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 just call them urban dense, vibrant and at an arbitrary size threshold, not "east coast" like. The things that differentiate the east coast aren't being urban, it's the history/architecture/culture. Urban cities are found allover the globe. There are also lots of East Coast cities that don't fit your requirements, so to use East Coast as the associative word just seems like you'd want to latch on to that. What about Baltimore, Providence, Portland, New Haven, Hartford?
I definitely get it, you just have some weird attachment of aligning Chicago with East Coast cities and arbitrarily pick out a few things in common, then disregard the rest. As they say in ghostbusters, you are a poor scientist.
I definitely get it, you just have some weird attachment of aligning Chicago with East Coast cities and arbitrarily pick out a few things in common, then disregard the rest. As they say in ghostbusters, you are a poor scientist.
I have some weird alignment? How so? The fact is that cities like SF and Chicago have a lot in common with the major east coast cities, than say the sunbelt ones. And many characteristics found in Chicago and SF are really only found elsewhere in the East Coast and really nowhere else in the country, domestically speaking. I don't see how that is aligning myself with the East Coast?! It just happens that those characteristics of a city are alive and well and prominent in the East Coast/Northeast.
^ where are the Chicago people starting these threads?
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico
I'm pretty sure he was talking about the architecture style, wider boulevard streets, street grids, and housing stock throughout the city that was built and laid out centuries after the east coast cities, not that people were shucking corn. However, the culture of Chicago is definitely midwestern, too and the differences are pretty easily felt going to Chicago to NY back to back. Or going to SF to Chicago, the differences in people are obvious, none are necessarily better than another though.
I'm interested in your further insight in explaining how in Chicago, one can feel it being Midwest from its people? I really don't understand this ...
My observation is that whenever you go a large city with a heavy international influence and population, the city automatically separates itself from the characteristics found in the local geography (mainly small towns). Therefore, Philly Chicago Houston, Toronto, are all cities with different spirits than their local geography .. The bigger the city, the bigger the separation
Location: NYC based - Used to Live in Philly - Transplant from Miami
2,307 posts, read 2,770,702 times
Reputation: 2610
Quote:
Originally Posted by STLgasm
I disagree, I think Philadelphia more closely resembles a "mini New York" more than Chicago does. East Coast intangibles are a factor here. Chicago feels, acts and looks decidedly Midwestern.
I would disagree.
I love Philly as it is where I live.
But in term of amenities, hustle and bustle, and big city feel, I think Chicago resembles Manhattan better. forget about the fact that one has east coast cultural influence and the other has midwestern cultural influence.
Once I get out from my neighborhood in Center City, Philly is rather suburbia despite the fact that rowhouses are everywhere.
So I would say Downtown Chicago = Mini Manhattan
Downtown Philly / Center City = Micro Manhattan
But regardless, I would still prefer living here in philly than in Manhattan for various reasons.
But why compare them to East Coast cities in the first place, it isn't like you are limited by some rule where a more proper comparison isn't apt. Why not just call them urban, large and walkable? "East Coast" is usually used to describe other aspects than you are using it for. Why not say Chicago is west coast? The central areas of SF and LA have higher population densities than Chicago. Why not compare Chicago to Philly more, far more in common between Chicago and Philly than Chicago does with NYC.
That is like saying NYC and Boston aren't east coast, or SF isn't west coast, or Atlanta isn't the south just b/c there are immigrant areas. All big cities over 5 million or so have these features. Point being, you could make exceptions for every large city. However the point is in the abstract notion of Midwestern, in the particulars of Chicago you can start to generalize a certain pattern, and that pattern is decidedly Midwestern. It's *the* hub city of the Midwest, of course it is midwestern and attracts more midwestern transplants from the region than any other city in the midwest.
Good point - Understand, and makes sense
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.
