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.
Transit-wise, one difference is NYC's ridership is more rail-oriented, while Chicago's is more bus oriented. Buses carry 58% of CTA's ridership, while they only carry about a third of NYC's MTA.
Besides that NYC has better coverage, buses are also slower in NYC so there's more of an incentive to avoid them for rail. Chicago didn't have subways downtown till the late 40s, before it was just El s. NYC doesn't have any highway median running stretches, except for the JFK airport train.
The one thing they do have in common is lots of tall skyscrapers. For the US, in skyline size and number of skyscrapers it's:
1. New York City
2. Chicago
[big gap]
3. Miami? Houston? San Francisco? Los Angeles? Atlanta?
*Toronto would be somewhere in the middle of #2 and #3 and close the gap.
They don't have this in common. NYC has roughly 7 times as many highrises as Chicago. There's definitely a bigger gap between NYC and Chicago than between Chicago and #3 Miami.
To illustrate this gap, Chicago has about 5 times as many highrises as Detroit. Would anyone claim these two cities have similar highrise profiles?
So there is a huge difference in the relative skyline sizes, which is quite obvious when one visits either city. The highrises in NYC go on and on, into the Outer Boroughs, Jersey, everywhere. In Chicago highrises are mostly limited to the lakefront.
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.
Of course, ok does Chicago have more in common with which group:
Group A: Los Angeles, Houston, Phoenix, Dallas, Atlanta
Group B: Indianapolis, Detroit, St. Louis, Minneapolis Cleveland
Group C: NYC, Boston, Philly, DC
Now which group would you say Chicago overall (this includes built environment, urban culture, vibrancy, transportation, people) has more in common with?
Definitely Group B. Obviously Chicago is much bigger than all these cities, but shares the closest similarities in terms of history, streetscape, population, scenery, architecture, economy, etc.
Group A is Sunbelt and looks and feels totally different; Group C is Northeast Corridor and looks and feels totally different.
Definitely Group B. Obviously Chicago is much bigger than all these cities, but shares the closest similarities in terms of history, streetscape, population, scenery, architecture, economy, etc.
Group A is Sunbelt and looks and feels totally different; Group C is Northeast Corridor and looks and feels totally different.
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?
Definitely Group B. Obviously Chicago is much bigger than all these cities, but shares the closest similarities in terms of history, streetscape, population, scenery, architecture, economy, etc.
In terms of streetscape, where else in Group B can you find areas like this:
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.
Chicago also has a comparable area of the South Side that was lost, with the occasional intact street such as http://goo.gl/maps/OYNYF
Your Cincinnati views like they could from a Mid-Atlantic city, St. Louis not as much to me. Street too wide, houses setback too much. Cincinnati streets feel tighter. Density-wise it's possible they're similar, but Cincinnati looks more like an old Northeast (though not New England*) city. The South Side Chicago is rather nice, too bad there's not more. Maybe it could pass for some streets in Brooklyn? That Chicago street is too wide for a lot of Philly, but not too different from Brooklyn.
*Can't think of anywhere outside of New England that'd look like that
Last edited by nei; 11-07-2013 at 10:09 PM..
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.
