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.
There is a lot of back and forth, my 2 cents having lived in Manhattan for many years and visiting Chicago a hundred times when my boyfriend lived there.
Manhattan is completely in it's own league, even on a global scale. Chicago is also in it's own league, but a league closer to Philly, Boston, SF in terms of everything being discussed.
Right, exactly!
Manhattan and Chicago are apples and oranges. Granted, Chicago is a big city in its own right and does have a great, vibrant and dense downtown.
But it is dwarfed by Manhattan. Manhattan is much larger, much more dense, and in a different tier of world cities.
The funny thing is, I would put Brooklyn and Philly on par, with the chief difference being that Brooklyn doesn't have the concentration of arts, cultural and historic attractions in its downtown that Philadelphia does.
Brooklynites appear to feel the same way: the net flow of Brooklynites to Philadelphia is greater than that of residents of any other New York City borough over the course of each of the last two decades. (The population flows are net towards Philadelphia from Queens and the Bronx as well, but in lesser numbers; the flow is negligible to or from Staten Island, and it's net towards Manhattan from Philadelphia. For the city as a whole, the flow is net towards Philadelphia. And more people move between New York City and Philadelphia than move between any other two U.S. cities not in the same metropolitan area each decade.)
My explanation for this phenomenon was: "Brooklynites realized they were paying New York prices for the Philadelphia experience and decided it would make more sense to pay Philadelphia prices for it."
Downtown Brooklyn does have a downtown Philly vibe--agreed. Philly is more of the "whole city" downtown, with its concentration of amenities on a cultural scale, but the two are very close in terms of vibrancy, bustling vibes, density, and overall aesthetics.
I'd say those 2 could even rank 3rd and 4th on the list--with Philadelphia coming in just above Brooklyn. San Fran and Boston are up there too.
There is a lot of back and forth, my 2 cents having lived in Manhattan for many years and visiting Chicago a hundred times when my boyfriend lived there.
Manhattan is completely in it's own league, even on a global scale. Chicago is also in it's own league, but a league closer to Philly, Boston, SF in terms of everything being discussed.
Completely agree. Anyone who has visited all of these cities should know that the gap between Manhattan and downtown Chicago is waaaaay larger than the gap between downtown Chicago and DT Philly, SF, Boston.
I was thinking about it yesterday, and downtown Brooklyn belongs in this grouping somewhere. Granted, it is a borough of NYC, and part of NYC, but as a borough, the downtown rivals--and possibly exceeds--many of these cities listed, above.
Downtown has rapidly developed and gentrified in the past decade, and continues to do so at a rapid pace, today. There are 6 or 7 skyscrapers under construction in downtown Brooklyn, and in total, downtown has over 55 skyscrapers exceeding 300 feet, and growing fast.
The foot traffic, infrastructure, entertainment and cultural mix, as well as residential population, is on par with many listed, if not better than some.
Once you go below top10 or top15, individual NYC neighborhoods in outer boroughs would start making the list. I am sure, for example, Flushing, Queens is probably a top20 downtown area. You can at least make a credible argument. Then you have areas like Jamaica. Not many people know this but Jamaica is the 3rd busiest rail hub in the US (only behind Penn Station and Grand Central in Manhattan). It is actually busier than any other station outside of NYC. Things like that are hard to weigh/judge.
Manhattan is just a beast of its own. So is Downtown Chicago but on a smaller scale. Then the next group you got the other urban cities with good downtowns but cant match DT Chicago or Manhattan. The below that...you get my point
I still don't see the argument for DC above Philadelphia.
Grouping Philadelphia in the 6-10 category (with the spacing) is a slight, IMO.
Separately, I am not as familiar with Houston, but does it have that strong of a downtown? Some former rust-belt cities (notably Pittsburgh) seem low. Atlanta also feels a bit too high (per my experience there).
Same Phillys Downtown is great! My favorite combo of size, grit and liveliness. definitely more than one spot above DC.
Yeah if you are talking about the official .51 sq/mil Charles Center boundaries in a void, sure it sucks.
The greater surrounding area of Inner Harbor, Otterbein, Little Italy, Fed Hill, Harbor Point/East, Mt. Vernon, Station North are functionally part of it which is why people rank Baltimore so high.
burginsnoffburginsnoff list was pretty right on. Looks a lot like one I would have posted in one of the many threads on this same theme. I'd probably swap Boston and SF, but other than that, it looks pretty accurate.
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.
