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.
I love how your friend thought it was NYC...seriously, for people that are deluded about what most of the world thinks about American cities, if you're not Miami, SF, L.A. or the French Quarter of NOLA, if you take a photo of an urban canyon, most foreigners will think it's NYC lmao.
LOL had the same thought. Was talking with a former co-worker back in the day who's originally from Sri Lanka and how peoples' idea of NYC who are from other countries are not the same as reality. What they think in terms of niceness and whatever is actually closer to Chicago. He was telling me how the first time his friends and family visited him in Manhattan they just had this big "WTF?" about them, at least in midtown.
Chicago relies much on grandeur to make it great. There are urban canyons elsewhere, but Chicago's are generally on a whole other level and it includes incredible urban river canyons which with the riverwalk creates an incredible space that is lined by massive structures on the relatively narrow Chicago River.
I don't think you'll find another place in the US quite like this and it's quite amazing. The canyons along the river are spectacular in some places and continuing to get better (3 new high rises/skyscrapers on formerly vacant/low rises on the west fork). I think NYC is the only other place in the US besides Chicago that has some sort of grandeur like this. Haven't found it anywhere else - though Philadelphia in a few spots has its moments but it's not on the same level as Chicago.
^^^ some nice pictures in this link too of the just opened Chicago ... billed as a New Generation Apple store along the Chicago river at N Michigan Ave.
After reviewing the conversation in this thread the last few pages, I'll note that I actually don't mind it at all if we use strict and bare essential definitions for downtowns. I'd also be open for expanded definitions as well, so long as they make some sort of logical sense.
My school of thought is that if you can supersede another downtown at your absolute most bare minimum, that you'd be the superior downtown even if neighborhoods adjacent to the CBD (or "greater downtown") were thrown in anyways.
In any event, I'd rank them as follows, I'll just keep it to the places worth ranking and/or discussing and I'll omit New York given its clout and all:
1. Chicago
2. San Francisco
3. Philadelphia
4. Boston
5. Washington, D.C.
It's sort of tough to distinguish between #2 and #3 honestly, both seem close to par but San Francisco's maybe has more amenities and stuff to do so I give it the slightest bit of an edge IMO. Thread would be infinitely more interesting if this was about North America as a whole as Toronto and Montreal are legit options that could and would disrupt the American rankings and/or hierarchy.
Biggest isn't usually best in my opinion. There are tons of small cities with great downtowns that really pack a punch for their size with tons of restaurants, breweries, residential living, and 24/7 vibrancy.
I would say Cincinnati is my favorite downtown if you include OTR, Pendleton, and Mt. Adams. Such awesome architecture and pedestrian-scale downtown urban form that reminds me of cities in Europe. It also packs more restaurants and bars per block than many cities its size or larger.
Other great downtown's I would rank in my top 10 including Cincy that I have visited are:
Asheville
Savannah
Charleston
Santa Monica
Berkeley
Fort Collins
Telluride
Greenville, SC
Cleveland
Honorable mentions:
Pittsburgh
Denver
Boulder
Durham
Pasadena
Winter Park, FL
New Orleans
Boston
Philadelphia
Alexandria
NYC does not really have a downtown core in the normal sense, more like three downtown areas (Midtown, Lower Manhattan, and downtown Brooklyn) so I did not include NYC. I have never been to Chicago, Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, or any city in Texas so did not include any of those places on my list.
I think the contrast between the downtowns of Chicago and Philadelphia, which are my favorites after omitting NYC, is interesting to me in the different ways that they are great.
Chicago relies much on grandeur to make it great. There are urban canyons elsewhere, but Chicago's are generally on a whole other level and it includes incredible urban river canyons which with the riverwalk creates an incredible space that is lined by massive structures on the relatively narrow Chicago River.
Meanwhile, Philadelphia is interesting via its historic structures, dense and small streets, and many green squares. There's still the brawn of some very tall skyscrapers, but in terms of what makes it enjoyable, it's the small scale walking and bits of interest strewn through all these small streets.
