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.
Yes, and thats what matters. Saying NYC has 5,000 more highrises (which is wrong) than Chicago and using that as a benchmark for superiority is laughable.
Skyscrapers matter, not highrises.
Sao Paolo, Shanghai and Tokyo probably have more highrises than NYC and Chicago combined.
We wouldnt necessarily say their highrise count makes them better, would we?
NYC has more like 4,800 more highrises, but I would argue neither highrises or skyscrapers matter, when I think of my favorite neighborhoods in NYC and Chicago, none of them have Skyscrapers.
Hong Kong - 1,223
NYC - 563
Tokyo - 344
Chicago - 282
Hong Kong has twice as many skyscrapers as NYC. NYC has twice as many as Chicago.
You need to know what the actual definition of a highrise is, and no, its not as vague a term as you think.
Hello , don't insult my intelligence with your trivial banter. I'm quite aware of the varying terminology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RS085
Only Manhattan and Brooklyn. Youre nitpicking. Queens, the Bronx and Staten Island do not have "more going on."
Thats a more practical comparison anyway, not splitting the city up into thirds.
I've said 3-4 times already this was not what I meant. I wasn't being practical, it was a thought experiment to show how far ahead NYC actually is over Chicago. Separating it by a borough would be nitpicking...And I've yet to have somebody refute that either NYC doesn't have over 3x the population (irrefutable) or that it doesn't have 3x the amount of amenities. My suspicion is that it is even more on the amenities angle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RS085
Yes, and thats what matters. Saying NYC has 5,000 more highrises (which is wrong) than Chicago and using that as a benchmark for superiority is laughable.
Skyscrapers matter, not highrises.
Sao Paolo, Shanghai and Tokyo probably have more highrises than NYC and Chicago combined.
We wouldnt necessarily say their highrise count makes them better, would we?
Better no...
It wasn't anything to do with superiority... But Chicagoans have argued their amount of high rises is superior for living in them than other cities. Did not like a taste of their own medicine I guess. If you want high rise living, you'd be better off in NYC or Toronto than Chicago. The same way you'd be better off in Chicago over Boston or Philadelphia, wasn't that the argument?
There aren't many skyscrapers in comparison to high rises that are even residential, and those that are are usually mixed...Most living is done in high rises, not skyscrapers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FAReastcoast
NYC has more like 4,800 more highrises, but I would argue neither highrises or skyscrapers matter, when I think of my favorite neighborhoods in NYC and Chicago, none of them have Skyscrapers.
Exactly my point, rounding to 5000 doesn't change my argument.
When it comes to talking about urban cities, high rises are of course a huge feature.
This is the argument Chicago tries to make about LA all the time, their downtown full of skyscrapers, even though LA has significantly more going on and cultural exertion on the world. So again, sounds just like a case of not liking your own medicine.
Hello , don't insult my intelligence with your trivial banter. I'm quite aware of the varying terminology.
Youve been sassing Chicagoans yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizz0rd
I've said 3-4 times already this was not what I meant. I wasn't being practical, it was a thought experiment to show how far ahead NYC actually is over Chicago. Separating it by a borough would be nitpicking...And I've yet to have somebody refute that either NYC doesn't have over 3x the population (irrefutable) or that it doesn't have 3x the amount of amenities. My suspicion is that it is even more on the amenities angle.
I dont disagree. NYC is clearly the superior city, but what you fail to understand is subjectivity. Of course NYC has more amenities, it has 3x the population to sustain. Just as Chicago does for its population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizz0rd
Better no...
It wasn't anything to do with superiority... But Chicagoans have argued their amount of high rises is superior for living in them than other cities. Did not like a taste of their own medicine I guess. If you want high rise living, you'd be better off in NYC or Toronto than Chicago. The same way you'd be better off in Chicago over Boston or Philadelphia, wasn't that the argument? There aren't many skyscrapers in comparison to high rises that are even residential, and those that are are usually mixed...Most living is done in high rises, not skyscrapers.
Chicago actually does have a skyline that rivals NYC. Thats the thing. For a city 1/3 the size of NYC, it packs quite a substantial punch. It also doesnt have the issues that NYC does with NIMBYs and zoning issues to get taller buildings. High-rise living in Chicago may not provide everything close by, but perhaps they prefer it that way. I do know one thing, id rather have a lakeivew over an UWS view of Jersey. And for half the price. This is one just one example. Chicago is manageable. Its not overwhelming, its in a way, just right.This is the main point that you or tristann fail to comprehend, right here. It takes out some of the best things you can get in NYC and lays them out more practically, for half the cost, and arguably a nicer atmosphere.
