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.
Yeah, but having an L stop within your neighborhood makes a big difference in regards to walkablity and how tings are developed. And sorry within 3 miles of an L stop isn't that close either when we are talking about convenience, walkablity and bringing people into a neighborhood. Beverly is pretty far out too when it comes to Chicago's neighborhoods. So let's not talk like Beverly is a convenient place to get to in the heart of the city. It's way out there in regards to location in Chicago.
I get the sense you are being defensive of Beverly? I have nothing against Beverly, it's a lovely neighborhood, but let's be honest it feels more like a suburb than a Chicago neighborhood. Which makes sense due to it's spread out built environment and the simple fact that it borders the suburbs. If you think Beverly feels more like the city than a suburb, then you probably haven't seen much of the city, or other urban suburbs. Oak Park, Evanston, Skokie, Rosemont, and Norridge, just to name a few, feel more urban than Beverly does.
You don't know what I have seen. I have owned a business in Evanston and Skokie as well as worked in Evanston for many years. I agree both are heavily urbanized and less suburban feeling than Beverly.
I do think that Beverly's salt of the Earth types and blue collar heritage gives it somewhat of an urban feel just by attitude alone.
You don't know what I have seen. I have owned a business in Evanston and Skokie as well as worked in Evanston for many years. I agree both are heavily urbanized and less suburban feeling than Beverly.
I do think that Beverly's salt of the Earth types and blue collar heritage gives it somewhat of an urban feel just by attitude alone.
I disagree, you are making Beverly seem more blue collar than it actually is. You do realize that the median income in Beverly is $83,092? That's not very blue collar in feeling to me.
I will agree to disagree with you though. If someone were to have me list most suburban neighborhoods in the city of Chicago, Beverly would definitely be in the Top 5, as it would for most people IMO. If you feel differently, that's fine. But I find very littler to be urban about Beverly both in the built environment and its people.
Yeah, but having an L stop within your neighborhood makes a big difference in regards to walkablity and how tings are developed. And sorry within 3 miles of an L stop isn't that close either when we are talking about convenience, walkablity and bringing people into a neighborhood. Beverly is pretty far out too when it comes to Chicago's neighborhoods. So let's not talk like Beverly is a convenient place to get to in the heart of the city. It's way out there in regards to location in Chicago.
I get the sense you are being defensive of Beverly? I have nothing against Beverly, it's a lovely neighborhood, but let's be honest it feels more like a suburb than a Chicago neighborhood. Which makes sense due to it's spread out built environment and the simple fact that it borders the suburbs. If you think Beverly feels more like the city than a suburb, then you probably haven't seen much of the city, or other urban suburbs. Oak Park, Evanston, Skokie, Rosemont, and Norridge, just to name a few, feel more urban than Beverly does.
West of Western Ave, Beverly is similar to Oak Park. East of Western Ave. (which is technically West Beverly/West Morgan Park if you're classifying by neighborhoods vs. community areas), it's more similar to Mount Greenwood.
Even though Norridge/Harwood Heights are surrounded by the city, I'd say Norridge is similar to Mount Greenwood or Evergreen Park.
Rosemont doesn't seem very city-like to me. It has an EL and is between O'Hare and the rest of the city, but its hotels, shopping, a large convention center, large parking lots and minimal amount of residents do not resemble any other part of the city.
West of Western Ave, Beverly is similar to Oak Park. East of Western Ave. (which is technically West Beverly/West Morgan Park if you're classifying by neighborhoods vs. community areas), it's more similar to Mount Greenwood.
Even though Norridge/Harwood Heights are surrounded by the city, I'd say Norridge is similar to Mount Greenwood or Evergreen Park.
Rosemont doesn't seem very city-like to me. It has an EL and is between O'Hare and the rest of the city, but its hotels, shopping, a large convention center, large parking lots and minimal amount of residents do not resemble any other part of the city.
It makes it feel more urban though, even it there isn't that much residential, you see a lot more going on (arena, shopping, commercial buildings, etc).
I don't find Beverly to be anything like Oak Park, especially not in the more commercial areas. For example Beverly has nothing that comes close or anything like the following in Oak Park: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Oa...!4d-87.7845025
It makes it feel more urban though, even it there isn't that much residential, you see a lot more going on (arena, shopping, commercial buildings, etc).
