dense areas) – a non-existent phenomena just ten years ago but common today.
Diversity
Chicago has three majors groups which seem to be Hispanics, African-Americans, Asians and whites but they all seem to be socialized into American. When you visit smaller cities in United Kingdom or France you feel like you leave Europe. I never got that feeling but I never did an ethnic touring around the city. None-white Americans may speak bad English but they speak English. In European countries – non whites (most of them are recent immigrants that came in the 60s or later) cannot speak the majority language at all and have not assimilated one bit. Another thing (which is also visible in New York) is the lack of Muslims. United States have very little Muslims. Combined I have spent three months in New York and I maybe saw a Muslim headscarf once a day. In Stockholm you just have to be in inner parts of the city to notice them. In London you have entire neighborhoods has women covered black burkas. One thing Chicago has is great Latin-American cuisine in par with the Latin-American cuisine. The best I ever had. Most interesting in Chicago and the other major cities I have been to in United States show a pattern of a high number of interracial couples. Interracial relationships is not common is the much segregated Western Europe. Chicago seems to have “good” diversity in the melting pot sense rather than then the western European diversity in the multicultural sense (all groups keep too their own). Ethnic food and food in general in Chicago is just outstanding, the parks are greats, some pretty good trendy neighborhoods like Wicker Park (just outside downtown) and the tourist attractions hold an international class. It is a great weekend city.
Weather
The weather is similar to the weather in Southern Scandinavia - maybe a bit warmer. If I had visit under the summer I would maybe had disliked it because the city can turn really hot. I hated the hot summer weather in New York. Only the weather in Southern France is worse. This is just a matter of opinion.
Progressiveness
Chicago seems to be Midwestern liberal rather than New York liberal. Personally I prefer the Midwestern working class liberalism to the New York upper middle class hipster-liberalism. Comparing to Stockholm is Chicago clearly a conservative city. Sweden has even a legal ban on Fox News so as a progressive with a few conservative leanings I find Chicago great.
Conclusion
My view of Chicago has been altered but not in necessary bad way. Chicago is to New York what Malmo is Stockholm. Never mind the history of the expression but Chicago is clearly the second city after New York but it cannot be compared to it in size, density, vibrancy and climate. Chicago is a no rough cosmopolitan ultra-urbanized city. It is a major city in the Great Lakes region and should be compared to cities like Toronto or Hamburg or American urban-enclaves like Philadelphia, Boston or San Francisco. Finally I would say that Chicago is together with Boston, Philadelphia and New York the best cities I have visited in United States. Chicago may not feel like the “center of everything” but it has some really impressive museums, buildings, parks, restaurants and neighborhoods. It will never be New York, Paris, Tokyo or London but has everything they have but in smaller size. After a while I kind of liked not having kilometer after kilometer with high rises. I liked walking in safe tree-covered streets with beautiful brick and wooden houses. Chicago is a “major city” but in a small city format – and that maybe the best thing with Chicago and why Chicago is worth not only visiting but also live in.
Last edited by Sconesforme; 05-04-2014 at 10:29 AM..
Thanks for the write up. Interesting when you compare both to one another. I will say this though - you stated you came a few months ago, which was March or possibly February. You did not come at the right time for the streets to feel like they're that vibrant. When it's summer out and/or warmer out, the city feels like a much bigger city because more people are outside. The city comes alive - in the colder months, it's not like this and feels smaller for sure. It's a shame you had a come when it wasn't like this out. It is honestly a lot different feeling outside.
If you do come again, I recommend the summer. It is better and you'll get a more vibrant feeling on the streets easily. Keep in mind it was also literally the coldest winter on record in Chicago's history this year so that's also even a little more for you.
Also this:
Quote:
I cannot think of any international and cosmopolitan city that still uses a 100 year old design and allow it be above ground.
