Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-24-2013, 10:42 PM
 
12,883 posts, read 13,982,632 times
Reputation: 18451

Advertisements

Someone's defensive…

It is hard to compare Chicago area suburbs to NYC area ones.

Say what you want about Northeasterners, East Coasters, whatever, but just know that our area predates yours (and it shows) - so like it or not, things are bound to be much different in quite a few ways. This isn't us trying to be better, or win, it's us stating facts. Maybe you haven't travelled around NYC's suburbs? If you have, I have a hard time believing you'd be doubting us this much and trying to say this area is that similar to Chicagoland. Are there similarities? Yes. But in terms of density, development, age, and more, our two areas look very different from one another. Just like California looks very different from here and the midwest, the northeast and midwest look different as they were founded at different times, in different eras, really, where factors and priorities in creating a town or a city were different.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-24-2013, 11:47 PM
 
2,502 posts, read 3,374,430 times
Reputation: 2703
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
Someone's defensive…

It is hard to compare Chicago area suburbs to NYC area ones.

. Maybe you haven't travelled around NYC's suburbs?


I have, but admitted it was only briefly

If you have, I have a hard time believing you'd be doubting us this much and trying to say this area is that similar to Chicagoland. Are there similarities? Yes.

Have you been to any Chicago suburbs? or are you reading from some script?

But in terms of density, development, age, and more, our two areas look very different from one another. Just like California looks very different from here and the midwest, the northeast and midwest look different as they were founded at different times, in different eras, really, where factors and priorities in creating a town or a city were different.

Did you read anything I posted?

Chicago suburbs are NOT UNIFORM. Deal with it.......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2013, 12:07 AM
 
12,883 posts, read 13,982,632 times
Reputation: 18451
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwest1 View Post
Did you read anything I posted?

Chicago suburbs are NOT UNIFORM. Deal with it.......
I didn't say they were uniform, I said they don't look similar to those around NYC. Did you read MY post?

Development in NYC's immediate suburb areas are more random, both in density and style. You can find medium sized cities mixed in with old towns dating to 1600-something, the colonial era. This age shows in both architectural style and how the town was built , for example, around a river or central road. Many roads around here bend, are situated on hills, or flow oddly. You can find a forest or marshland right beside bigger cities (see the Meadowlands and Pine Barrens of NJ for example), breaking up the pattern in an area that otherwise could potentially be nonstop suburbs so close to a big city. You can find a town more rural in feel or of lower population beside a bigger town known to be a major shopping or dining center. Grid patterns barely exist around here, you won't find miles of housing developments that all look the same… of course, not all of Chicagoland is like this either. But it is extremely rare to find this type of development around NYC as neighborhoods are much older, and the Midwest for one is kind of known for this. The closet thing you'll find to a housing development in my part of NJ is a few rows of townhouses. Any newer building is usually a development, while older building was more random and a bit more unique. I don't know how else to describe it, but places here just look different. And I'm not the only one who thinks this, are we all East Coast boosters?

This is why I brought up California. Housing developments galore over there in the suburbs, it's a newer state. Different priorities when building. One of my CA friends lives in an Orange County town established in 1990. Almost all buildings are 20 years old at the most. That's unheard of over here for an entire town or area. Few places in America can compare to the style of the East Coast in general (not to say we're the only unique ones). It's not a dig to anywhere else, it's a fact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2013, 12:14 AM
 
2,502 posts, read 3,374,430 times
Reputation: 2703
okay..as an exercise in cross-metro friendship.......where would Cicero Illinois, population 84,000, density of 14,000 fit into New York? No need for Capone level anything.......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2013, 12:15 AM
 
2,502 posts, read 3,374,430 times
Reputation: 2703
and Huntley? Barrington?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2013, 06:13 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
45,983 posts, read 53,467,780 times
Reputation: 15184
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
Development in NYC's immediate suburb areas are more random, both in density and style.
I'll point that out that that's less of true of the southern half (or two-thirds) of Long Island, though there are old village intermixed, the residential development is fairly uniform and often grid-like. One poster mentioned the northern part of Long Island is quite different, true, but the most wooded low density sections don't hold many people, just land. Town center with train station (close to NYC border):

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Lynbr...211.78,,0,4.86

Residential areas:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Lynbr...111.58,,0,3.32
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2013, 06:30 AM
 
517 posts, read 678,192 times
Reputation: 235
Midwest1, stop being so defensive, geez.

No one said that Chicago suburbs were uniform, or worse than in the Northeast, or contained no distinctive elements.

They're different, that's all. There are signficant regional difference across the U.S. in terms of suburban development.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2013, 03:46 AM
 
2,502 posts, read 3,374,430 times
Reputation: 2703
well NY and Chicago are the only two cities that have a combination of dense urban suburbs, hundreds of suburbs built around rail stations, wealthy beachfront/waterfront suburbs, suburbs that are a bit ghetto (Newark/Gary), WASP suburbs, Jewish suburbs etc. post-war suburbs(levittownish) posh suburbs and cheesy suburbs (for Chicago, think Risky Business/North Shore vs. Married With Children/Schaumburg).

Wasn't being defensive, I was being offensive as in football
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2013, 10:32 AM
 
2,419 posts, read 4,723,143 times
Reputation: 1318
They're not comparable, the areas directly outside of NYC would be large urban metros in their own right, if not for their proximity to NYC. North Jersey alone could compete with the entirety of chicagoland in both size and urbanity. The suburbs of Chicago are relatively well known, places like Evanston and cicero, and is overall a more well defined entity than NYC's suburbs. However, NYC's burbs are on an entirely different scale in almost every aspect. Places like Yonkers, SI, LI, and the much smaller sister city in Jersey City and its burbs which create a tri-state metro, an entirely different and incomparable dynamic, than what is present in chicagoland.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2013, 10:35 AM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,384 posts, read 28,508,014 times
Reputation: 5884
I think the biggest difference is the scenery. To me the NY metro is way prettier and scenic esp Northern NJ, Connecticut and the Eastern part of LI.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top