I don't find Beverly to be anything like Oak Park, especially not in the more commercial areas. For example Beverly has nothing that comes close or anything like the following in Oak Park:
Sure, in some commercial areas Oak Park is more urban than Beverly, but Oak Park feeling urban doesn't make Beverly not urban. There's a fair amount of similar housing between the two places. It's hard to compare as Beverly doesn't have too many narrow roads like that, and most of Western and 95th Street were developed much later than parts of Oak Park.
I don't know how Rosemont is more urban than Beverly. There's a lot going on in Rosemont, in a Schaumburg sort of way.
How is Norridge more urban than Beverly? There's zero EL or Metra stops in Norridge. Beverly has 5 Metra stops.
Obviously we are both biased having visited these places, but if I showed someone a google image search for "Beverly Chicago", "Rosemont, IL", "Oak Park, IL" and "Norridge, IL", they would probably guess Oak Park and Beverly are in the city, and Rosemont and Norridge are in the suburbs. Or maybe they'd guess Beverly and Oak Park are quaint old towns.
Sure, in some commercial areas Oak Park is more urban than Beverly, but Oak Park feeling urban doesn't make Beverly not urban. There's a fair amount of similar housing between the two places. It's hard to compare as Beverly doesn't have too many narrow roads like that, and most of Western and 95th Street were developed much later than parts of Oak Park.
I don't know how Rosemont is more urban than Beverly. There's a lot going on in Rosemont, in a Schaumburg sort of way.
How is Norridge more urban than Beverly? There's zero EL or Metra stops in Norridge. Beverly has 5 Metra stops.
Obviously we are both biased having visited these places, but if I showed someone a google image search for "Beverly Chicago", "Rosemont, IL", "Oak Park, IL" and "Norridge, IL", they would probably guess Oak Park and Beverly are in the city, and Rosemont and Norridge are in the suburbs. Or maybe they'd guess Beverly and Oak Park are quaint old towns.
There just isn't anything in Beverly that tells me that it is the city, neither in the built environment nor the people. What I showed in Rosemont, can go either way. Of course Oak Park has some parts that look like Beverly, but the point is that Oak Park has that and MORE. More dense areas, L stops, lot more vibrancy, shopping, etc.
I disagree, you are making Beverly seem more blue collar than it actually is. You do realize that the median income in Beverly is $83,092? That's not very blue collar in feeling to me.
I will agree to disagree with you though. If someone were to have me list most suburban neighborhoods in the city of Chicago, Beverly would definitely be in the Top 5, as it would for most people IMO. If you feel differently, that's fine. But I find very littler to be urban about Beverly both in the built environment and its people.
I said heritage not current structure. The fact that many first responders live there currently gives it that strong city character that isn't found in Oak Park or Evanston as much.
You gonna tell me the South Side Irish types don't have a city attitude about them? I think those are the types that the city is known for by many people.
There just isn't anything in Beverly that tells me that it is the city, neither in the built environment nor the people. What I showed in Rosemont, can go either way. Of course Oak Park has some parts that look like Beverly, but the point is that Oak Park has that and MORE. More dense areas, L stops, lot more vibrancy, shopping, etc.
I didn't see all your links before, just the Oak Park ones.
I don't have time to dig up tons of pictures, maybe later tonight. Your first Beverly picture is from a development that went up around 2000. I'd hope nobody else gets the impression that all of Beverly looks like that. There's stuff like that in Oak Park, too. You're being selective. Look at the blocks between 95th and 107th Street between Leavitt and Longwood. Then compare to houses in Oak Park. Shows areas around the Beverly Metra stops, or the outside of Ridge Park (which can be confused for many other park district buildings in Chicago). I'm really not disputing that Oak Park is quite urban, but Beverly is closer to Oak Park than any of the other towns you listed.
I don't know how your first Rosemont link makes Rosemont seem urban. It looks like a highway ramp with a huge parking lot, hotel and parking garage. That would probably be the exact picture I would use to make my point.
The second Rosemont picture can basically be any street in a list of half the suburbs in Cook County. Sure, it can look like a similar block in certain areas of Chicago, such as Edison Park or Mount Greenwood, but even those neighborhoods have fewer driveways and more alley garage entrances than the picture in your link.
I don't understand your "lack of diversity" comment from earlier in the thread. My apologies w/regard to formatting. But to be honest with you, diversity shifts significantly over time and to me I find it difficult to equate diversity with urban. Many neighborhoods and suburbs have had significant demographic shifts the past 20 years. For comparison, here's the 2010 census info, though.