New York City is your answer right away. Much of NYC's metro system is actually above ground, which many tourists do not see and it's almost as old as Chicago's. Also, Boston and Philadelphia's systems are almost as old as Chicago's. However, the track, stations, etc are not from 1897 - there is work being done on this quite a bit. In fact, about 7 miles of a line was completely replaced with new track last year, and they will do that for about 10-15 miles of another line later this year. They have to do this or the newer series of trains would not work. Many stations have clearly been upgraded and remodeled in the system too and they're planning more big ones. You were comparing the subway stations between Stockholm and Chicago too - Yes, most of them are either cruder and lower ceilings. Did you actually take the train outside of downtown? A lot of stations (with a few exceptions) look like this now: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...n_20130217.jpg
I wouldn't say the numbers versus Stockholm are less impressive - Stockholm has more ridership but that's to be expected when you're comparing US and European cities. European cities have much better train ridership than most US systems (except for NYC). The US is car-central and though the numbers are lower than Stockholm's, they're still impressive for US standards. There is also a large bus system in Chicago that has a higher ridership than the train at 300 million in 2013. So together, it is about 530 million riders. There's also a large bikeshare program here that saw 1 million trips taken in the first 9 months of service (it's been active for about a year now).
Last edited by marothisu; 05-04-2014 at 10:09 AM..
Very interesting analysis and perceptive summary of what both makes the city unique but also holds it back from being on par with other global spots.
Funny too that from a European perspective one does feel very much like you are "leaving the city" as you head out past Pilsen -- I completely agree that major parts of Chicago are not particularly dense nor even offering the appeal of well developed suburbs that have a definate core. No doubt part of that difference is due to the mindset had early city planners minimize the consideration given to natural features like rivers, creeks, streams, ponds and other natural areas in stark contrast to the more sensitive era of development when suburbs came into being. Of course the degree to which a city like Stockholm is renowned for its water feature certainly give one a very different lens to view things through -- basically in Chicago you see the love of concrete and of course the powerful forces of firms that control road building and poltical donations!
I agree that from a regional perspective the ability to find a home here is among the most appealing features -- at one time transfer statistics also supported that. Time was for many folks that had aspirations of "making it" to the highest level of one's career a job "in the Chicago office" meant you had gotten to the pinnacle without the greif of living in a tiny overpriced NY apartment. Now it seems young people are more likely to find fufilling employment in some warm weather / high tech town...
Curious that Europeans notice how detrimental to things like a culture an unassimilated minority population can be, even the many devotely relgious folks that I work with (some take mutlipe breaks for prayer and are quite observant of dietary laws) are mostly quite westernized in their appearance and overall behavior. I guess that is one plus of H1B employment that supports a certain kind of technical class of immigrant...
The author did an excellent job of separating their perceptions from measured data...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago60614
Is this a joke? I've been to Stockholm many many times. To hear it seems larger than Chicago actually made me audibly laugh.
The OP was quite thorough in using data (measured in the metric standards...) to say that although Chicago clearly has a larger area than even the county / region that Stockholm is a part of the perception is quite different -- obviously one cannot have canyon like high rises replace the well known scale of Stockholm nor do the unique bridges and water features of Stockholm have a direct analog with Chicago's wide expressways / boulevards, but becuase of the sharp cut off of those features just a few miles from the heart of Chicago's financial district it gives the impression of a very different kind of place.
I can completely understand that. In fact I would argue that some of the poorly laid out metro regions in the US suffer even more from this sort of effect -- downtown St. Loius is so chopped up with expressways that it can flash be in the blink of eye, Dallas has a yucky suburbanish feel in all but a handful of streets, LA seems less "planned" than the product of alien species that can plop down towers with all the forethought of a child with a PlayDough Pumper that "extrudes" high rises...
European cities developed over a such an extended period that they have a totally different "feel" than even our most ancient cities -- Boston was a tiny port while places on the European continent were already lavished with palaces of generational dynasties...
Chicago doesn't have the "center of it all" feeling, but I wonder how attractive that is to people who live in, say, London.
