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.
Well, Chicago is linear in terms of the majority of nightlife and attractions, you pretty much do need to move North and South along the lake if you want to stay in unbroken area, but that isn't hard to do b/c that is where the most transit lines are as well as most of the stuff. SF you can be a little freer to walk in whatever direction I suppose b/c it's more circular. But outside of the map I highlighted it gets consistent family residential in a hurry as well as hilly parks and stuff breaking it up. Chi attraction areas/neighborhoods are similar shapewise to Manhattan, but obviously not on that level/tier or close to it intensity, just the physical area. If I am missing areas feel free to let me know. SF might have a couple more intense streets of restaurants though like the stretch around North Beach that merges into Chinatown...hard to say. I don't know if there is such an intense "eatery" zone in Chicago. The complaints often come b/c Wicker Park/Bucktown ...that have a lot of stuff, and are the main hipster areas are somewhat of a pain to get to if you live along the lake front, but I didn't even include those, b/c I do feel they are disconnected too much. SF is probably more of a pleasure to walk though, Chi just has more going on over a greater area. I agree with the OP though... the area around North Beach through Chinatown down through lower nob hill into the tenderloin is a little more "intense" if you will and more cohesive, but that isn't really a big area. I don't know many people besides tourists that spend most of their time there. The Financial district sits kind of east of those areas and flows into those densest population neighborhoods of SF. Chicagos DT is quite a bit bigger with wider streets and displaces some of that activity. He's basically talking about like .5 square mile area or so. of that kind of intensity.
Even if I were to expand the area he is talking about to include Russian Hill, Nob Hill, Telegraph Hill, Fishermans Wharf, Financial District, Chinatown, North Beach, Jackson Square, Belden Place...
Basically Embarcardero going around the water, south to market, and west to van ness. It's still only 1.6 square miles. Just the Chicago Loop (primarily business district) is by itself is that big, you don't even get north of the river to Magnificent mile yet, river north, nothing... just the business district really.
this is 1.58 sq miles.
It would take up this entire area of SF, approximately same size, that is a large portion of SF's popular areas. This is only 1.6 sq miles. You could walk the entire area north to south and still be stuck in Chicago's business district in the same distance.
Chicago has better urban street life than Boston? Really? Chicago just never struck me as that kind of city? And I can't imagine the gap between SF and Boston being that large. Or at least I know that Boston is a beast of a city when it comes to urban street life.
Yeah and that's the other caveat. Actual quality.
Honestly pound for pound Id actually put SF above NYC, perhaps Boston as well.
You have to go with SF at #2. Not even debatabale, IMO. The competition is for #3, with Chicago and Boston in the lead, and Philly and DC challenging, IMO.
SF has, after NYC, the highest density, the tightest streets, the highest land values, the most cohesive urbanity, and the biggest transit orientation. It has, for American standards, extraordinary streetlife not matched by any U.S. city (excepting of course NYC).
The real battle is for #3, with Chicago or Boston, IMO. Go with the bigger size and larger crowds in Chicago, or the tighter urbanity and more cohesive blocks in Boston?
Chicago has a bigger continuous active area than SF.
I charted out a continuous 18 square mile area that is unbroken in terms of street life, you could walk clark or lincoln with bars or restaurants down the streets all the way to downtown and all the way west-east also between the areas.
This isn't a continuously active area. Once you get north of Lincoln Park/Lakeview, you aren't talking about similar types of activity. North of Belmont, especially, there's a big dropoff.
And really nothing north of North Ave. is "continuously active" except for the major corridors (Clark, Lincoln, Halstead and Broadway).
And places like the West Loop are just too disjointed, 9-5 oriented and parking-lot filled to really constitute a cohesive walkable realm, IMO. In SF, even the furthest neighborhoods, practically on the city line, have greater cohesive feel.
I think Chicago, SF, DC, Boston, and Philadelphia are all very close. In the three in which I have lived (DC, Boston, Philly), I really can't say there's that much of a difference. I used to think Boston was a bit stronger than DC on this, but that gap has closed quite a bit.
