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 07-27-2013, 10:37 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 53,463,557 times
Reputation: 15184

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by midwest1 View Post
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
I suspect NYC has far more Jewish suburbs and far less WASP suburbs. WASP suburbs exist but they're hard to find.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-27-2013, 10:40 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 53,463,557 times
Reputation: 15184
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
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.
The most scenic part IMO is the mainland NY state / Hudson Valley portion. Rolling hills, some older towns, and even small mountains overlooking the Hudson. Far better than CT, IMO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2013, 10:41 AM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,384 posts, read 28,508,014 times
Reputation: 5884
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
The most scenic part IMO is the mainland NY state / Hudson Valley portion. Rolling hills, some older towns, and even small mountains overlooking the Hudson. Far better than CT, IMO.
Yes that too. Going up the Hudson on both sides is very scenic.

Last edited by grapico; 07-27-2013 at 11:07 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2013, 11:05 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 53,463,557 times
Reputation: 15184
Quote:
Originally Posted by killakoolaide View Post
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.
One other thing, because of geography and the size: the different sections of NYC suburbia feel more separated. NYC is a big traffic chokepoint, so it's difficult to get to suburbs on the other side, and for Long Island, one has no choice but to go through. Going around the city can be clumsy, and the distances are large. And each region has a large enough population that they form separate identities. Chicago seems like it's easier to go to different suburban regions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2013, 07:47 PM
 
Location: Broward County Florida
555 posts, read 591,682 times
Reputation: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by IEnjoyBeer View Post
As someone from NY looking to move to Chicago, I am interested as well.

Im used to the Northeast style suburbs like PCH refers to and the very Italian areas. Where are the places to get Italian food in Chicago in the suburbs? Because its to my understanding that Italians left the city decades ago. You go to NYC or Philly, and Italians are still very much a part of the identity of the city, historically, culturally, foodwise, etc.

I know Chicago has a large Italian population, but whenever im there I cant "find it"?
Chicago's little Italy is in the north, Harlem and Addison. However Italians in Chicago are nothing like NYC's Italian population that fills the five boros with countless pizzerias and restaurants.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2013, 07:57 PM
 
Location: Broward County Florida
555 posts, read 591,682 times
Reputation: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by killakoolaide View Post
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.
I agree. Again density of population in north east dictates that NYC suburbs are much more urbanized than Chicago's: they simply had a 100 years head start on Windy City. Remember, although not a NYC suburb, Philly is just an hour away and places like Hoboken or Gutenberg are as dense as Manhattan. Its a totally different scale and that's why any comparisons are doomed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2013, 08:00 PM
 
Location: Broward County Florida
555 posts, read 591,682 times
Reputation: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
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.
Yup. The ocean and the fact that north east is far from flat makes a big difference. Also, you can't compare prairie and artificial forest preserves to naturally wooded areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2013, 11:10 PM
 
Location: Edmonds, WA
8,975 posts, read 10,206,613 times
Reputation: 14252
Quote:
Originally Posted by flotard View Post
Yup. The ocean and the fact that north east is far from flat makes a big difference. Also, you can't compare prairie and artificial forest preserves to naturally wooded areas.
On the other hand, there's nothing in the NYC metro area like the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. Which does have prairie, along with natural forests and eight other habitats. IMO it's difficult to compare the two metros on almost every level.

Habitats of the Indiana Dunes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2013, 12:59 AM
 
Location: Broward County Florida
555 posts, read 591,682 times
Reputation: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefox View Post
On the other hand, there's nothing in the NYC metro area like the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. Which does have prairie, along with natural forests and eight other habitats. IMO it's difficult to compare the two metros on almost every level.

Habitats of the Indiana Dunes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ahem. There are dunes in Long Island. Real ocean dunes and in NYC metro.
Again, prairie is not that exciting compared to north east.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2013, 02:36 AM
 
2,502 posts, read 3,374,430 times
Reputation: 2703
acre for acre, the Indiana Dunes have the greatest biodiversity in the country.

"The Indiana Dunes has 1,419 species in an area of approximately 15,000 acres and is fourth in Biodiversity, under the Great Smoky Mountains (1,581), the North Cascades (1,567), and the Grand Canyon (1,474), all of which have over half a million acres. "

It is truly an amazing place, and the Dunes can reach up to well over 100 feet tall.

And speaking of the Dunes the suburbs near the Dunes extend almost 50 miles to Michigan City. For people in that area, the far northern suburbs like Kenosha are a a 2 hour drive (without traffic). Chicagoland, especially at it hugs the lake is a monster.
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