It is so inaccessible to the overwhelming majority of people that unless you are 22 and enamored of seeing celebrities walking down the street on a daily basis, or making a biannual trip to Harrod's to buy the cheapest thing in the store just so you can get the box, I wonder if it doesn't seem burdonsome after a while. Like being at a party you have to stand against the wall at.
Don't get me wrong, the energy there is amazing, it just doesn't get anymore world class... but at the end of the day London is a great fit for the David and Victoria Beckhams of the world. Unless you're part of the .001 percent you're never going to even own a condo there.
Thanks for the write up. Interesting when you compare both to one another. I will say this though - you stated you came a few months ago, which was March or possibly February. You did not come at the right time for the streets to feel like they're that vibrant. When it's summer out and/or warmer out, the city feels like a much bigger city because more people are outside. The city comes alive - in the colder months, it's not like this and feels smaller for sure. It's a shame you had a come when it wasn't like this out. It is honestly a lot different feeling outside.
If you do come again, I recommend the summer. It is better and you'll get a more vibrant feeling on the streets easily. Keep in mind it was also literally the coldest winter on record in Chicago's history this year so that's also even a little more for you.
Also this:
New York City is your answer right away. Much of NYC's metro system is actually above ground, which many tourists do not see and it's almost as old as Chicago's. Also, Boston and Philadelphia's systems are almost as old as Chicago's. However, the track, stations, etc are not from 1897 - there is work being done on this quite a bit. In fact, about 7 miles of a line was completely replaced with new track last year, and they will do that for about 10-15 miles of another line later this year. They have to do this or the newer series of trains would not work. Many stations have clearly been upgraded and remodeled in the system too and they're planning more big ones. You were comparing the subway stations between Stockholm and Chicago too - Yes, most of them are either cruder and lower ceilings. Did you actually take the train outside of downtown? A lot of stations (with a few exceptions) look like this now: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...n_20130217.jpg
I wouldn't say the numbers versus Stockholm are less impressive - Stockholm has more ridership but that's to be expected when you're comparing US and European cities. European cities have much better train ridership than most US systems (except for NYC). The US is car-central and though the numbers are lower than Stockholm's, they're still impressive for US standards. There is also a large bus system in Chicago that has a higher ridership than the train at 300 million in 2013. So together, it is about 530 million riders. There's also a large bikeshare program here that saw 1 million trips taken in the first 9 months of service (it's been active for about a year now).
I was there in late November. I had started to write this text a couple of three months ago to publish on a blog but then my job came in the middle so I forgot I had written it. I published a much shorter and less deep version here instead. Yeah, maybe one should mention that all cities become more vibrant under the summer months. Chicago would likely beautiful under the summer months with dense greens leaves over the small streets, beaches and parks. I used the subway within Downtown (as defined above), Lincoln Park, Wicker Park and a few other neighborhoods. I was there for a week and we did use his fiancée (she is a native to Chicago) car to check out more distant parts like Hyde Park and Evanston.
When it comes to the transit-system I kind of disliked the underground stations rather than the above ground stations. Even though I understand the financial and political reasons why Chicago has not like Philadelphia, Boston, Washington DC and New York replaced their elevated tracks with subways in the inner-city I still find it disturbing. I was given a ride to and from the O’Hare International Airport but I what I have seen (pictures) is that the CTA has a great subway station there. I do not claim that all subways stations in Chicago should be as attractive but just a few notches below would be fair but the most important thing is of course to get these elevated tracks below ground because they disturb the environment and create dark and unsafe looking parts of the city. Yes, these tracks may be charming in parts of Chicago but not in the very heart of the city. Stockholm has also well developed bus-system, commuter trains, (Stations and tracks are below ground) and light above ground rails. The negative part is that a one month pass cost 125 US dollars.
