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.
Agree with lakal. The North Shore in Chicago definitely has the highest concentration of uber wealthy zip codes, but that's not to say that there are not extremely wealthy areas in the other sectors of Chicago's suburbs. Oak Brook/Hinsdale, the Fox River Valley, Barrington area, and Orland/Homer Glen also have plenty of homes that cater to the 1%.
This isn't totally a comparison of wealth though. I was more curious if anyone could think of cultural comparisons between say DuPage County and Jersey, or SW Chicago suburbs and Long Island or vice-versa. I really don't think this is that abstract of a concept. Both metros have large samples of a wide-range of cultures and demographics in each of their respective slices of suburbia (Chicago: North Lake Shore, NW Suburbs, West Suburbs, SW Suburbs, South Suburbs, NW Indiana & New York: Westchester, SW Conn, North Jersey, Central Jersey, Long Island), I just want to see if anyone sees any cultural similarities or crossover between the two areas.
You're right. I'm just wondering why there are specifically so many NYC and Chicago comparison threads. I don't get it. I don't see tons of NYC and LA comparison threads, or Chicago and Dallas comparison threads, or whatever.
eh, Chicago and NYC are two of the most interesting and dynamic cities in the US. They're both huge and they're a urbanophile or skyscraper enthusiasts wet dream. They have a history of rivalry as well. While there is trolling and homerisms, the Chicago - NYC threads are some of the most entertaining on the board. Who cares if they repeat?
I would disagree. Philly feels much similar to NYC than Chicago. Same with Boston. Even Baltimore and DC have more similar suburbs than Chicago.
Chicago, to me, has a totally different feel. It's much newer, flatter, grid-style development. The Northeastern cities have very different suburban development, without those mile road grids, and with less of those mega-subdivisions.
Maybe it's because I grew up in the Midwest, but if you blindfolded me and put me in suburban Chicago and suburban Detroit, I would have a hard time telling the difference, but I think I could immediately tell the difference in Long Island or NJ or Westchester. The winding roads, the random development, the less uniform density (much more high density and low density), the hills, the trees, etc.
I agree 100%. You really have to look in Chicago to find suburbs like ones here in the Northeast. Its the one thing about Chicago suburbs I find that lacks, maybe its because of what im used to. Lots of trees, hills, very woody, etc.
Agree with lakal. The North Shore in Chicago definitely has the highest concentration of uber wealthy zip codes, but that's not to say that there are not extremely wealthy areas in the other sectors of Chicago's suburbs. Oak Brook/Hinsdale, the Fox River Valley, Barrington area, and Orland/Homer Glen also have plenty of homes that cater to the 1%.
This isn't totally a comparison of wealth though. I was more curious if anyone could think of cultural comparisons between say DuPage County and Jersey, or SW Chicago suburbs and Long Island or vice-versa. I really don't think this is that abstract of a concept. Both metros have large samples of a wide-range of cultures and demographics in each of their respective slices of suburbia (Chicago: North Lake Shore, NW Suburbs, West Suburbs, SW Suburbs, South Suburbs, NW Indiana & New York: Westchester, SW Conn, North Jersey, Central Jersey, Long Island), I just want to see if anyone sees any cultural similarities or crossover between the two areas.
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"?
I'm familar with NYC suburbs but have little experience with Chicago suburbs.
As for NYC suburbs, there's a lot of similarities between them but some overlap. By type of form:
1) Southern Long Island — continuously built up for a long distance, a lot is gridded. Mostly midcentury, fairly small lots
2) Northern Long Island Less dense in general, especially once get 5 miles away from the NYC border. Many expensive houses near the water on large lots, some cute small villages, but otherwise some typical midcentury suburbia
3) Westchester — some small cities, many old industrial ones, and large towns surrounded by more recent infill. Southern Westchester feels relatively old
4) New Jersey — outer parts relatively new stereotypical "sprawl", inner parts a mix, a bit unsure. Some old cities mixed in.
Long Island feels more uniform suburbia, with fewer patches of high or low density. Also not as many "edge cities" as in large concentrations of office jobs in one spot.
Demographically, all have wealthy and middle-class areas. Long Island is the mostly consistently middle-class, maybe upper-middle class but very low level of poverty but not quite as many rich people. Westchester, continuing on to Conneticut as well as few New Jersey sections has a bit more of the truly moneyed. Long Island is probably a bit more "white ethnic" than the others, Jews concentrate a bit in northern Long Island, especially the town of North Hempstead. But much of southern Westchester is heavily Italian-American and Jewish as well. All of the inner suburbs have diversified (both asians and hispanics) recently, but many outer suburbs are very white.
NJ's suburbs have a lot more than you give them credit for. There's a diverse mix of people, wealth, types of places, housing, and architecture. It really depend on where exactly you are, but for the most part suburban towns are middle class or higher, with a lot of cookie cutter style housing but also a lot of older, more diverse architecture in neighborhoods of towns with wonderful core downtowns. Many old homes still remain in NJ's northern burbs, dating from the Victorian era or the colonial era. There are even places the further west and south in NJ you go still in the NYC area that are more rural, and less dense with some farms or areas you feel are very different from the typical stereotype. NJ overall though is very dense, the most dense in the country. We are also one of the wealthiest in the country, I think we come 2nd or 3rd according to city data so NJ's suburbs are often very nice. Not so nice areas around NYC include cities like Newark, Elizabeth, Linden, Irvington, Paterson, etc. These bigger cities still have some charm, though. NJ's NYC metro area continues to 2 shore counties, which include a mix of mansions along the water to cute summer cottages on barrier islands.