Philly has Center City, which is imo the best urbanity in the country outside of Lower Manhattan. But it's not all that large and the drop off in pedestrian intensity is very noticeable. That's not a knock on Philly, it's just that CC is at a really high peak.
Boston is pretty good, imo. The combination of Back Bay/Beacon Hill, Boston Common, Financial District, Chinatown and the North End provides for a killer pedestrian experience. I'd probably place Boston above Philly in terms of the ground I'd want to cover on foot as a tourist.
DC has changed the most of these three in the last five years. Definitely nothing as active as Center City. Not quite as compact as Boston as far as the concentration of pedestrian zones, but pedestrian intensity is spread out a bit more.
Overall, I'd probably rank each of these cities differently depending on the time of year I visit, the day of the week, etc.
I agree on the gap rough thresholds. I would put Boston and Philly alone in their own third tier. DC probably has as many vibrant areas as Boston and even Philly. But, they are not as tightly packed together. Georgetown is a little removed from Dupont, which is a little removed from Gallery Place. The street life is broken up by lots of 9-5 office zones. In Philly and Boston the lively spaces are more integrated. North End flows to Haymarket, which flows to Quincy Market, which flows to DTX, which flows to Chinatown, etc. Same with Philly. Rittenhouse flows to Gayborhood, which flows to Redding Terminal/Chinatown and so on..
LA is just a different beast. Dense and huge, but really lacking the clustered mass of the more traditional mono-centric cities.
The street life is not broken up by lots of 9-5 office zones. There's really only one 9-5 office zone and that's called Downtown. If you're in Dupont Circle, the next neighborhood over to the East would be Logan Circle, which is probably the most active area of the city. Dupont, Logan, U Street, Adams-Morgan and Columbia Heights all mash into each other the same way Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bed-Stuy all mash into each other.
The street life is not broken up by lots of 9-5 office zones. There's really only one 9-5 office zone and that's called Downtown. If you're in Dupont Circle, the next neighborhood over to the East would be Logan Circle, which is probably the most active area of the city. Dupont, Logan, U Street, Adams-Morgan and Columbia Heights all mash into each other the same way Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bed-Stuy all mash into each other.
Those Brooklyn neighborhoods are somewhat more contiguous, though. I agree with your general point, though, that DC isn't really less contiguous than Philly or Boston, or at least there isn't a big difference.
Chicago has a bigger continuous active area than SF.
I charted out a continuous 18 square mile area that is unbroken in terms of street life, you could walk clark or lincoln with bars or restaurants down the streets all the way to downtown and all the way west-east also between the areas.
I didn't even include areas such as Ukrainian Village, Wicker Park, Bucktown, Logan Square which are the main hip areas. Chicago only has a break b/c of industrial areas along the river and expressway.
This is over 18.4 square miles.
I would say at most SF has about a 10square mile area like this from NE corner of Fisherman's wharf, NW to Marina District, SE to SoMa, South to the Castro/Mission and upper parts of Noe Valley. West to the outer edge of Haight Ashbury and parts of Inner Sunset/Inner Richmond.
This is only 10 square miles.
For anyone familiar with it, just the greater Downtown area of Chicago from Roosevelt west to halsted/expressway north to north ave bordered by the lake is close to 4 square miles already.
This is basically what you are seeing in the picture where the buildings stop.
Icem11
That's an 18 square mile area.
The 10 sq. mile area you outlined for SF looks more vibrant than the 18 sq. mile area you carved out for Chicago. There are quite a few streets in that area of Chicago that look relatively drab compared to SF. And if you moved beyond that 10 sq. mile area of SF, you could easily find neighborhoods similar to the ones on the periphery of your Chicago "zone," which don't seem to be the most lively from a pedestrian perspective (though not "dead" either).
Those Brooklyn neighborhoods are somewhat more contiguous, though. I agree with your general point, though, that DC isn't really less contiguous than Philly or Boston, or at least there isn't a big difference.
How are they more contiguous? You'll have to explain that one to me.
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.