The cost is significantly lower for students, retired, and children/teenagers and subsidized for welfare-recipients but for people with low incomes it’s a high cost. Stockholm has also a renting your bicycle program but people tend to buy their own bicycles. Stockholms has plenty of bicycle tracks all over the city just to keep people from using a car. With a gasoline prices set at 7 US a gallon, a shocking car tax and tolls for entering the inner-city with your car - people rent cars when needed rather than buying. I believe Sweden has one of the oldest car parks in Western Europe because of their insane green politics. The money that is earned is seldom used to build better infrastructure. In that sense I think Chicago and United States is great – at least you get wide roads and people have afford owning one car but two cars and even a SUV. I guess it is a trade off (if I disregard the horrible misuse and waste of resources in Western societies)
I was there in late November. I had started to write this text a couple of three months ago to publish on a blog but then my job came in the middle so I forgot I had written it. I published a much shorter and less deep version here instead. Yeah, maybe one should mention that all cities become more vibrant under the summer months. Chicago would likely beautiful under the summer months with dense greens leaves over the small streets, beaches and parks. I used the subway within Downtown (as defined above), Lincoln Park, Wicker Park and a few other neighborhoods. I was there for a week and we did use his fiancée (she is a native to Chicago) car to check out more distant parts like Hyde Park and Evanston.
November is a month that people are not hanging outside in Chicago because it's still not pleasant out. Summer in Chicago - much different. Much more vibrant, more beautiful, etc. The city is completely different when it's nice weather out than fall/winter. There's many music festivals, street festivals, most restaurants have outdoor eating space. Bars have outdoor space. There are beaches, street festivals going on all the time in numerous areas, farmer's markets, etc etc. Because the summers are warm, and winters are cold, people feel the need to spend more time outside in the summer as a result.
The difference in the street life vibrancy comparing a colder fall/winter month to a summer month is noticeably drastic. If you were to come during the summer, you would see what I'm talking about.
Quote:
When it comes to the transit-system I kind of disliked the underground stations rather than the above ground stations. Even though I understand the financial and political reasons why Chicago has not like Philadelphia, Boston, Washington DC and New York replaced their elevated tracks with subways in the inner-city I still find it disturbing.
The underground stations downtown, minus a few, are not that good. They need renovation and some of them have gotten it. There's one near me in the Gold Coast which has been undergoing it for a few years now. It should be ready soon so it should be good. The ones in the Loop like the Monroe station need it more.
Your definition of inner city is first of all a little bit...off? Most of Boston and Philadelphia for example is above ground. I think you mean "downtown" instead of city. Most of the track in downtown Chicago is subway. Second of all, cost is a big issue. It's the single biggest one in fact. These things in the US are not cheap unfortunately.
Quote:
Yes, these tracks may be charming in parts of Chicago but not in the very heart of the city. Stockholm has also well developed bus-system, commuter trains, (Stations and tracks are below ground) and light above ground rails. The negative part is that a one month pass cost 125 US dollars.
Chicago used to have one of the largest street car systems in the entire world. A lot of other cities such as Los Angeles and Philadelphia had large systems as well. These were replaced by the bus system and though you could point to a conspiracy theory with General Motors, the government actually sued them but ultimately couldn't 100% prove that GM had to do with the dismantling of street car systems for the benefit of their own business.
Nonetheless, the street car system in Chicago in the 1930s had a daily weekday ridership of 5 million, which counting weekends would put it at over 1.5 billion rides per year.
Is this a joke? I've been to Stockholm many many times. To hear it seems larger than Chicago actually made me audibly laugh.
Great than you know what I’m talking about. European cities may be smaller in area and population. Sometimes even population density but European cities use their parks, row-houses (which are often 5-6 floors) and mass transit infrastructure in a way that create an illusion of a larger and more dense city. Most tourists do not leave the Downtown or the close neighborhoods around the downtown and why should they when the tourist-attractions in most cities are within the downtown area. I will give you an example.
In Sweden all the municipalities/cities (Sweden has officially no cities - only municipalities but some municipalities still call their municipalities for cities) has also this structure. As you can see on the pictures above Stockholm is very dense. The municipalities around Stockholm not close as dense as Stockholm municipality of course.
