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.
So you think in regards to cuisine, vibrancy of the city, streetlife, density, public transportation, diverse ethnic population Chicago is more like Cleveland than say Philly?
No, I think on those issues (excepting cuisine and ethnic population), it's more like Philly.
But those issues aren't really inherent to regions. The original question asked whether Chicago felt like a grouping of Midwest cities, a grouping of Northeast Corridor cities, or a grouping of Sunbelt cities. Obviously it looks and feels like a Midwest city, even if it's the biggest Midwest city. No one would say that NYC isn't a Northeast corridor city just because it destroys every other Northeast city in size, vibrancy, etc.
I'm referring to skyscrapers, not high rises. By number of buildings taller than 100 m, or their combined heights, there's roughly a 1:2 ratio. At a per capita basis, both cities are about the same. For skyline impressiveness, looking at skyscrapers make more sense than high rises.
I disagree. For skyline impressiveness, you look at the total available data, not a tiny sample.
NYC has about 7 times as many highrises as Chicago; the fact that the ratio is closer if if you look at the few hundred tallest doesn't mean they have comparable skylines.
And even looking at the tallest, they aren't that close. NYC really is closer to 3:1 if you compare the 100m+ buildings. If you look at Emporis, every Chicago building has height listed, while NYC has hundreds with no height listed, so aren't ranked by height (but you can infer than 40 floor buildings with no height listed meet the 100m threshold).
And NYC has an explosion of high-rise construction; Chicago has comparably little highrise construction. If you're a believer that only the tallest few buildings count in a skyline, then the gap will be huge once all these skinny supertalls get built in NYC.
No, I think on those issues (excepting cuisine and ethnic population), it's more like Philly.
But those issues aren't really inherent to regions. The original question asked whether Chicago felt like a grouping of Midwest cities, a grouping of Northeast Corridor cities, or a grouping of Sunbelt cities. Obviously it looks and feels like a Midwest city, even if it's the biggest Midwest city. No one would say that NYC isn't a Northeast corridor city just because it destroys every other Northeast city in size, vibrancy, etc.
See but why do you keep talking about size? What does that have to do with anything. Houston and Chicago are similar and size and feel NOTHING alike. The fact is that it's a mix of both groups. Chicago has a ton in common with the Midwest group, but then also with Northeast cities. Unlike cities like Minneapolis or Milwaukee, which do not feel like anything at all like a Northeast city and it has nothing to do with size.
Again this goes back that Chicago was able to boom when a lot of Northeast cities were also flourishing, bringing with it a lot of similar traits. To claim that Chicago has no urban characteristics similar to Boston or Philly, or NYC only that of Minneapolis, Milwaukee or St. Louis is absolutely absurd. And again it's not a size thing.
The same goes with SF. It's a mix of a west coast city and east coast city. Let's be honest, if you had to pick two cities that were the most like the Northeast cities OUTSIDE of the northeast region, hands down most people would easily designate SF and Chicago.
I disagree. For skyline impressiveness, you look at the total available data, not a tiny sample.
NYC has about 7 times as many highrises as Chicago; the fact that the ratio is closer if if you look at the few hundred tallest doesn't mean they have comparable skylines.
And even looking at the tallest, they aren't that close. NYC really is closer to 3:1 if you compare the 100m+ buildings. If you look at Emporis, every Chicago building has height listed, while NYC has hundreds with no height listed, so aren't ranked by height (but you can infer than 40 floor buildings with no height listed meet the 100m threshold).
And NYC has an explosion of high-rise construction; Chicago has comparably little highrise construction. If you're a believer that only the tallest few buildings count in a skyline, then the gap will be huge once all these skinny supertalls get built in NYC.
Compared to NYC yes, because NYC is like 3x the size in it's downtown. It's like no ****. Chicago is doing completely fine when it comes to high rise construction. On my ten minute walk to work I pass by like 6 high rises that are currently being constructed, and that is in just small portion of downtown.
I disagree. For skyline impressiveness, you look at the total available data, not a tiny sample.
NYC has about 7 times as many highrises as Chicago; the fact that the ratio is closer if if you look at the few hundred tallest doesn't mean they have comparable skylines.
And even looking at the tallest, they aren't that close. NYC really is closer to 3:1 if you compare the 100m+ buildings. If you look at Emporis, every Chicago building has height listed, while NYC has hundreds with no height listed, so aren't ranked by height (but you can infer than 40 floor buildings with no height listed meet the 100m threshold).
And NYC has an explosion of high-rise construction; Chicago has comparably little highrise construction. If you're a believer that only the tallest few buildings count in a skyline, then the gap will be huge once all these skinny supertalls get built in NYC.
