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 can only be compared to Manhattan above 14th street. Nothing in Lower Manhattan outside of huge skyscrapers resembles Chicago.
Midtown I always said resembles the loop in many parts, and as you go further west (particularly west of 9th Ave), and from the Hudson Yards area northward, you can make a case for River North being very similar (especially to Hudson Yards), Hell's Kitchen from 10th Ave west, and all of the Upper West Side along the Hudson (which also give vibes of the high-rises along LSD).
I still think NYC is just way more dense and massive, but Chicago is the only US city that is somewhat similar because all of the other East Coast cities feel more similar at street level but are too small to be compared.
Chicago can only be compared to Manhattan above 14th street. Nothing in Lower Manhattan outside of huge skyscrapers resembles Chicago.
Midtown I always said resembles the loop in many parts, and as you go further west (particularly west of 9th Ave), and from the Hudson Yards area northward, you can make a case for River North being very similar (especially to Hudson Yards), Hell's Kitchen from 10th Ave west, and all of the Upper West Side along the Hudson (which also give vibes of the high-rises along LSD).
I still think NYC is just way more dense and massive, but Chicago is the only US city that is somewhat similar because all of the other East Coast cities feel more similar at street level but are too small to be compared.
These are pretty good points and interesting comparisons.
Downtown Chicago is just a LOT smaller in general, than Manhattan. Manhattan is the premiere urban experience--from unbelievable building density to skyscraper canyon after skyscraper canyon, and one of the best--if not the best--city for this in the world.
I think you could say Chicago's downtown is comparable to portions of Midtown Manhattan from like 34th Street to 59th Street, and not even the entire chunk from Hudson River to East River. And I think that may be pretty generous in comparing the two.
This forum is operated by Chicago apologist and supporters. I didn't expect this particular group to be so offended, going the lengths such as banning to preserve their safe space. The fact is not everybody is impressed with Chicago. It's a great city, but I think IMO, the only reason why it would stand out, because it's located in the Midwest.
It's not particulary special in regards to offerings compared to any other large city of it's size. You can argue that public transportation excel, but this is not really outstanding in restrospect to Northeastern cities and even the Westcoast, specifically the Bay Area.
There's reasons why Chicago is one of the cheapest big cities in the country. The general public would agree, that although Chicago have a downtown worth visiting, it is not necessarily that singular great city that this forum portray to be, to call home. The region have nasty weather and it's mainly isolated in what's known as flyover country. The only thing that set Chicago apart from the rest of the Midwest is the large population (midwest standard) relative to other cities in it's region. The only tangible hype, is it's historic value and nostalgia concerning it's place as second most populated city well over 100 years ago. Even then, Philadelphia was a larger city in 1880. Chicago was not even the second city for a full century. Houston will overtake Chicago as the third city, while Los Angeles remains as second city for the forseeable future, possibly longer than Chicago eventually.
The region is outdated and the population loss over the decades prove this. You can hate what I say and silence my opinion, it doesn't make Chicago any better. Getting defensive does nothing but further proves my point..
I was talking about the inner 23 wards of Tokyo, effectively the Tokyo city, what people mean when they say "Tokyo". Comparing just the Yamanote loop (essentially CBD area for the whole Tokyo metro) to Brooklyn is apples and oranges. Manhattan would be a lot more comparable to Yamanote loop when it comes to function within the metro area.
Note: before a mod deletes my post again for "trolling", since I guess my claim is unbelievable even to mods, here are the actual stats:
inner 23 wards of Tokyo (effectively Tokyo city (old Edo), since officially Tokyo city doesn't exist):
Population: 9,375,104
Density: 39,000/sq mi
Brooklyn
Population: 2,736,074
Density: 38,634/sq mi
And just for reference, for the purposes of this thread:
Chicago
Population: 2,746,388
Density: 12,059.84/sq mi
The 23 Special Wards has far less variance in terms of population density than NYC does, but I think it's the more appropriate comparison for NYC as a whole rather than Brooklyn especially since there's a large central part that doesn't have very high residential population density, but has very high structural density as it's where a lot of the office buildings and institutions are which also goes into what was said about the Yamanote Loop not being a good comparison for Brooklyn. For reference, the 23 special wards cover a land area of 239 square miles to NYC's 300 square miles and Brooklyn's 70 square miles.
I guess if we were going to try for apples to oranges, I'd say the 23 special wards are like NYC without including Staten Island, maybe? Or Brooklyn is some part of the 23 special wards that is actually outside or on the periphery of the Yamanote Loop. I had a group of friends who lived in parts of Setagaya which maybe vibes with that though to get to the same size you'd have to start looping in some of the adjacent neighborhoods. Note that Setagya outside of the Yamanote Line has a density of 42,000 ppsqm while Chiyoda which is very central has a density of 14,800 ppsqm and Chuo, another central ward whose name means Central Ward, has a density of 35,900 ppsqm.
Basically, mapping these to each other are hard. Tokyo is more consistent with its density though and it's high over a large area though doesn't have as large a peak as NYC in Manhattan and very scattered parts of the outer boroughs do. All of that is generally denser in practice than the Loop or any part of Chicago is. The Loop isn't even the densest part of Chicago by residential density, similar to how the heart of Midtown Manhattan or the heart of Tokyo isn't the densest despite being very heavily built up because a lot of that structural density goes towards non-residential uses.
