Chicago more like 3 biggest East Coast cities OR 3 biggest Midwest cities (Aurora: 2014, neighborhood)

[DC's Finest]

Give it up dude. These people hate DC for some reason even though it dominates Philly and Boston in almost every category. The funny thing is Chicago looks more like DC and vice versa than any of these cities, especially in some residential neighborhoods.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

Maybe Detroit in 1950, but definitely not now. Suburban Detroit maybe a bit more, but even then there are a lot of recognizable differences. If Milwaukee ever evolves into a larger city I suspect it'll be very similar to Chicago minus the history. It's still likely the closest match, but there are elements of Chicago that are quite similar to New York and Philly. Overall though I would say Chicago has its own identity and is not an exact replica of anywhere in the U.S./world. Toronto may come close...

What are some of the "recognizable differences" between Suburban Chicago and Suburban Detroit? (Besides license plates and major leagues sports teams, etc.) I guess you can include Metra/commuting to the city, etc. but its been my experience that the overwhelming majority people in suburban Chicago still drive to jobs in the suburbs.

Other than downtown (loop/near north side) the rest of Chicago doesn't feel anything like NY. Culturally Philly I've commented on, as well as physically - like Toronto.

[Tex?Il?]

I will say as far as greater METRO areas, ChicagoLAND on its ouskirts has more in common with Indianapolis/Kansas City/Colombus outskirts than the east coast counterparts.

Granted I think most people on this forum really don't care about a metro areas outskirts and only care about the city, but it sill informative to point it out.

Chicagoland, like most midwest metro areas for the most part, have a LOT of space between metro areas, and have at least truly rural counties with a county seat of 10,000 ppl, with a scattering of villages of a 1,000 or less with corn/soybeans as far as the eye can see. People in Chicagoland largely live in the outer suburb and exurban areas because its cheaper (as well as safe/good schools, etc.) Basically only very practical reasons. In that way, towns in Chicagolands collar counties (Kane, McHenry, Will, even Lake) have more in common with Carmel, IN, Overland Park, KS, etc.

You compare that with the east coast counterparts, where you have towns that have a LONG history, some with colonial historic charm, old money exurban areas that maintain a rural character only because they are anti-development and make a deliberate point, (few towns on midwest metro ouskirts are like this, even the wealthy ones). As well as world class college towns, rolling, forested hills, etc. (the midwest has rolling, forested hills too, but you have to go out of your way to see and enjoy them).

Basically on the east coast cities are closer together, the outlying areas have a lot of appealing qualities for the sake of it, and would be all strip malls if they adopted midwest suburban and exurban land use planning.

On midwest metro area ouskirts, cornfields are looking upon as vacant lot waiting to be developed so that everyone can have the american dream of a cookie cutter home, good schools, and historic downtowns as being not practical for today.

Take a look at this article comparing midwest vs. new england culture. The author here uses a suburban town outside Columbus, OH and Attleboro, MA, a town within commutable distance of both Boston and Providence.

I think it illustrates the difference well. And Chicagos collar counties suburban towns sound much more like Hilliard, OH than Attleboro, MA.

New England vs. Midwest Culture

[personone]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

I will say as far as greater METRO areas, ChicagoLAND on its ouskirts has more in common with Indianapolis/Kansas City/Colombus outskirts than the east coast counterparts.

Granted I think most people on this forum really don't care about a metro areas outskirts and only care about the city, but it sill informative to point it out.

Chicagoland, like most midwest metro areas for the most part, have a LOT of space between metro areas, and have at least truly rural counties with a county seat of 10,000 ppl, with a scattering of villages of a 1,000 or less with corn/soybeans as far as the eye can see. People in Chicagoland largely live in the outer suburb and exurban areas because its cheaper (as well as safe/good schools, etc.) Basically only very practical reasons. In that way, towns in Chicagolands collar counties (Kane, McHenry, Will, even Lake) have more in common with Carmel, IN, Overland Park, KS, etc.

You compare that with the east coast counterparts, where you have towns that have a LONG history, some with colonial historic charm, old money exurban areas that maintain a rural character only because they are anti-development and make a deliberate point, (few towns on midwest metro ouskirts are like this, even the wealthy ones). As well as world class college towns, rolling, forested hills, etc. (the midwest has rolling, forested hills too, but you have to go out of your way to see and enjoy them).

Basically on the east coast cities are closer together, the outlying areas have a lot of appealing qualities for the sake of it, and would be all strip malls if they adopted midwest suburban and exurban land use planning.

On midwest metro area ouskirts, cornfields are looking upon as vacant lot waiting to be developed so that everyone can have the american dream of a cookie cutter home, good schools, and historic downtowns as being not practical for today.

Take a look at this article comparing midwest vs. new england culture. The author here uses a suburban town outside Columbus, OH and Attleboro, MA, a town within commutable distance of both Boston and Providence.

I think it illustrates the difference well. And Chicagos collar counties suburban towns sound much more like Hilliard, OH than Attleboro, MA.