I cannot speak for LI or CT or even upstate NY, but here's a lot about NJ. Very diverse in many ways, but mostly nice and middle class or higher. For the most part in the areas right outside of NYC, in the northeastern counties, you'll find anything from apartments to condos to townhouses, to mostly nice, modest homes and mcmansions. As I said, depends on where you go.
I would disagree. Philly feels much similar to NYC than Chicago. Same with Boston. Even Baltimore and DC have more similar suburbs than Chicago.
Chicago, to me, has a totally different feel. It's much newer, flatter, grid-style development. The Northeastern cities have very different suburban development, without those mile road grids, and with less of those mega-subdivisions.
Maybe it's because I grew up in the Midwest, but if you blindfolded me and put me in suburban Chicago and suburban Detroit, I would have a hard time telling the difference, but I think I could immediately tell the difference in Long Island or NJ or Westchester. The winding roads, the random development, the less uniform density (much more high density and low density), the hills, the trees, etc.
Yeah, they do have the two biggest skylines. But I don't see how that makes them similar. Miami has the #3 skyline, and Chicago is #2, so they must be similar? Not to me.
I agree with this viewpoint. Very true about NYC area, an older area with a different type of development. Doesn't mean this area is nicer, I've seen photos of very impressive Chicago suburbs, but I personally prefer what you described in bold.
I've only explored a bit of suburban NY, but one similarity has to be the prevalence of suburbs built around commuter rail stations. Metra, Chicago's suburban rail, has 241 stations, most of which sit at the heart of individual suburbs' downtowns.
And although I don't think Chicago's suburban wealth is as distributed as NY's, there is way more money outside of the North Shore than people think. There are even million dollar homes in probably a dozen towns in Northwest Indiana alone, places like Beverly Shores, Dune Acres, Valparaiso, Chesterton, and Porter Beach....even Miller Beach in Gary has homes in the 500,000 dollar range (and if you consider the differential between NYC and Chicago, that'd be like a million in a NY suburb)...heck even Oprah built a pretty nice pad in suburban Indiana.
You can't compare Chicagoland to greater NYC (NJ, LI, CT, Westchester, etc...) Its like saying a cherry tomato is in the same family as a cherry. I agree with one of the other people's posts who wrote that if you put her blindfolded in the middle of Chicago or Detroit, she wouldn't know the difference. Same here. Chicago is simply the largest of its kind (Detroit, Cleve, whatever other midwestern city) where you have your inner city wealth and ghetto (not much in between) and then the farther you venture out from the inner city, the wealthier the suburbs become. Its as simple as that. NY area, including the above listed states/areas, is COMPLETELY different. I don't feel you can compare. Its like saying Manhattan is the "downtown" and everything else is a suburb (and as I stated before, with the farther you go away from the center, the wealthier it becomes)......You can't logistically compare NY area to Chicago because those variables are not the same. All the NY surrounding areas/states, etc... have their own culture, subculture, socioeconomic standing or reputation, etc... As someone else said, you can be in what is considered a very wealthy area, then go a bit further and be in something less so, then go yet further and again be in the lap of luxury. There isn't as much rhyme or reason to the NY area to be able to really compare these two. Again, its like trying to compare a cherry and cherry tomato. Maybe that's not a good analogy, but I thought it made sense!
Last edited by LUV2TRVL70; 07-24-2013 at 02:36 AM..
I would disagree. Philly feels much similar to NYC than Chicago. Same with Boston. Even Baltimore and DC have more similar suburbs than Chicago.
Chicago, to me, has a totally different feel. It's much newer, flatter, grid-style development. The Northeastern cities have very different suburban development, without those mile road grids, and with less of those mega-subdivisions.
Maybe it's because I grew up in the Midwest, but if you blindfolded me and put me in suburban Chicago and suburban Detroit, I would have a hard time telling the difference, but I think I could immediately tell the difference in Long Island or NJ or Westchester. The winding roads, the random development, the less uniform density (much more high density and low density), the hills, the trees, etc.
Yeah, they do have the two biggest skylines. But I don't see how that makes them similar. Miami has the #3 skyline, and Chicago is #2, so they must be similar? Not to me.
I actually totally understand this point, also the topography (well say outside of LI which is basically a huge sand bar of sorts ok over simplified). You would not see anything like a West Chester County, or Bergen or Morris etc in Chicago with the rolling terrain and absolutely hardly any grid at all, esp with wide roads and long fence lines etc seperating the gridded sub-divisions. Again I am generalizing but they feel and look a lot different, just as west coast development feels different in this sense, much has to do with timing and also the terrain to be honest (as well as weather that impacts building types and even road infrastructure)
Lastly Chicago never gives me that small "old" downtown clustering with radiating diminishing denisity you get in many east coast burbs, its more uniform
I prefer the east coast set up but is what I grew up with so am sure that factors, I do like the landscape better regardless, chicagoland is very flat to me, or at least what I am used to
Lastly Chicago never gives me that small "old" downtown clustering with radiating diminishing denisity you get in many east coast burbs, its more uniform
I could name dozens and dozens of Chicago suburbs that have more dense downtowns built around train stations, a large number of which totally predate the automobile.
if you are at all interested in disabusing yourself of certain preconceived notions, this article is a good place to start.
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.