The 23 Special Wards has far less variance in terms of population density than NYC does, but I think it's the more appropriate comparison for NYC as a whole rather than Brooklyn especially since there's a large central part that doesn't have very high residential population density, but has very high structural density as it's where a lot of the office buildings and institutions are which also goes into what was said about the Yamanote Loop not being a good comparison for Brooklyn. For reference, the 23 special wards cover a land area of 239 square miles to NYC's 300 square miles and Brooklyn's 70 square miles.
I guess if we were going to try for apples to oranges, I'd say the 23 special wards are like NYC without including Staten Island, maybe? Or Brooklyn is some part of the 23 special wards that is actually outside or on the periphery of the Yamanote Loop. I had a group of friends who lived in parts of Setagaya which maybe vibes with that though to get to the same size you'd have to start looping in some of the adjacent neighborhoods. Note that Setagya outside of the Yamanote Line has a density of 42,000 ppsqm while Chiyoda which is very central has a density of 14,800 ppsqm and Chuo, another central ward whose name means Central Ward, has a density of 35,900 ppsqm.
Basically, mapping these to each other are hard. Tokyo is more consistent with its density though and it's high over a large area though doesn't have as large a peak as NYC in Manhattan and very scattered parts of the outer boroughs do. All of that is generally denser in practice than the Loop or any part of Chicago is. The Loop isn't even the densest part of Chicago by residential density, similar to how the heart of Midtown Manhattan or the heart of Tokyo isn't the densest despite being very heavily built up because a lot of that structural density goes towards non-residential uses.
That would probably be the most apt comparison in terms of function of the areas in respective cities. However, I chose Brooklyn specifically because 1. the stats are factually true 2. use to illustrate a point that Brooklyn is a lot more dense than many people outside of NYC believe. The gap between most US cities to Brooklyn is at times bigger than the cities to suburbs in a lot of cases, purely from population density/urban environment standpoint. A lot of people think that just because Brooklyn is not the CBD of NYC it is just like any other urban neighborhood in their respective city.
That would probably be the most apt comparison in terms of function of the areas in respective cities. However, I chose Brooklyn specifically because 1. the stats are factually true 2. use to illustrate a point that Brooklyn is a lot more dense than many people outside of NYC believe. The gap between most US cities to Brooklyn is at times bigger than the cities to suburbs in a lot of cases, purely from population density/urban environment standpoint. A lot of people think that just because Brooklyn is not the CBD of NYC it is just like any other urban neighborhood in their respective city.
I agree with what you said earlier with the 20 something square miles within the Yamanote Line aren't a good apples to apples comparison for Brooklyn.
I think it's part of talking about density being tricky when you get to larger scales due to significant inner variation and also when comparing things of different scales. Brooklyn's a hard one to put into for a comparison to downtown Chicago or Chicago as a whole as the former is much smaller and the latter is three times larger in area. Something like maybe Loop, area around Loop and the North Side is probably a more apt comparison for Brooklyn when trying to do residential density but those stats aren't usually handy though in previous topics I've tried putting them together via Chicago community areas. I think I did a topic on doing so with densest contiguous and roughly "blobular" SF-sized parcels.
People definitely overlook NYC density outside of Manhattan as all except for Eastern Queens and Staten Island are extremely dense compared to the urban core of other cities, and even Eastern Queens and Staten Island are quite dense by US standards when talking about areas of that size of dozens of square miles. Staten Island has higher density over its 58 square miles than Oakland, CA has over its 56 square miles and Staten Island is cited as being suburban while Oakland is often thought of as urban. The Bergen Neck peninsula comprising parts of New Jersey in most of Hudson County and a bit of Bergen County is about as dense as San Francisco proper.
I was trying to think of what part of Tama or whatever else made the most sense to sub in for Staten Island in a NYC as a whole to Tokyo 23 special wards + special mystery guest equivalent of Staten Island.
I agree with what you said earlier with the 20 something square miles within the Yamanote Line aren't a good apples to apples comparison for Brooklyn.
I think it's part of talking about density being tricky when you get to larger scales due to significant inner variation and also when comparing things of different scales. Brooklyn's a hard one to put into for a comparison to downtown Chicago or Chicago as a whole as the former is much smaller and the latter is three times larger in area. Something like maybe Loop, area around Loop and the North Side is probably a more apt comparison for Brooklyn when trying to do residential density but those stats aren't usually handy though in previous topics I've tried putting them together via Chicago community areas. I think I did a topic on doing so with densest contiguous and roughly "blobular" SF-sized parcels.
People definitely overlook NYC density outside of Manhattan as all except for Eastern Queens and Staten Island are extremely dense compared to the urban core of other cities, and even Eastern Queens and Staten Island are quite dense by US standards when talking about areas of that size of dozens of square miles. Staten Island has higher density over its 58 square miles than Oakland, CA has over its 56 square miles and Staten Island is cited as being suburban while Oakland is often thought of as urban. The Bergen Neck peninsula comprising parts of New Jersey in most of Hudson County and a bit of Bergen County is about as dense as San Francisco proper.
I was trying to think of what part of Tama or whatever else made the most sense to sub in for Staten Island in a NYC as a whole to Tokyo 23 special wards + special mystery guest equivalent of Staten Island.
This is perhaps my favorite comparison.
This is what New Yorkers consider our suburbs in relation to a US city:
Hudson county, NJ
Population: 724,854
Area: 46 sq miles
Density: 15,692.9/sq mi
Boston city
Population: 675,647
Area: 48 sq miles
Density: 13,976.98/sq mi
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.
