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.
Chicago was the last major US city to really explode, growth-wise, before the advent of the automobile. The city boombed to around 1.5M people in the early 1890's and the 1893 Colombian Exposition (world's fair) was Chicago's coming-out party to the world. One of the technological expositions at the fair was the electric elevated train. Chicago had built an L line (now the Green Line to Cottage Grove) to transport people from downtown to the fair (but this line was not electrified until 5 years later). The entire core L system was complete by 1900. The L plus streetcars connecting to the L, were key tools of growth and expansion for Chicago and why the city is so dense and walkable.
In this sense, industrial-era (late 1800s) Chicago was more similar to East Coast cities which were all launched during Colonial times.
I've noticed that some posters on here have been excluding those two cities for some odd reason.
It’s not for some “odd” reason that DC and Baltimore are left out of the comparison; speaking strictly for Chicago, if you are comparing it to any east coast cities, it compares best with NYC, Philly, and Boston, and not so much with Baltimore or DC.
It is even a stretch to compare Chicago to NYC/Philly/Boston, but in terms of the fabrics of these cities, you can find some similarities between them. All have an Industrial/blue collar past that can still be found in some neighborhoods. The layout and feel (not necessarily look) of many of the neighborhoods in these cities are similar, given that many were at one time (or still are) heavily immigrant neighborhoods. Also, I find the sports culture of the cities to be pretty similar.
Again, if comparing Chicago to the BosWash region you will be hard pressed to find a whole lot of similarities, but if you do compare, IMO it compares best with the NE portion (NYC, Philly, Boston). Being from Maryland I'm very familiar with Baltimore and DC, and it’s hard for me to find the same comparisons with them. That’s why I left them out of the comparison.
It’s not for some “odd” reason that DC and Baltimore are left out of the comparison; speaking strictly for Chicago, if you are comparing it to any east coast cities, it compares best with NYC, Philly, and Boston, and not so much with Baltimore or DC.
It is even a stretch to compare Chicago to NYC/Philly/Boston, but in terms of the fabrics of these cities, you can find some similarities between them. All have an Industrial/blue collar past that can still be found in some neighborhoods. The layout and feel (not necessarily look) of many of the neighborhoods in these cities are similar, given that many were at one time (or still are) heavily immigrant neighborhoods. Also, I find the sports culture of the cities to be pretty similar.
Again, if comparing Chicago to the BosWash region you will be hard pressed to find a whole lot of similarities, but if you do compare, IMO it compares best with the NE portion (NYC, Philly, Boston). Being from Maryland I'm very familiar with Baltimore and DC, and it’s hard for me to find the same comparisons with them. That’s why I left them out of the comparison.
Sorry, this is kinda ridiculous. Mainly because Philly is actually much more similar to Baltimore than to any other city in the Northeast Corridor. Both of them have strong blue-collar histories. Both are absolutely dominated by rowhouses (often with identical built styles). Both of them were strongly reshaped by the Great Migration, and strongly affected by white flight and mid-century urban blight. Baltimore does have more of a southern past, and received less ethnic immigrants, but that's about it in terms of major differences between the two cities.
Sometimes I think about how Chicago would look today had the fire not happened. I think its architectural/urban layout would be far more northeastern in look and feel.
Sorry, this is kinda ridiculous. Mainly because Philly is actually much more similar to Baltimore than to any other city in the Northeast Corridor. Both of them have strong blue-collar histories. Both are absolutely dominated by rowhouses (often with identical built styles). Both of them were strongly reshaped by the Great Migration, and strongly affected by white flight and mid-century urban blight. Baltimore does have more of a southern past, and received less ethnic immigrants, but that's about it in terms of major differences between the two cities.
Your post is ridiculous. Everyone knows that all of the Boswash cities (DC, Baltimore, Philly, NYC, Boston) are much more similar to each other than Chicago/SF are to any of these cities. So there will obviously be many similarities between Philly and Baltimore (row houses, blue collar). My point was that Chicago (IMO) is more comparable to the upper half of Boswash (not in terms of "look") which is why I think some were leaving Baltimore and DC out of the comparisons.
Also saying that Philly and Baltimore are the most similar cities because they both have row homes and are blue collar is definitely debatable, and have been debated several times.
It’s not for some “odd” reason that DC and Baltimore are left out of the comparison; speaking strictly for Chicago, if you are comparing it to any east coast cities, it compares best with NYC, Philly, and Boston, and not so much with Baltimore or DC.
It is even a stretch to compare Chicago to NYC/Philly/Boston, but in terms of the fabrics of these cities, you can find some similarities between them. All have an Industrial/blue collar past that can still be found in some neighborhoods. The layout and feel (not necessarily look) of many of the neighborhoods in these cities are similar, given that many were at one time (or still are) heavily immigrant neighborhoods. Also, I find the sports culture of the cities to be pretty similar.
