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.
Depends, if you're talking about a % of city limits, maybe SF or Boston? If you're just talking about a physical area I think Chicago is definitely right up there.
Yeah, I was thinking in absolute terms, not as a % of the city. More like if you were to go on a long walk on a Saturday afternoon. Which city would you have the greatest absolute vibrancy. Vibrant as in more or less continuously active street life.
While far from perfect, the best approximation of an objective answer to this I could find is here
NYC - 85 pts
SF - 85 pts
Boston - 79 pts
Chicago - 74 pts
Philadelphia - 74 pts
I like the site, but it averages everything within city boundaries to get that score. It's why despite how much more urban and how it's urban a much larger area, NYC has a score about equal to SF's.
I do think SF and Chicago are essentially tied for second after NYC though the gap between those cities and NYC is significant while the gap between them and Boston/Philly/DC/LA for total areas that would qualify as urban and vibrant is much smaller.
I like the site, but it averages everything within city boundaries to get that score. It's why despite how much more urban and how it's urban a much larger area, NYC has a score about equal to SF's.
I do think SF and Chicago are essentially tied for second after NYC though the gap between those cities and NYC is significant while the gap between them and Boston/Philly/DC/LA for total areas that would qualify as urban and vibrant is much smaller.
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.
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.
I do think SF and Chicago are essentially tied for second after NYC
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.
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.
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.
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.
