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.
Nothing suburban about DC proper. I can show you areas in the city of Chicago that look like our suburbs if you want. Have you ever been to the southside?
For those familiar with both cities, would you agree that Chicago overall has a much more suburban character than Washington, DC?
For those familiar with both cities, would you agree that Chicago overall has a much more suburban character than Washington, DC?
Overall there are similarities (sans the obvious in highrises). Both have a decent volume of sort of suburban nabes in their cities as well as many more urban nabes. The big difference is in size. Chicago is dramatically larger than DC and the core or urban area covers a much larger footprint in Chicago when compared to DC.
I don't think anyone rational would say that Chicago is more suburban than DC. Just that both Chicago and DC have suburban looking areas within city limits.
I don't think anyone rational would say that Chicago is more suburban than DC. Just that both Chicago and DC have suburban looking areas within city limits.
Also true, nor would anyone call either city suburban in general by any means
For those familiar with both cities, would you agree that Chicago overall has a much more suburban character than Washington, DC?
No, I wouldn't agree at all.
I think both cities are extremely urban but Chicago definitely has an edge because it has big buildings all along the lakefront from North to South and is overall more dense. Plus, it's got nearly 2,000,000 more people!
I wouldn't call any parts of the South Side "suburban"....maybe except for Beverly, as the South Side is very gritty and dense in many areas. The open fields and empty factories present in some neighborhoods definitely comes off as gritty urbanity to me...... Who thinks those are suburban??
Likewise, the pictures of DC you posted don't look so much suburban either. People are coming up with ridiculous analogies as to what constitutes at "suburban".
I understand people talking about Sunbelt cities but trying to compare DC and Chicago as who's more suburban is pointless.
I don't think anyone rational would say that Chicago is more suburban than DC. Just that both Chicago and DC have suburban looking areas within city limits.
Exactly.
Queens, Bronx, and Staten Island have suburban looking areas pocketed around.... and it's NYC.
Who out of their right mind would call NYC suburban or compare it to anything like a suburb?
And let me add that the areas are "suburban looking". Thus, they have some similarities to a suburb, but overall, they still feel like they are in a big city.
There are areas that look suburban in every city. There's even areas that look suburban in NYC. Chicago I think has the edge in neighborhoods along the coast. There are some neighborhoods in Chicago that have narrow sidewalks. DC I think is a better pedestrian city throughout the city but they have less to work with than Chicago. Both are very urban. Chicago though wins this one as it has a larger urban layout.
Quote:
I wouldn't call any parts of the South Side "suburban"....maybe except for Beverly, as the South Side is very gritty and dense in many areas. The open fields and empty factories present in some neighborhoods definitely comes off as gritty urbanity to me...... Who thinks those are suburban??
I think the Southwest side by Midway can look pretty suburban. But they make up a small part of the city.
Last edited by Spade; 01-04-2012 at 04:25 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.