New England vs. Midwest Culture

I don't think that Chicagoland suburbs (metro) are very similar to suburbs in the rest of the Midwest or the North East. I don't know where you will find counterpart suburbs like Oak Park or Evanston in the Midwest. Then you have suburbs like Naperville that are modern with a charming downtown; right next to Aurora which is definitely more blue collar. You've got all of the Northwest suburbs (Schamburg, Arlington Heights, etc) that are wealthy and modern. The North Shore suburbs in addition to Evanston (Wilmette, Skokie, Winnetka) also feel unique because of their location. Up to Lake County, where you have some places with very large homes that can almost feel like a Midwest version on cape cod. Then you have the south/southwest suburbs that are diverse in look and feel. Basically, the Chicagoland suburbs are so vast and diverse, that they are unique compared to the Midwest and Northeast.

[EddieOlSkool]

Originally Posted by jeremyw90

You said 3 biggest east coast cities, not NE. With that strict definition, Philly isn't a NE city either, as its mid Atlantic along with Bmore n D.C.

That's totally picking hairs. D.C. is a 2 hour drive from Philly, 4 from NYC and 7 from Boston. It's all one region.

Sure. One region. Like the Great Lakes is one region. Still isn't part of the discussion.

[jeremyw90]

Originally Posted by EddieOlSkool

Sure. One region. Like the Great Lakes is one region. Still isn't part of the discussion.

According to you. I chose to make it a part of the discussion, as you misrepresented the east coast.

[jeremyw90]

Originally Posted by DC's Finest

Give it up dude. These people hate DC for some reason even though it dominates Philly and Boston in almost every category. The funny thing is Chicago looks more like DC and vice versa than any of these cities, especially in some residential neighborhoods.

DC has the energy of a SF or mini Manhattan; progressive, growing and wealthy. It's not an old stagnant city whose best days are behind. Honestly, in many ways DC trumps Chicago, and I predict will overtake it in most categories within the next few years.

[EddieOlSkool]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

I will say as far as greater METRO areas, ChicagoLAND on its ouskirts has more in common with Indianapolis/Kansas City/Colombus outskirts than the east coast counterparts.

Granted I think most people on this forum really don't care about a metro areas outskirts and only care about the city, but it sill informative to point it out.

Chicagoland, like most midwest metro areas for the most part, have a LOT of space between metro areas, and have at least truly rural counties with a county seat of 10,000 ppl, with a scattering of villages of a 1,000 or less with corn/soybeans as far as the eye can see. People in Chicagoland largely live in the outer suburb and exurban areas because its cheaper (as well as safe/good schools, etc.) Basically only very practical reasons. In that way, towns in Chicagolands collar counties (Kane, McHenry, Will, even Lake) have more in common with Carmel, IN, Overland Park, KS, etc.

You compare that with the east coast counterparts, where you have towns that have a LONG history, some with colonial historic charm, old money exurban areas that maintain a rural character only because they are anti-development and make a deliberate point, (few towns on midwest metro ouskirts are like this, even the wealthy ones). As well as world class college towns, rolling, forested hills, etc. (the midwest has rolling, forested hills too, but you have to go out of your way to see and enjoy them).

Basically on the east coast cities are closer together, the outlying areas have a lot of appealing qualities for the sake of it, and would be all strip malls if they adopted midwest suburban and exurban land use planning.

On midwest metro area ouskirts, cornfields are looking upon as vacant lot waiting to be developed so that everyone can have the american dream of a cookie cutter home, good schools, and historic downtowns as being not practical for today.

Take a look at this article comparing midwest vs. new england culture. The author here uses a suburban town outside Columbus, OH and Attleboro, MA, a town within commutable distance of both Boston and Providence.

I think it illustrates the difference well. And Chicagos collar counties suburban towns sound much more like Hilliard, OH than Attleboro, MA.

New England vs. Midwest Culture

Weak. A lot of what the author said is specific to central Ohio. For example the terrain argument he uses goes out the window if he ever went to St. Louis or Central Missouri or even Southern Ohio.

Also, Chicago suburbs are quite dense. Especially Evanston, Oak Park, and other inner suburbs like Oak Lawn.

[personone]

Originally Posted by jeremyw90

DC has the energy of a SF or mini Manhattan; progressive, growing and wealthy. It's not an old stagnant city whose best days are behind. Honestly, in many ways DC trumps Chicago, and I predict will overtake it in most categories within the next few years.

Nobody on this board cares about DC or what cute little categories you think it will overtake. The OP clarified later on that he is comparing Chicago to the only cities in the Northeast, which doesn't include DC (or Baltimore), and to other Midwest cities.

[jeremyw90]

Originally Posted by personone

Nobody on this board cares about DC or what cute little categories you think it will overtake. The OP clarified later on that he is comparing Chicago to the only cities in the Northeast, which doesn't include DC (or Baltimore), and to other Midwest cities.

Well thanks for setting me straight there fella.