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.
Chicago's a little past its prime to be talking about the future IMO.
LOL yes. Is that why companies are moving to Chicago and 5000+ rental units will be hitting the market in the downtown area alone in the next 1-1.5 years alone with a few thousand more in other parts of the city?
Sure Chicagoland is bigger as an urbanized agglomeration but in terms of weighted density within the urbanized areas.. Toronto and San Francisco are more dense.
If i'm in the middle of Vaughn Ontario - Part of the Greater Toronto Area.. I have almost no connection to being in Toronto at all from an urban lifestyle p.o.v.... Same thing if you are in Joliet - are you going to proudly wave around your Chicago is urban flag - prolly not.. nothing against Joliet btw..
Quote:
Originally Posted by prelude91
As to the thread, I find Toronto to be fairly similar to San Francisco in terms of vibrancy, and as it relates to Chicago, I find the most vibrant parts of Toronto (and SF) to be slightly more vibrant than Chicago's most vibrant part, but neither Toronto (or San Fran) can match the massive scale that is Chicago.
Yes, exactly. There are many other parts of cohesiveness in areas to the west/northwest as well, but it's not as rampant as what I showed there. It definitely exists, but there are definitely pockets of "well there's a random empty lot" strewn in there which a lot of the north side, at least for a long, long time does not have much of at all.
I would say by definition, the Kennedy kills any cohesiveness heading west/northwest. Just thinking of the main streets heading west on the north side: Division, Chicago, Grand, Lake, etc, none really have the much cohesiveness with the neighborhoods directly west. in terms of the Northwest/Southeast streets: Milwaukee, Kingsbury, Clybourn all have the River or Kennedy or Cabrini in the way. The best example of cohesiveness would be Clark (which you already mentioned).
LOL yes. Is that why companies are moving to Chicago and 5000+ rental units will be hitting the market in the downtown area alone in the next 1-1.5 years alone with a few thousand more in other parts of the city?
Companies? I am talking about density. Chicago is past its prime, it's density is down from its peak and there's no telling what can happen in the foreseeable future either.
Didnt Toronto just surpass Chicago in population with eerily similar land area? So which one will be denser? btw, Toronto and LA urban areas are 7K ppsm, Chicago is half that 3.5K ppsm.
I only read a few pages into it, but has anyone come up with a definition of "urban"? If it is defined by urban amenities, the answer is obviously L.A. If we're speaking strictly density and public transit, it would probably go to Chicago, but keep in mind Los Angeles is expanding its subway system while Chicago is set in its ways and Toronto (from what little I've read online) is experiencing a clusterfv@& in attempting to expand its transit.
I would say by definition, the Kennedy kills any cohesiveness heading west/northwest. Just thinking of the main streets heading west on the north side: Division, Chicago, Grand, Lake, etc, none really have the much cohesiveness with the neighborhoods directly west. in terms of the Northwest/Southeast streets: Milwaukee, Kingsbury, Clybourn all have the River or Kennedy or Cabrini in the way. The best example of cohesiveness would be Clark (which you already mentioned).
Partially agree. All I'm saying is that there are still areas of large cohesiveness in these areas west of the Kennedy. I think Lincoln, Clark, Halsted, Broadway, State, etc are all good examples of it on the north side for main streets but all the side streets are the same deal. Not many open plots of land that aren't parks/plazas.
LOL, no but as someone who actually lives in Chicago (sorry Fitz, but you do not), I mostly (not fully) disagree. There are areas that definitely are like this, but especially the north side is very, very cohesive minus a few parts (which are closer to the river on the West, or the former Cabrini Green site that is now mainly a big field). There are parts of River North that are weird (random lots) but this rarely exists if you start East of about LaSalle Street and work your way north all the way up to Evanston. Very, very cohesive. I can only think of one open lot and it was a former apartment building that was burned down a handful of years ago in a fire and there's been some stalling on developing it in the last year or two. Some of the former open lots in a few areas are being built up recently again, but it's not a lot.
Just keep walking forward. The north side is technically denser than San Francisco for about the same physical area. The areas where it gets less cohesive are parts of the West and South sides, but not all of them. Many parts are still fairly cohesive in those areas too.
So what is it that you mostly disagree with? As "someone who actually lives in Chicago" I am sure you have on many occasions driven (or taken a cab) from your home in Gold Coast to Wicker Park, Pilsen or Chinatown. Would you call the stretches of Division or Clybourn or South Canal leading away from downtown "cohesive"?
And who is talking about north? I know that going north is cohesive - thats why I very conspicuously mentioned everything but north. So it seems that you "mostly disagree" with me by... well... mostly agreeing with me.
Sure Chicagoland is bigger as an urbanized agglomeration but in terms of weighted density within the urbanized areas.. Toronto and San Francisco are more dense.
If i'm in the middle of Vaughn Ontario - Part of the Greater Toronto Area.. I have almost no connection to being in Toronto at all from an urban lifestyle p.o.v.... Same thing if you are in Joliet - are you going to proudly wave around your Chicago is urban flag - prolly not.. nothing against Joliet btw..
That is nerd statistic talk, Im referring more to the 20-25 sq mile core area "Chicago's Manhattan", not the entire metro area. Ive lived in Chicago for 25 years, and have been to Toronto literally dozens of times in the past 2 years; the 20-25 sq mi core of Chicago seems much bigger than that of Toronto's.
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.
