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.
Huh? This thread isn't a which is better thread, which has been to death on dozens of other threads. The OP was clearly stated. Is it not that hard to post in those instead if you want other tedious boosterism argument.
Not obvious enough that the OP asked and got details he was unaware of. At this point perhaps there may be other little details of differences that could be added. Even if it's done already, the standard NYC vs Chicago has been answered much, much more.
i couldn't agree with you more, nei. my comment was just observing how it doesn't take much for a good number of forumers here to get into that "NYC-exceeds-them-all" mode. My point was that I absolutely didn't want those "tedious boosterism arguments". yes, my reply was sarcastic. and snarky. but it was registering my discontent over the very thing you are describing.
Not urbanists, though. No one could highly value urbanism and then conclude that Chicago has remotely comparable street-level urbanity as NYC. If anything, the quality gap is bigger than the quantity gap.
If you prefer suburbs and sprawl, yeah, one could definitely prefer Chicago's street level feel, because its so much more auto oriented and sparse.
Suburbs and sprawl? Those qualities can also be found in NYC. I've already made this point in the past. There are also areas of Chicago that are more urban than those suburban areas of NYC. I can cherry pick areas too. You see NYC and Chicago have different styles of urbanity ranging from architecture (Wrigley Building or Woolworth Building) to food (deep dish or NY style). Those are just one of many characteristics of urbanity. The urban style between both cities is subjective regardless of size. There are plenty of cities smaller than NYC that people prefer. To live in a pretend world by denying Chicago has any urbanity would be delusional on your part.
Suburbs and sprawl? Those qualities can also be found in NYC. I've already made this point in the past. There are also areas of Chicago that are more urban than those suburban areas of NYC. I can cherry pick areas too. You see NYC and Chicago have different styles of urbanity ranging from architecture (Wrigley Building or Woolworth Building) to food (deep dish or NY style). Those are just one of many characteristics of urbanity. The urban style between both cities is subjective regardless of size. There are plenty of cities smaller than NYC that people prefer. To live in a pretend world by denying Chicago has any urbanity would be delusional on your part.
a breath of fresh air…and a voice of reason. thank you for your contribution.
Suburbs and sprawl? Those qualities can also be found in NYC. I've already made this point in the past.
Then maybe you should stop making that point; as it's a nonsensical one that displays complete lack of logical reasoning. "Black people can be found in Sub-Saharan Africa and in Finland; therefore the Congo is equally as black as Finland". Is that seriously your point?
Auto-oriented qualities can be found in every city on the planet. That doesn't mean that Schaumburg is the same thing as Hong Kong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanologist
There are also areas of Chicago that are more urban than those suburban areas of NYC.
OK, and ? The most urban parts of Chicago are certainly more urban than the least urban parts of NYC. The most urban parts of Schaumburg are more urban than the least urban parts of Chicago. The most urban parts of Arlington Heights are more urban than the least urban parts of Hong Kong or Paris. What are you trying to convey with this nonsense?
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanologist
To live in a pretend world by denying Chicago has any urbanity would be delusional on your part.
That would be true, but of course no one has made such a claim on this thread. Do you even read threads before responding?
Inferior is the opposite of superior, so yes, you are comparing the superiority of two cities, AND you're comparing them at every level, and you're saying New York City is superior to Chicago at street level. You can call one inferior and superior all you want, but you're COMPLETELY missing the question that this thread I've created is about. Let me re-post it for your convenience.
There you go.
Not really.
New York is superior to Chicago in every objective way when it comes to streetlevel. It has all the characteristics of a successful streetlevel experience far more than does Chicago. It is far more vibrant with vibrancy in far more areas of the city than Chicago, it has far more streetlevel amenities from eating, to drinking, to watching (performing arts), to listening (performing arts), far more urban city parks, far more density, far superior mass transit (which helps connect one streetlevel area with another), far more street vendors, far more street performers, far more variety in architecture at the streetlevel, far more cohesion and continuity of the streetscape, so on and so forth.
Sure, you can probably say "Chicago is cleaner, less congested, and prettier" and that's your opinion. You cannot actually prove that. It is like comparing the streetlevel of Minneapolis to Chicago and then trying to actually justify Minneapolis over Chicago because "its cleaner, less congested, and prettier".
Oh and for those of you that keep saying "Chicago is less congested" and whatnot, New York is a far more walkable city than Chicago. Its cityscape covers more land area that is walkable, you can easily go to another borough outside of Manhattan and scale back the congestion. Try doing that all over Chicago, vast swaths of Chicago are too suburban and not pedestrian friendly to even make the comparison to New York a reality.
Also, I answered your question in bold. I just told you what makes New York different than Chicago (and what makes New York the superior city at the streetlevel to Chicago).
New York is superior to Chicago in every objective way when it comes to streetlevel. It has all the characteristics of a successful streetlevel experience far more than does Chicago. It is far more vibrant with vibrancy in far more areas of the city than Chicago, it has far more streetlevel amenities from eating, to drinking, to watching (performing arts), to listening (performing arts), far more urban city parks, far more density, far superior mass transit (which helps connect one streetlevel area with another), far more street vendors, far more street performers, far more variety in architecture at the streetlevel, far more cohesion and continuity of the streetscape, so on and so forth.