Taking Stockholm municipality as an example:
Core: High buildings in form of 5-10 floor buildings (inner-city)
Near-suburb: Multi-family Row-houses with 3-5 floors and some single family row-houses or stand alone houses. It is in general less dense with more green areas
Suburb: Stand alone single family houses with large yards, occasionally apartment buildings and single home row-houses
Chicago has a very dense-looking downtown but comparable to Stockholm (or any other Nordic capital) very small than it all drops very fast into what we at least in Sweden would call a “near-suburb”. Boston is a smaller city than Chicago have an more European look (for historical reasons) and therefore create an illusion of being in a larger city than what is really is. In many European cities you build your skyscrapers and high rises outside the inner core. Paris is a good example of this. Just compare maps with Google Earth (or whatever you use) and you find that even small European cities givens an illusion of being larger than what they are. When this is combined with a massive subway system – like the one in Stockholm you add an even more cosmopolitan or at least metropolitan feeling.
Think about is this way. Let say a city like Chicago never built km after km with one, two or three family sized row-houses but instead only build 10-15 floor apartment buildings like in Streeterville. What would happen is that downtown would be spread out on a larger area though you wouldn’t see massive 100+ meter buildings. Large parts of the city would “feel” empty with forest and low dense single family homes but the downtown would get another feeling. You would get streets tall enough to give you an illusion of being in the “city core” in a much larger area. This illusion is dropped fast in Chicago – even to small cities like Boston or Philadelphia. If this is combined with smaller streets, subways, parks and other things you even get even more of this illusion.
If I build a tower that can hold 2,7 million people and place it in the middle of Chicago and then cut down all the other housings in the city. Would Chicago feel like a big city? The tower would of course be massive but the rest of the city would be empty and lose density. The same thing happens if you spread out the population on the entire city – your neighborhoods lose density even though the density is the same in the entire city.
But if you mix skyscrapers, high rises, 5-10 floor apartment buildings, single families homes and create pockets of parks and recreation areas you get the illusion of a larger city. One way of doing it is to make less high rises and skyscrapers and replace them with 5-10 floor row-houses instead – which would create an urban feeling – at least in downtown (which would naturally have a larger area). When it comes down to it – it is about creating an illusion of a smaller or bigger city depending what your goal is. A modern city should do both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnynonos
Chicago doesn't have the "center of it all" feeling, but I wonder how attractive that is to people who live in, say, London.
It is so inaccessible to the overwhelming majority of people that unless you are 22 and enamored of seeing celebrities walking down the street on a daily basis, or making a biannual trip to Harrod's to buy the cheapest thing in the store just so you can get the box, I wonder if it doesn't seem burdonsome after a while. Like being at a party you have to stand against the wall at.
Don't get me wrong, the energy there is amazing, it just doesn't get anymore world class... but at the end of the day London is a great fit for the David and Victoria Beckhams of the world. Unless you're part of the .001 percent you're never going to even own a condo there.
I do not find London very attractive either but I do not talk about creating a “super-expensive” hub like Paris or London but creating a city that has both a small and big city feel. I concluded that Chicago focus all its energy of creating a massive skyline instead of lowering the height of the city in the city center and raise the height in the neighborhoods surrounding the core and replace it with inter-connected 5-10 floor apartment buildings. In fact – this should be done in the Western part of Near North Side instead of building single or two family homes and skyscrapers. This is of course a normative position from my side – to create a more “dense” and living city if Chicago want to aim for that goal. I just give my impression of the city from my European perspective of how cities are built over here. There are plenty of affordable European cities (including United Kingdom) that give an illusion of being in a big city without being expensive. A couple of years ago I was in Lisbon. It has a population of 550 000 people and a metro of 3 million. It is not a very expensive city and building housing in general is not very expensive but becomes very expensive and unaffordable in major American cities because of insane property taxes, quarter-capitalists, crony politics and the American votes bad habit of loving their cheap cars and gasoline above even modest mass-transit-systems.
Last edited by Sconesforme; 05-04-2014 at 03:32 PM..
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.
The author did an excellent job of separating their perceptions from measured data...