Chicago. Quality over quantity.
Different strokes, for different folks.
and for all the superiority talk, Chicago is very close in the polls.
Lets stack NYC up to London for finance, or Tokyo for size, or Hong Kong/Sao Paulo for highrises, or Toronto for diversity (if the US keeps up its immigration policies, its also much easier to get into Canada), or virtually any city for cleanliness, etc.
Other cities are catching up, or have passed it already in a number of things.
I dont disagree. NYC is clearly the superior city, but what you fail to understand is subjectivity. Of course NYC has more amenities, it has 3x the population to sustain. Just as Chicago does for its population.
Chicago actually does have a skyline that rivals NYC. Thats the thing. For a city 1/3 the size of NYC, it packs quite a substantial punch. It also doesnt have the issues that NYC does with NIMBYs and zoning issues to get taller buildings. High-rise living in Chicago may not provide everything close by, but perhaps they prefer it that way. I do know one thing, id rather have a lakeivew over an UWS view of Jersey. And for half the price. This is one just one example. Chicago is manageable. Its not overwhelming, its in a way, just right.This is the main point that you or tristann fail to comprehend, right here. It takes out some of the best things you can get in NYC and lays them out more practically, for half the cost, and arguably a nicer atmosphere.
Chicago. Quality over quantity.
Different strokes, for different folks.
For all the superiority talk, Chicago is very close in the polls.
Don't have an issue over any of this. I will say that NYC offers both high quality and quantity. The cost is probably more like 1/3 of the price, the COL in Chicago is one of the best things going for it. Personally I'm not moving to either anytime soon. But I think given the choice, I'd pick NYC and just get a crummy lil 1/2 studio and engulf myself in the city life, then try to make some publishing contacts and such. The energy and vibrancy alone of NYC just picks up my spirits when I go there, it makes me feel like I want to excel at whatever I'm doing, I got a similar rush when I visited Paris one summer. I never got that feeling in Chicago. It honestly seems a bit less vibrant than out here in San Francisco... (not to start another war, I've just felt that way)
Manhattan/Brooklyn ... and the greater NorthSide nicer part of Chicago seem to attract people with a bit different mindsets/wants.
Don't have an issue over any of this. I will say that NYC offers both high quality and quantity. The cost is probably more like 1/3 of the price, the COL in Chicago is one of the best things going for it. Personally I'm not moving to either anytime soon. But I think given the choice, I'd pick NYC and just get a crummy lil 1/2 studio and engulf myself in the city life.
Well, I think a reason Chicago is pretty close in the polls is because voters understand quality of life matters over statistics.
23504454[/color] (tel:23504454 - broken link)]I know I'm guilty as well but I think we need to stick to the thread topic Chicago vs NYC since Toronto is an irrelevant city.
Still much more relevant culturally than Chicago LOL
23507074[/color] (tel:23507074 - broken link)]Well, I think a reason Chicago is pretty close in the polls is because voters understand quality of life matters over statistics.
And thats exactly why there are close to 10M people in ever growing New York and 2.7 in shrinking Chicago. We got it LOL
The energy and vibrancy alone of NYC just picks up my spirits when I go there, it makes me feel like I want to excel at whatever I'm doing, I got a similar rush when I visited Paris one summer. I never got that feeling in Chicago. It honestly seems a bit less vibrant than out here in San Francisco... (not to start another war, I've just felt that way)
Manhattan/Brooklyn ... and the greater NorthSide nicer part of Chicago seem to attract people with a bit different mindsets/wants.
I would agree. Theres an energy in NYC that I have yet to experience anywhere else. Thats probably the biggest difference. Its truly a 24 hour town. Very center of the world feeling.
I would agree. Theres an energy in NYC that I have yet to experience anywhere else. Thats probably the biggest difference. Its truly a 24 hour town. Very center of the world feeling.
NYC definitely has this. Like I said, I felt this in Paris, but it still wasn't the NYC craziness. Chicago was beautiful to marvel at and stroll around, I've been out by the lake there looking at views and was like the only person around, it's prettier in many ways than NYC, but it just didn't have that energy and excitement I crave.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RS085
Well, I think a reason Chicago is pretty close in the polls is because voters understand quality of life matters over statistics.
Understandable, as somebody single with no kids and a creative type, my biases go towards NYC. There is just more there for me I'm interested in. Maybe at some point further in my life, I'd prefer Chicago. Doubtful, but I understand where they are coming from.
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.