Sure, you can probably say "Chicago is cleaner, less congested, and prettier" and that's your opinion. You cannot actually prove that. It is like comparing the streetlevel of Minneapolis to Chicago and then trying to actually justify Minneapolis over Chicago because "its cleaner, less congested, and prettier".
Oh and for those of you that keep saying "Chicago is less congested" and whatnot, New York is a far more walkable city than Chicago. Its cityscape covers more land area that is walkable, you can easily go to another borough outside of Manhattan and scale back the congestion. Try doing that all over Chicago, vast swaths of Chicago are too suburban and not pedestrian friendly to even make the comparison to New York a reality.
Also, I answered your question in bold. I just told you what makes New York different than Chicago (and what makes New York the superior city at the streetlevel to Chicago).
You are STILL completely missing my question, this is not a comparison of which city does it better, which city is prettier, which city has a more "successful street level experience". Sorry, you're derailing the thread and continuously making cheap shots at Chicago being an inferior city when this thread is not about comparing the superiority of one to the other, you've just made it to my ignore list, have a nice day.
From a pedestrian point of view, comparing central Chicago with Manhattan, the biggest difference is easily the street grid. Walking in New York you tend to get swept up and down the Avenues....with an occasional jog over a street. Chicago, with its square blocks, there is more of a left turn right turn left turn right turn walking experience. Creates a very different street level experience IMHO.
New York is superior to Chicago in every objective way when it comes to streetlevel. It has all the characteristics of a successful streetlevel experience far more than does Chicago. It is far more vibrant with vibrancy in far more areas of the city than Chicago, it has far more streetlevel amenities from eating, to drinking, to watching (performing arts), to listening (performing arts), far more urban city parks, far more density, far superior mass transit (which helps connect one streetlevel area with another), far more street vendors, far more street performers, far more variety in architecture at the streetlevel, far more cohesion and continuity of the streetscape, so on and so forth.
Sure, you can probably say "Chicago is cleaner, less congested, and prettier" and that's your opinion. You cannot actually prove that. It is like comparing the streetlevel of Minneapolis to Chicago and then trying to actually justify Minneapolis over Chicago because "its cleaner, less congested, and prettier".
Oh and for those of you that keep saying "Chicago is less congested" and whatnot, New York is a far more walkable city than Chicago. Its cityscape covers more land area that is walkable, you can easily go to another borough outside of Manhattan and scale back the congestion. Try doing that all over Chicago, vast swaths of Chicago are too suburban and not pedestrian friendly to even make the comparison to New York a reality.
Also, I answered your question in bold. I just told you what makes New York different than Chicago (and what makes New York the superior city at the streetlevel to Chicago).
to the moderator, nei: it's posts like this one (and there have been quite a few) that caused me to write that snarky, sarcastic post I made that you commented about. when this thread started, people were offering real and interesting comparisons between Chicago and New York from street level, none of which, IMHO, were aimed at claiming better/worse: just different.
I disturbs me how so many threads on city-data degenerate into the whole New York-Is-The-Best-In-The-Universe/No-City-Can-Compare BS. and BS it is. Yes, NYC is a truly great city and one I love, but I no way see it as the center of the universe, nor do I see leave the other great American cities in its dust. My city, Chicago, is as great as it comes (IMHO and that of many a fellow Chicagoan), but I would hardly put it on a pedestal. I know it has many peers, great cities like Boston, Washington, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and, of course, New York. None of these places are in Chicago's shadow, of course, but then again, Chicago is not in theirs either.
I don't need comparisons to know that Chicago has a vibrant, exciting street life (at street level) and is loaded with urbanity and the attributes that make a truly great global city. As I said, these things don't come from comparison: they come from what Chicago is, what it exudes, what makes it tick. And I can totally embrace the charms and joys of NYC (Boston, Washington, Los Angeles, and San Francisco) because I see none as a threat….when you're from a great city like Chicago, you can be secure in what you have and not be jealous of what other places have to offer.
Red John is entitled his opinion "New York is superior to Chicago in every objective way" but I'm entitled to mine, too. and for me, I say "New York and Chicago are both superior cities, but I will not attempt to deliver that thought in an "objective way" as that is impossible: I can only give my opinion, my assessment, and my spin on it…..it is not even subject to "the objective" And in that case, IMHO, they are both superior cities, among the best in the nation and on the planet."
This is wht i hate City v City threads on topics like these. A better compairison would be "loop vs downtown Manhattan" or "wickerpark vs neighborhood in brooklyn(sorry im not too familiar with NYC" topics like these should be neighborhood vs neighborhood only. Citys vary too much in urbaninity and diversity its too hard to discuss city v city
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.
You see NYC and Chicago have different styles of urbanity ranging from architecture (Wrigley Building or Woolworth Building) to food (deep dish or NY style). Those are just one of many characteristics of urbanity. The urban style between both cities is subjective regardless of size. There are plenty of cities smaller than NYC that people prefer. To live in a pretend world by denying Chicago has any urbanity would be delusional on your part.
