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.
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?
SF has a lot of characteristics of the East Coast. I never said it was an East Coast city I said it has a mix of the areas. It's more West Coast, than East Coast in it, but it definitely has that mix.
And no New Orleans does not feel East Coast at all. Nor does Charleston, Savannah, etc. You don't seem to understand what I am trying to show.
I think you are looking at it through only one viewpoint. I am not talking about just urbanity, I am talking about vibrancy, economy, diversity, history, transportation, city proper culture/pride, etc. And in this country the only real region that has cities that have that vibrancy, density, urbaness, civic pride, extensive transportation, walkablity, etc are the cities in the Northeast. Outside of the Northeast you really don't get that anywhere else with the EXCEPTION of Chicago and SF, which is why I repeat, both SF and Chicago have a lot of qualities and characteristics of the NE. No they are not East Coast cities, but they do have a lot of charateristics of our East Coast cities, than do the cities that are within their own regions.
Where have I said Chicago is NOT a Midwestern city? But to put it solely as a midwestern city and dismiss that is has nothing in common in characteristics to cities like Boston and Philly is absurd.
And you are way off on Toronto. Toronto feels very much like a hybrid of a U.S. city and Canada. So yeah of course it's certainly plausiable that it and Chicago are alike. To be honest as well Toronto has more in common with a city like Philly or Boston than it does with Montreal or Vancouver.
Maybe Baltimore. Dense, walkable cities are found throughout the world, I don't see why they are an "east coast" charecteristic.
You guys don't get it. I am not saying you can't find those types of cities in other parts of the world. I am saying that here in the U.S. that the region that is known to have those types of cities is the Northeast, and outside of that region, SF and Chicago do as well, therefore, giving SF and Chicago a lot of commonalities to the East Coast when compared to cities in their own region and throughout the country.
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
Many, many, many neighborhoods in St. Louis look just like this:
Also, no offense to whomever created that spreadsheet, but what a simple-minded comparison devoid of all nuance.
The cities are similar because they have skyscrapers, transit, big parks, and four seasons? Gee, and so does Cleveland. I guess Cleveland is a mini NYC.
In reality, these aren't similarities. They're inherent to most major cities. If you actually look at the details, you see that NYC and Chicago don't have similar skyscraper profiles or skyscraper counts, they don't have similar transit orientation, they don't have similar park systems, etc. They're quite different. Just saying "Well there's a train in NYC and there's a train in Chicago so they're similar" is a tad ridiculous. One city is overwhelmingly transit oriented, with most households lacking cars, while the other has more two-car households than no car households. One city has something crazy like 15 times the daily passenger counts of the other city. You can probably guess which city is which.
I understand why you would think this ...
To Clarify, I was comparing to the world... therefore,
- Honk Kong, Tokyo, Paris, and London each have weather much different than New York, which ultimately makes a city different.
- Trains: Not that they both have trains.... but what train looks more like New Yorks that Chicago's ? None
Great Eye - Opener .... And agree , very different.
I guess the question in this case is ... are these example more unique areas?
And are the similar parts between the two cities more, than those that are different ...? And how does that compare to other cities
You guys don't get it. I am not saying you can't find those types of cities in other parts of the world. I am saying that here in the U.S. that the region that is known to have those types of cities is the Northeast, and outside of that region, SF and Chicago do as well, therefore, giving SF and Chicago a lot of commonalities to the East Coast when compared to cities in their own region and throughout the country.
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?
Haha, I just read that picture you posted. Wow you are really off....
1) highrises, already discussed, not close, one has 6x more of them.
2) bridges are not similar at all
central park is nothing like grant park
city layout is not similar from Manhattan to the core of Chicago, esp Lower Manhattan, there is nothing laid out in Chicago like the curves and narrow streets.
The neighborhoods are not really similar at all, chicago has relatively nothing that resembles manhattan outside of maybe the gold coast.
In your thing, you said NYC lacks the entertainment district Chicago has, I have to ask is that a typo???
culture/history are definitely not a 9 out of 10 in similarity.
You say NYC is not famous for roast beef sandwiches, but they are very famous for pastrami sandwiches and corned beef, Chicago is famous for italian beefs... neither are really "roast beef"
LOL at you putting Chicago has better restaurants, you can't be serious can you?
You put the shopping of the cities the same, again you can't be serious can you?
You say Chicago has many streets just as intense as NYC, which makes me think you weren't there in either long or just forget the differences.
You say Manhattan is 17 miles, for some reason and is very off. Then you say Downtown Chicago is 11 miles? Not even sure where you got these #s from.
You say NYC has flat surroundings and so does Chicago, NYC does *NOT* have flat surroundings. across from Manhattan are high cliffs, etc.
Anyway, you are way off on some of your comparisons.
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.