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.
Those are just my thoughts. I am not trying to be biased against Chicago, but I do feel that the other cities are better and more fun. Chicago is great, but it feels bland. It also does score worse than those other cities in many of the OP’s categories. It certainly ranks lower than SF, BOS, and PHL, IMO. You can disagree but please point out your specific issues.
You obviously have not spent much time in many of these cities. The fact that you think that Boston has better nightlife than Chicago just speaks huge volumes about this, not to mention the fact that you think it has better shopping (not that it's bad in Boston). It's not about trying to do anything - it's about being informed, and frankly - as someone who's spent a fair amount of time in these cities (Toronto though I haven't spent nearly as much time in as the others), it's obvious you just aren't at all informed and not nearly as much as you think you are. Trust me - not just a Chicago thing, just overall your rankings are just bizarre and indicative of someone who hasn't actually spent much or any time in almost any of these places.
You obviously have not spent much time in many of these cities. The fact that you think that Boston has better nightlife than Chicago just speaks huge volumes about this, not to mention the fact that you think it has better shopping (not that it's bad in Boston). It's not about trying to do anything - it's about being informed, and frankly - as someone who's spent a fair amount of time in these cities (Toronto though I haven't spent nearly as much time in as the others), it's obvious you just aren't at all informed and not nearly as much as you think you are. Trust me - not just a Chicago thing, just overall your rankings are just bizarre and indicative of someone who hasn't actually spent much or any time in almost any of these places.
Chicago is better for nightlife which is not all that appealing to me since I'm past the point where staying out until 4am is appealing. Shopping goes to Chicago for brands and Boston for boutiques but Boston is good for brands too. Someone could think Boston has better shopping.
Chicago is better for nightlife which is not all that appealing to me since I'm past the point where staying out until 4am is appealing. Shopping goes to Chicago for brands and Boston for boutiques but Boston is good for brands too. Someone could think Boston has better shopping.
I think you are just kind of mis-categorizing nightlife in Chicago. There are bars and clubs that stay open until 4am and 5am, but the open times REALLY vary from place to place (and district to district). The nightlife in Chicago is one of the most varied in form in the country too. You can find pretty much anything there in numerous parts of town. Spend a few months there and you'll know what I mean. By the time I moved from Chicago, I was more for going to relaxing lounge atmospheres for the last handful of years, and you know what? I had no shortage of choices whatsoever. I still miss some of those places. At the same time though, if I wanted to go out until 4am or 5am, I could have that opportunity. If you know Chicago nightlife, I don't know why you would mention this 4am thing. The majority of bars/lounges/whatever close at 2am or 3am max. There are only 100-150 places in Chicago that close at 4am or 5am. And on top of that, you can't just open up a bar and decide to keep it open until 4am/5am (special license). You have to actually get your neighbors to agree with it. I've seen bars open up in more residential neighborhoods and try this only to be denied because the residents didn't want a bunch of loud people outside at 4am or 5am. So they either open elsewhere or they stick to a more standard closing time. I used to have a handful of relaxing lounges near where I lived but they all closed at midnight, but I could just walk 15 minutes south and find places open until 2am or even 4am/5am and I could walk 15 minutes north and find the same thing.
The categorization of the nightlife in Chicago though is what I find kind of funny. People who think it's just a bunch of faux-Irish type of bars everywhere are in for a big surprise if they actually explore the nightlife in numerous areas. Maybe that's how it was 20+ years ago, but in 2018? Nope.
As far as shopping goes for Chicago - there's a lot of boutiques, but only the major luxury ones are downtown. Even so, most of the highest of the high end boutiques are not on Michigan Avenue. They are off of it on side streets. There are a bunch of good, independent boutiques not downtown and if you are a tourist who is a casual fashion person/shopper, you aren't going to know this. They are in neighborhoods like Wicker Park, Bucktown, Lakeview, Lincoln Park, etc. One of the best shops for denim I've ever been to in the US for example is in Wicker Park - it's not downtown or even within 2 miles of it.
I think you are just kind of mis-categorizing nightlife in Chicago. There are bars and clubs that stay open until 4am and 5am, but the open times REALLY vary from place to place (and district to district). The nightlife in Chicago is one of the most varied in form in the country too. You can find pretty much anything there in numerous parts of town. Spend a few months there and you'll know what I mean. By the time I moved from Chicago, I was more for going to relaxing lounge atmospheres for the last handful of years, and you know what? I had no shortage of choices whatsoever. I still miss some of those places. At the same time though, if I wanted to go out until 4am or 5am, I could have that opportunity. If you know Chicago nightlife, I don't know why you would mention this 4am thing. The majority of bars/lounges/whatever close at 2am or 3am max. There are only 100-150 places in Chicago that close at 4am or 5am. And on top of that, you can't just open up a bar and decide to keep it open until 4am/5am (special license). You have to actually get your neighbors to agree with it. I've seen bars open up in more residential neighborhoods and try this only to be denied because the residents didn't want a bunch of loud people outside at 4am or 5am. So they either open elsewhere or they stick to a more standard closing time. I used to have a handful of relaxing lounges near where I lived but they all closed at midnight, but I could just walk 15 minutes south and find places open until 2am or even 4am/5am and I could walk 15 minutes north and find the same thing.