Again, if comparing Chicago to the BosWash region you will be hard pressed to find a whole lot of similarities, but if you do compare, IMO it compares best with the NE portion (NYC, Philly, Boston). Being from Maryland I'm very familiar with Baltimore and DC, and it’s hard for me to find the same comparisons with them. That’s why I left them out of the comparison.
In relation to Chicago, both it and DC practically share the whole leafy setback setup with their residential neighborhoods and both have similar alleyway systems both between residential homes and commercial buildings and also behind residential structures. Built environment-wise, both cities have bungalow belts and some of their rowhomes and townhomes look almost similar to each other (and yes I'm aware that Chicago obviously isn't a rowhouse city) but DC does have a tighter structural density for the most part that's typical of the East Coast and not too common in the Midwest. Chicago like most Midwestern cities seems to have fairly wide streets or avenues that are almost reminiscent of most of DC, which in turn is too prevalent in most of the East Coast.
DC and Bmore weren't as heavily industrial as the aforementioned four cities but it certainly wasn't non-existent, especially in Baltimore. Both cities had (and still do) immigrant neighborhoods of the old European stock (particularly Bmore with Greektown, Little Italy, Upper Park Heights, Pimlico, etc.). I'm sure someone who knows Bmore better than myself can speak up for it more.
DC and Chicago aren't exact copies by any means (nor is Chicago of the other Northeast cities) but it shouldn't be that hard to look for a couple of similarities.
In relation to Chicago, both it and DC practically share the whole leafy setback setup with their residential neighborhoods and both have similar alleyway systems both between residential homes and commercial buildings and also behind residential structures. Built environment-wise, both cities have bungalow belts and some of their rowhomes and townhomes look almost similar to each other (and yes I'm aware that Chicago obviously isn't a rowhouse city) but DC does have a tighter structural density for the most part that's typical of the East Coast and not too common in the Midwest. Chicago like most Midwestern cities seems to have fairly wide streets or avenues that are almost reminiscent of most of DC, which in turn is too prevalent in most of the East Coast.
DC and Bmore weren't as heavily industrial as the aforementioned four cities but it certainly wasn't non-existent, especially in Baltimore. Both cities had (and still do) immigrant neighborhoods of the old European stock (particularly Bmore with Greektown, Little Italy, Upper Park Heights, Pimlico, etc.). I'm sure someone who knows Bmore better than myself can speak up for it more.
DC and Chicago aren't exact copies by any means (nor is Chicago of the other Northeast cities) but it shouldn't be that hard to look for a couple of similarities.
Those are good points. At the neighborhood street-level, Lincoln Park reminds so much of Georgetown and other parts of Northwest DC.
Every pre-automobile boomtown was similar to a large part of the northeast cities in terms of masses of architectural styles and urban layout. If you looked at any pictures prior to the first and, even more importantly, the second world war, you'd see the obvious similarities in many neighborhoods. However, after that, things change dramatically in the US and few cities kept that layout. Chicago and SF for various reasons kept a lot of it, but mostly through land constraints through geographical features and large enough boomtowns that even while a lot was destroyed, a lot was kept as well given their prominence in their respective regions at the time.
My brother lived in San Francisco for two years, so I think I know the city pretty well. It's true that it's not all Chinatown dense, but outside of places like Outer Sunset, I saw plenty of places I'd call more walkable than virtually anything I've seen in LA. For example, here, here, and here.
LA is a bit different though.
How I've heard it described from locals is that the city decided to allow for high-density apartment infill in the closest of the old bungalow neighborhoods. However, they decided to keep the old streetcar zoning in place otherwise, which meant commercial development was limited to the main thoroughfares (high-speed, four-to-six lane roads). The commercial areas were also typically not upzoned until recently.
LOL you can't really use any sort of objective real analysis by cherry-picking google map locations. Don't get me wrong I think SF does a much better job of mixed use than LA, but most of SF does not look like haight or castro streets. You are really trying to compare apples to oranges. It would be like me comparing Abbot Kinney in Venice to my old rental in SF's Excelsior neighborhood.
With regard to Koreatown, Wilshire Blvd is primarily corporate offices and foreign consulates. Go somewhere like 8th street for a more walkable neighborhood commerce feel. And Korea town is less than 3 square miles of LA's 47 square mile core.
You can go all over LA to find what you are looking for. I mean really, you can find that type of stuff in Downtown, Venice Beach or even Santa Monica.
SF does not feel like an east coast city at all. It has a distinctly midrise/row house vibe for the most part. And it feels/look distinctly Mediterranean. It doesn't feel like the northeast at all.
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.