I always notice when I go to other places outside NYC, Chicago and Miami (maybe some other I'm missing) that there's normally not much highrise construction going on at all around the country, or maybe a city will have 1-4 going up at one time.
At least here I'm always use to at least a dozen or so going up at one time, I can see 5 from my office window right now. What's the level under construction in NYC right now? I haven't been in a year or two and haven't followed up, but enough to know there's a lot.
what we have at the moment:
under construction:
1) River Point - Office - 650 ft - 45 stories
2) 111 West Wacker - Residential - 630 feet - 59 stories
3) 435 North Park - Residential - 569 feet - 49 stories
4) AMLI River North - Residential - 543 feet - 49 stories
5) Rehab Inst Of Chicago - Hospital - 480 ft - 27 stories
6) Summit on Lake - Residential - 477 feet - 42 stories
7) Hubbard Place - Residential - 449 feet - 46 stories
8) Optima Center - Residential - 442 feet - 42 stories
9) 845 North State - Residential - 410 feet - 24 stories
10) Northwestern Hospital - Hospital - 404 feet - 24 stories
11) Arkadia Tower - Residential - 355 feet - 33 stories
12) 212 W. Illinois - Residential - 250 feet - 25 stories
13) Catalyst - Residential - 204 feet - 18 stories
14) East West Studen Center - Residential - 200 feet - 17 stories
15) Godfrey Hotel - Hotel - 183 feet - 16 stories
16) Halsted Flats - Residential - 180 feet - 15 stories
17) Harper Court - Office - 172 feet - 12 stories
18) 1611 W. Division - Residential - 146 feet - 11 stories
My point exactly. Regardless the reasons that other Midwestern cities "could of been" like Chicago in it's built environment, the point is they are not in present time. People keep saying St. Louis could have been like Chicago if it grew, as well as other Midwestern cities. Ok, but the point is it still is not. I can say also that San Diego and LA could have been like SF or East Coast cities in their built environment if they would have boomed in the 1800's, but that fact is they did not. Fact is fact.
Chicago in present time to me is Midwest and East Coast mixed together. A big chunk of the urban aspects and characteristics of Chicago are not really found in most of the other large Midwestern cities, but are found in many of the Northeast cities.
Chicago is way more similar to Boston and Philly than Minneapolis is to Boston and Philly. And it's not because of size, because if it were a size thing, then one would have to make an argument for Houston, Dallas, Miami, etc. It's due to the fact that Chicago really grew at the same time that many Northeast cities did as well. Lending to similar immigrant patterns, economies, urban cultures, etc. No Chicago is not an East Coast city in total, but outside of the Northeast, you can't deny that Chicago is the next closest thing to a Northeast city.
That's not what I'm saying, they didn't need to grow, they just didn't need to shrink.
Also SF is not an "east coast" city either... It's very west coast. Is New Orleans also an "east coast" city? It's more historic and has tighter streets than Chicago. I'm not sure why you are limiting yourself to the U.S. in terms of making urban comparisons... Just b/c a place is built urban doesn't mean it is East Coast... East coast has distinct styles, layout and culture that Chicago doesn't have. Chicago is a big midwestern city. Is Chicago also a Canadian city? It resembles Toronto more so than the NE cities... Chicago must be Canadian then by your logic, right?
That's not what I'm saying, they didn't need to grow, they just didn't need to shrink.
Also SF is not an "east coast" city either... It's very west coast. Is New Orleans also an "east coast" city? It's more historic and has tighter streets than Chicago. I'm not sure why you are limiting yourself to the U.S. in terms of making urban comparisons... Just b/c a place is built urban doesn't mean it is East Coast... East coast has distinct styles, layout and culture that Chicago doesn't have. Chicago is a big midwestern city. Is Chicago also a Canadian city? It resembles Toronto more so than the NE cities... Chicago must be Canadian then by your logic, right?
Agreed. Downtown Atlanta has tighter streets in it's downtown then Chicago does....that doesn't make it Northeastern. There's definitely a distinct feel between NE cities and other cities.
Similarly, Boston is more like Worcester and Providence than it is like Chicago. Boston maybe closer in density to Chicago, but by history and architecture, it's closer to many smaller New England cities.
Again this goes back that Chicago was able to boom when a lot of Northeast cities were also flourishing, bringing with it a lot of similar traits. To claim that Chicago has no urban characteristics similar to Boston or Philly, or NYC only that of Minneapolis, Milwaukee or St. Louis is absolutely absurd. And again it's not a size thing.
Also you're comparing to Chicago to two different things. There's a huge gap in "urban characteristics" between Boston/ Philly and NYC. In any case, Chicago has higher job centralization than any northeastern city except NYC (though DC comes close).
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.