The categorization of the nightlife in Chicago though is what I find kind of funny. People who think it's just a bunch of faux-Irish type of bars everywhere are in for a big surprise if they actually explore the nightlife in numerous areas. Maybe that's how it was 20+ years ago, but in 2018? Nope.
As far as shopping goes for Chicago - there's a lot of boutiques, but only the major luxury ones are downtown. Even so, most of the highest of the high end boutiques are not on Michigan Avenue. They are off of it on side streets. There are a bunch of good, independent boutiques not downtown and if you are a tourist who is a casual fashion person/shopper, you aren't going to know this. They are in neighborhoods like Wicker Park, Bucktown, Lakeview, Lincoln Park, etc. One of the best shops for denim I've ever been to in the US for example is in Wicker Park - it's not downtown or even within 2 miles of it.
NYC is on another level with countless major brands headquartered there. Chicago is much closer to Boston in shopping than either is to NYC. Shopping downtown on newbury Charles boylston and downtown crossing has most major brands but is loaded with local flavor and boutique stores (all this is changing in favor of brands more recently). Michigan and oak is basically all brand. Lincoln Park mostly brand too. Wicker probably more local. Regardless Boston and Chicago are closer than either is to NYC. Regarding nightlife I admit Chicago is superior..for me personally my nightlife consists of dinner and a few drinks after which I don't need chicagos variety for.
NYC is on another level with countless major brands headquartered there. Chicago is much closer to Boston in shopping than either is to NYC. Shopping downtown on newbury Charles boylston and downtown crossing has most major brands but is loaded with local flavor and boutique stores (all this is changing in favor of brands more recently). Michigan and oak is basically all brand. Lincoln Park mostly brand too. Wicker probably more local. Regardless Boston and Chicago are closer than either is to NYC. Regarding nightlife I admit Chicago is superior..for me personally my nightlife consists of dinner and a few drinks after which I don't need chicagos variety for.
NYC is not a part of this thread...silly to compare to NYC.
NYC is on another level with countless major brands headquartered there. Chicago is much closer to Boston in shopping than either is to NYC. Shopping downtown on newbury Charles boylston and downtown crossing has most major brands but is loaded with local flavor and boutique stores (all this is changing in favor of brands more recently).
Agreed. NYC is on a planet of its own with regards to North America and clothing (though LA is pretty good too and some other areas, but NYC is far, far ahead of anyone else).
Quote:
Lincoln Park mostly brand too. Wicker probably more local.
Not true - they're both a mix of brand and local boutiques. Both are more smaller, independent brands or boutiques though. Brands like Marc Jacobs, Scotch & Soda, Timbuk2, etc exist in Wicker Park/Bucktown but so do a lot of independent boutiques which carry more rare/unique things. Lincoln Park might even have less national brands outside of Barbour, Club Monaco, Peruvian Connection, and Nordstrom Rack
Quote:
Regardless Boston and Chicago are closer than either is to NYC. Regarding nightlife I admit Chicago is superior..for me personally my nightlife consists of dinner and a few drinks after which I don't need chicagos variety for.
Makes sense, and Boston is probably good for you. Since my girlfriend can't drink a lot and I have gotten older, this is mostly mine too - and it helps to be in a city where you have tons of offerings for food and drink both whether it's NYC, Chicago, Boston, Toronto, etc - there's never a shortage of any new things to try or just have a big rotation of places you've already been.
For now the city of Chicago has more skyscrapers than the city of Toronto. What is unclear is if the metro area of Chicago has more than the metro area of Toronto. Mississauga alone for instance which is totally contiguous to Toronto has 25 skyscrapers (As per Emporis). So don't celebrate the refute too wildly, it could blow up in your face. I also looked at number of skyscrapers being built in Toronto v Chicago right now and the ratio is 2.5:1 in favour of Toronto so yes, i'm more than certain Toronto will not only match the number of skyscrapers that Chicago has within the city proper in the not too distant future, but when you look on the metro level the gap Is most likely even less so. Highrises it isn't even close, T.O has way more.
The generally accepted area for Toronto's Downtown is 6.5 sq miles with approximately 240K to 250K people and is adding about 12K people per year just within the DT core. That however is not the urban core which is much larger. I'd say Old Toronto is more of an urban core which is 800K people in 37 sq miles with a population density of 21256 per sq mile makingOld Toronto more densely populated than the city of S.F. It probably is more now due to a Stats Canada undercount.
