If Chicago was divided into boroughs, how/where would they be? (Lincoln: renting, houses)

[LittleMathYou]

Many of us know that NYC is divided into boroughs, which I think as huge neighborhoods.

If Chicago was divided into boroughs, how many would there be, and where would they be? What would they be called? What characteristics would each borough tend to have?

I encourage you to be creative.

[meatpuff]

Come on, NYC boroughs are not like huge neighborhoods. It's obviously pretty much geography and historical accident they were drawn that way.

Chicago doesn't have the vast water boundaries NYC does, but it has some. Therefore, glancing at a map, my five boroughs of Chicago are the north side, northwest/west side, loop/south/SW side, East Side/Hegewisch, and Goose Island.

Now isn't that helpful?

[04JETTA]

north south and west lol I honestly have no idea

[smallvillejane]

Southside=Queens
West side=Bronx
North side=manhattan
Goose Island=Staten Island
Northwest side= Brooklyn

Originally Posted by LittleMathYou

Many of us know that NYC is divided into boroughs, which I think as huge neighborhoods.

If Chicago was divided into boroughs, how many would there be, and where would they be? What would they be called? What characteristics would each borough tend to have?

I encourage you to be creative.

[thePR]

It would be divided into two boroughs: East Borough and West Borough. The dividing line would be at about LSD.

[Avengerfire]

This was done before.

//www.city-data.com/forum/chica...your-city.html

//www.city-data.com/forum/chica...-like-4-a.html

[Tex?Il?]

Yes, I agree that "boroughs" just don't fit.

However if I were to compare parts of Chicago to parts of New York then:

Loop, Printers Row, the near north side (Mag Mile, Streeterville, River North, Gold Coast, denser parts of Old Town) would be equivelent as Chicagos Manhattan.

Everything else east of the north branch (basically everything on the north side within 2-3 miles plus NW to Wicker Park might be equivalent to Brooklyn.

The rest of the Northwest side of Chicago could be compared to Queens, (although the far-far NW side is more like Milwaukee).

We really don't have anything equivalent to the Bronx. Chicagos "bad"/ghetto areas are more ghost-town/abandoned rustbelt-style areas. Maybe where the huge projects still stand is it equivalent to the Bronx.

Most of the west and south side is more equivalent to Detroit or Cleveland. Or Newark, NJ.

Although, Hyde Park U of C, could be considered similar to places such as Cambridge, MA or University City, MO (outside St. Louis where Washington U is).

We don't have something like Staten Island because there is no island. But I guess you could say that big areas on the far NW and far SW sides are like Staten Island culturally, and aesthetically without the hills.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

The rest of the Northwest side of Chicago could be compared to Queens, (although the far-far NW side is more like Milwaukee).

People in Chicago with very little knowledge of Milwaukee always assume Milwaukee is more similar to Chicago than it really is. And people in Milwaukee with very little knowledge of Chicago always assume that Chicago is more similar to Milwaukee than it really is. As someone who moved to Chicago from Milwaukee, can we please stop with this? The cities really aren't that similar at all. They don't look similar. They are culturally different. And they have very different attitudes. The parts of the two cities that are the most similar are the post-industrial ruins of the former manufacturing districts.

In what ways are Norwood Park and Eddison Park like Milwaukee? Please be specific, and include references to actually areas in Milwaukee. I really don't see the similarities.

[mas23]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Yes, I agree that "boroughs" just don't fit.

However if I were to compare parts of Chicago to parts of New York then:

Loop, Printers Row, the near north side (Mag Mile, Streeterville, River North, Gold Coast, denser parts of Old Town) would be equivelent as Chicagos Manhattan.

Everything else east of the north branch (basically everything on the north side within 2-3 miles plus NW to Wicker Park might be equivalent to Brooklyn.

The rest of the Northwest side of Chicago could be compared to Queens, (although the far-far NW side is more like Milwaukee).

We really don't have anything equivalent to the Bronx. Chicagos "bad"/ghetto areas are more ghost-town/abandoned rustbelt-style areas. Maybe where the huge projects still stand is it equivalent to the Bronx.

Most of the west and south side is more equivalent to Detroit or Cleveland. Or Newark, NJ.

Although, Hyde Park U of C, could be considered similar to places such as Cambridge, MA or University City, MO (outside St. Louis where Washington U is).

We don't have something like Staten Island because there is no island. But I guess you could say that big areas on the far NW and far SW sides are like Staten Island culturally, and aesthetically without the hills.

well not to long ago the bad area were pretty dense(bronzeville/near west side)

and you're looking way too much into it.
simply put

nothside
NW side
west side
southside

the 4 "boroughs" for you

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

People in Chicago with very little knowledge of Milwaukee always assume Milwaukee is more similar to Chicago than it really is. And people in Milwaukee with very little knowledge of Chicago always assume that Chicago is more similar to Milwaukee than it really is. As someone who moved to Chicago from Milwaukee, can we please stop with this? The cities really aren't that similar at all. They don't look similar. They are culturally different. And they have very different attitudes. The parts of the two cities that are the most similar are the post-industrial ruins of the former manufacturing districts.

In what ways are Norwood Park and Eddison Park like Milwaukee? Please be specific, and include references to actually areas in Milwaukee. I really don't see the similarities.

I've been going to Milwaukee about once a year for most of my life. Sometimes twice, sometimes not at all.

I will give you one reference. I stayed at a friends house who was interning at St. Lukes Medical hospital the summer before last. I was there for about three days. That was probably my longest one time spell in Milwaukee.

He was renting a house off Oklahoma and 30th. (I was able to identify this on google maps). How is this area not similar to Edison and Norwood Park? The houses look exactly the same. The heritage in these Chicago neighborhoods is predominantly German, Polish, and Italian.

The only thing that I can think of that is different is that, the Chicago neighborhoods in reference have more recent immigration, and incomes are maybe a little higher, and yes, some people might have more of an "attitude" because they get to say they live in Chicago and not Milwaukee, but their day-to-day lifestyle I'm sure is exactly the same.

From a global or even national scale, Chicago outside its vibrant, gentrified, or heavy immigrant neighborhoods is a lot like what you see in other midwestern cities. Now, its possible that based out of insecurities someone growing in Hedgewisch that moves to Lincoln Park, might deny the similarities but give me a break. Also other midwestern cities do have small areas that are vibrant/dense/gentrified or heavy immigrant areas but they are simply tiny compared to Chicago.

As a whole yes, I'm not arguing that in the early 21st Chicago and Milwaukee ahve a lot in common. But because all Great Lakes cities grew up through the same eras, built very similar housing, and attracted the similar immigrants from similar parts of the world they undoubtedly have similar roots, in a way thats different from cities on the coast.