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 really isn't a direct comparison in my opinion; As a park, Lincoln Park more closely resembles Central Park, but Lincoln Park lacks the lining of high rises that the Upper East/Upper West Sides have. I agree with MAROTHISU that Grant Park is a better comparison from a high rise perspective, though it comes up quite a bit short when compared to all of the high rises lining Central Park.
There really isn't a direct comparison in my opinion; As a park, Lincoln Park more closely resembles Central Park, but Lincoln Park lacks the lining of high rises that the Upper East/Upper West Sides have. I agree with MAROTHISU that Grant Park is a better comparison from a high rise perspective, though it comes up quite a bit short when compared to all of the high rises lining Central Park.
I agree also, I initially thought the map was saying "look, Chicago is just as large as Manhattan if a slice were taken out."
And this is true that DT up through maybe Rogers Park from the lake west to damen or whatever is about the same slice of Manhattan area wise, just what is inside it is different. A lot of times a similar shot is shown of Chicago's skyline outside of downtown going down the lake and was making a point it is only like a block or so deep while Manhattan is around 2 miles across of highrises. It would be like if that entire area of Chicago looked something like the Gold Coast.
I agree also, I initially thought the map was saying "look, Chicago is just as large as Manhattan if a slice were taken out."
And this is true that DT up through maybe Rogers Park from the lake west to damen or whatever is about the same slice of Manhattan area wise, just what is inside it is different. A lot of times a similar shot is shown of Chicago's skyline outside of downtown going down the lake and was making a point it is only like a block or so deep while Manhattan is around 2 miles across of highrises. It would be like if that entire area of Chicago looked something like the Gold Coast.
Agreed. This pic provides a pretty good overview of the difference in scale between Chicago core and Manhattan:
I'd say that the Chicag's skyline and waterfront are prettier than New York's, but I think New York generally has prettier neighborhoods and prettier low/mid-rise architecture.
They are both very beautiful cities, but in different ways.
Never really visited this side of the forum, I think these city vs city things are kinda crazy, for there is no "best city." That being said, I have lived in the Chicago area my whole life and have traveled to NYC a million times.
Both are amazing cities that offer more than one can really do.
But in regards to beauty, I would say Chicago is much more "beautiful" as seen from the lakefront than New York from any angle. New York is a concrete jungle and I would never consider it "beautiful" in the way I consider Chicago beautiful.
That being said, New York has many beautiful areas.
Chicago in my opinion is the best summer city in the world. I am very well traveled and Chicago is a city built for the summer, but we only get it for 4 months or so, so when we get, we take advantage of it!
^^ I wonder how many 4-5 story brick buildings NYC has... I know they have over 6000 10 story high rises but the amount of multi unit buildings there is also staggering. Chicago seems to have way more SFH's.
New York City (including suburbs within New York State) has 27% of its housing units in 4-6 story buildings. 19% in 7+ story buildings.
Chicago has tons of 3-4 flats also but I think there are more SFH mixed in (some of this is of course great architecture) and it starts closer. Some of the pics on the maps and distance from DT he was showing in NYC where it is still "brick city" is crazy. I mean the look isn't always exactly good and sometimes just has a raw gritty feel, going on forever. I drove through Brooklyn and Queens this summer and it was just this giant mass of civilization. Somewhat cool, but somewhat also disturbing like the Matrix.
I always enjoy that drive. I was a bit surprised that the outer parts of Chicago didn't have much of that feel; knew there'd be a difference but still. The drop from downtown seems big.
I'd say that the Chicag's skyline and waterfront are prettier than New York's, but I think New York generally has prettier neighborhoods and prettier low/mid-rise architecture.
They are both very beautiful cities, but in different ways.
+1....I agree 100%
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.