Oak Park:
As of the 2010 census there were 51,878 people, 22,670 households, and 13,037 families residing in the village. The population density was 11,037.9 people per square mile. The racial makeup of the village was 67.7% White, 21.7% African American, 0.2% American Indian, 4.8% Asian, 2.0% some other race, and 3.6% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 6.8% of the population. In Oak Park, 13.1% spoke a language other than English at home and 10.3% were foreign-born.[12]
White alone, percent, July 1, 2015, (V2015) (a)
White alone, percent, April 1, 2010 (a)92.0%
Black or African American alone, percent, July 1, 2015, (V2015) (a)
Black or African American alone, percent, April 1, 2010 (a)
0.5%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent, July 1, 2015, (V2015) (a)
American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent, April 1, 2010 (a)
0.1%
Asian alone, percent, July 1, 2015, (V2015) (a)
Asian alone, percent, April 1, 2010 (a)
4.0%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent, July 1, 2015, (V2015) (a)
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent, April 1, 2010 (a)
Two or More Races, percent, July 1, 2015, (V2015)
Two or More Races, percent, April 1, 2010
1.0%
Hispanic or Latino, percent, July 1, 2015, (V2015) (b)
Hispanic or Latino, percent, April 1, 2010 (b)
7.4%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent, July 1, 2015, (V2015)
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent, April 1, 2010
87.5%
I didn't see all your links before, just the Oak Park ones.
I don't have time to dig up tons of pictures, maybe later tonight. Your first Beverly picture is from a development that went up around 2000. I'd hope nobody else gets the impression that all of Beverly looks like that. There's stuff like that in Oak Park, too. You're being selective. Look at the blocks between 95th and 107th Street between Leavitt and Longwood. Then compare to houses in Oak Park. Shows areas around the Beverly Metra stops, or the outside of Ridge Park (which can be confused for many other park district buildings in Chicago). I'm really not disputing that Oak Park is quite urban, but Beverly is closer to Oak Park than any of the other towns you listed.
I don't know how your first Rosemont link makes Rosemont seem urban. It looks like a highway ramp with a huge parking lot, hotel and parking garage. That would probably be the exact picture I would use to make my point.
The second Rosemont picture can basically be any street in a list of half the suburbs in Cook County. Sure, it can look like a similar block in certain areas of Chicago, such as Edison Park or Mount Greenwood, but even those neighborhoods have fewer driveways and more alley garage entrances than the picture in your link.
I don't understand your "lack of diversity" comment from earlier in the thread. My apologies w/regard to formatting. But to be honest with you, diversity shifts significantly over time and to me I find it difficult to equate diversity with urban. Many neighborhoods and suburbs have had significant demographic shifts the past 20 years. For comparison, here's the 2010 census info, though.
Oak Park:
As of the 2010 census there were 51,878 people, 22,670 households, and 13,037 families residing in the village. The population density was 11,037.9 people per square mile. The racial makeup of the village was 67.7% White, 21.7% African American, 0.2% American Indian, 4.8% Asian, 2.0% some other race, and 3.6% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 6.8% of the population. In Oak Park, 13.1% spoke a language other than English at home and 10.3% were foreign-born.[12]
White alone, percent, July 1, 2015, (V2015) (a)
White alone, percent, April 1, 2010 (a)92.0%
Black or African American alone, percent, July 1, 2015, (V2015) (a)
Black or African American alone, percent, April 1, 2010 (a)
0.5%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent, July 1, 2015, (V2015) (a)
American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent, April 1, 2010 (a)
0.1%
Asian alone, percent, July 1, 2015, (V2015) (a)
Asian alone, percent, April 1, 2010 (a)
4.0%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent, July 1, 2015, (V2015) (a)
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent, April 1, 2010 (a)
Two or More Races, percent, July 1, 2015, (V2015)
Two or More Races, percent, April 1, 2010
1.0%
Hispanic or Latino, percent, July 1, 2015, (V2015) (b)
Hispanic or Latino, percent, April 1, 2010 (b)
7.4%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent, July 1, 2015, (V2015)
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent, April 1, 2010
87.5%
Rosemont's pretty diverse, fairly evenly split between White and Hispanic. I agree, diversity is somewhat off-topic, but you mentioned in an earlier post that lack of diversity lends to Beverly being less urban. I was pointing out that it didn't lack diversity as much as previously reported in this thread.
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.