Great post Oy. I've always maintained that the very definition of urban grandeur, one by which all other cities can be measured, is the view from roughly the SE corner ((now, next to the Apple store) of Pioneer Plaza overlooking the river with the view framed by the London Guarantee Building on the south and Wrigley on the north. Unbelievable.
It's just my opinion, but in terms of vibrant, attractive, big, interesting downtowns, it's NYC, followed incredibly closely by Chicago, then everyone else several steps behind. NYC and Chicago are simply well ahead of any other cities. If called on, I'd put the second tier in some jumble of Philadelphia, DC, Boston and San Francisco, each of which is interesting and unique in their own right, but they're just no big enough, nor have enough vibrancy, to challenge NYC and Chicago. Again, my opinion.
Great post Oy. I've always maintained that the very definition of urban grandeur, one by which all other cities can be measured, is the view from roughly the SE corner ((now, next to the Apple store) of Pioneer Plaza overlooking the river with the view framed by the London Guarantee Building on the south and Wrigley on the north. Unbelievable.
It's just my opinion, but in terms of vibrant, attractive, big, interesting downtowns, it's NYC, followed incredibly closely by Chicago, then everyone else several steps behind. NYC and Chicago are simply well ahead of any other cities. If called on, I'd put the second tier in some jumble of Philadelphia, DC, Boston and San Francisco, each of which is interesting and unique in their own right, but they're just no big enough, nor have enough vibrancy, to challenge NYC and Chicago. Again, my opinion.
Just curious, geographically speaking, what is your "downtown Chicago" and what's your "downtown NY"?
Great post Oy. I've always maintained that the very definition of urban grandeur, one by which all other cities can be measured, is the view from roughly the SE corner ((now, next to the Apple store) of Pioneer Plaza overlooking the river with the view framed by the London Guarantee Building on the south and Wrigley on the north. Unbelievable.
It's just my opinion, but in terms of vibrant, attractive, big, interesting downtowns, it's NYC, followed incredibly closely by Chicago, then everyone else several steps behind. NYC and Chicago are simply well ahead of any other cities. If called on, I'd put the second tier in some jumble of Philadelphia, DC, Boston and San Francisco, each of which is interesting and unique in their own right, but they're just no big enough, nor have enough vibrancy, to challenge NYC and Chicago. Again, my opinion.
Just curious, geographically speaking, what is your "downtown Chicago" and what's your "downtown NY"?
Chicago would be roughly Roosevelt (S), 94 (W) (though probably now to Peoria, given the boom in West Loop), Division (N) and the Lake (E). For NYC, I'd suggest Manhattan...Central Park south to Battery Park.
Chicago would be roughly Roosevelt (S), 94 (W) (though probably now to Peoria, given the boom in West Loop), Division (N) and the Lake (E). For NYC, I'd suggest Manhattan...Central Park south to Battery Park.
Yours?
Got it, thanks. Well we spent about 20 pages arguing about the proper boundaries of "Downtown NY" and I don't want to reopen that can of worms I'll just say that if Downtown Chicago extends to Division -- which I absolutely agree it should and it does -- it doesn't make sense to me to cut off "Downtown NY" at 59th street and exclude so many of NY's top highlights from the frame of comparison.
What I am getting at, though, is that if you look at the very best of Downtown Chicago (the architectural highlights, the river and the new Riverwalk, the Mag Mile and the Millenium Park) I would agree that there is not much separating NY and Chicago. In fact, some might reasonably prefer Chicago's highlights (and indeed many do). It's absolute world class. The difference is that here is so much more of everything in NY -- because it is so much bigger and denser. You can do Downtown Chicago in a couple days (unless you are a museum buff). For Manhattan, you'll need a week.
So it all depends how you look at it. There is no right or wrong answer here.
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.
I'll just say that if Downtown Chicago extends to Division -- which I absolutely agree it should and it does -- it doesn't make sense to me to cut off "Downtown NY" at 59th street and exclude so many of NY's top highlights from the frame of comparison.