If you want to fact check any of the above by all means go ahead. You know Chicago and its metro environs well presumably so you should be able to calculate all skyscrapers in Chicagoland. If you do that than I will certain do so for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Areas.
Finally, a correction from that post on Toronto surpassing Chicago in skyscrapers.... .I don't go into length, girth measurements ..... Sure it is expected Toronto may surpass Chicago in skyscrapers. It zones for at least high-rises alone anyway? So it is kinda inevitable in its fast growth with immigration of a lot of professionals preferred as policy of Canada. But YOU'LL want a WIN NOW for even skyscrapers it seems? Again... If you want 6.5sq/miles of core? Then
I knew Chicago still had the skyscraper total. But I did not go for the jugular to claim it was already Toronto (in a post of some ridicules stats I can't find now).... maybe they had tome to remove it proven it was off? . Other clearly fact-checked did they not? At least Mr Burns made it clear in past threads ..... Toronto surpasses ALL US major cities but NYC. Others circle around it till they anger and you know what they really believe. Americans who vote Chicago are biased against Canada and won't listen to Toronto's claims of arrival and surpassing you want noted it seems or inferred (that word again)....
Now even Old Toronto being more dense then SF and stats are even undercounted? My as well say its in NYC density range no? ? Sure you say Chicago has this and that in its favor (favour) as a consolation prize. But it is Toronto that deserves the win.
If you believe Toronto should win this poll and thread? Just say it. So Toronto wins Density too? Just say it.... But ilk not a fan of super density like parts of NYC. There is a point it gets too much congestion to me.... just saying. Good density with some green-space too, trees too I prefer. So to boast density doesn't win if a great urban built exist with a bit less. It's then all good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2
I've been exchanging information with some posters now for years. I have even taken in what some have said about say Chicago and of course, I've actually been there so I've been very clear that I know Chicago is a great city, has a lot of varied architecture and has interesting and vibrant nabe's. I know it isn't just a crime ridden wasteland. I've also learned a lot about Philly's urban form and have gained a new appreciation for that city from this forum.
There are some posters however not all but some, that regardless of how much real information you provide that they will still regurgitate the same crap they have convinced themselves is the only thing worth vomiting. It won't matter how much good information you provide, how many bay and gables, how many Edwardians, how many Annex type nabes to show rather convincingly that the assumption and stereotypes are incorrect. They are convinced that only a certain type or style of urban architecture and form that is of a certain colour of brick and mortar is the only urban form worth considering urban. They would say that Bangkok isn't urban because it doesn't have row houses like they have lol - seriously. They will only pounce on things that will provide them with a confirmation bias. They are only comfortable with that which is familiar...
Kinda a rant here. I said Toronto zones and wants high-rises over other URBAN HOUSING like Town-houses Chicago gets new developments of. I also said Chicago doesn't zone for ONLY high-rises in new construction. I said NOTHING on MATERIALS LIKE BRICK, COLOR (COLOUR). I said OTHER THEN HIGH- RISES Chicago allows other Urban housing to still be built in its core and citywide.
I noted just in the South Loop are many townhouse developments they won't give you the density of all high-rises.... but they are a urban form and offer VARIETY to live by the Loop of skyscrapers and ability to have a private green-space with a low-rise townhouse too. Or old buildings to loft living or high-rises (yes I know Toronto has these). Seems I have to add a Yes Toronto has some as not to be accused of inferring it has none? Or no Brownstones as someone mentioned..... THANKS FOR NOTICING CHICAGO'S DIVERSITY IN EVEN A HIGHRISE CAN BE BRICK TOO like in my picture I posted showed ..... my point was town-housing not materials high-rises are built of.
I did not say Toronto builds inferior high-rises, or should allow other forms....I complemented Chicago for still allowing them as options on new construction or even a single home. I said I understood high immigration influx means higher density high-rises was made a zoned choice. But I prefer a mix of UDBAN FORM and Apparently you noticed my picture showed brick and mortal high-rises and you saw how nice they were But I NEVER SAID Toronto should build more brick high-rises or inferred it.
MY POINT WAS .... Chicago allowing even new town-housing with high-rises gives LESS COOKIE-CUTTER LOOKS Adds diversity and choice in preferred urban form. That I would infer definitely.
Just as Toronto mixes some old into the mix.... Chicago adds even new diverse housing into a mix that is not less urban no matter what bit lower density it might give vs more high-rises instead IMO. Like diversity of people mixed .....
Bit of River North New town-houses- South Loop town-housing in the mix too.
Finally, a correction from that post on Toronto surpassing Chicago in skyscrapers.... .I don't go into length, girth measurements ..... Sure it is expected Toronto may surpass Chicago in skyscrapers. It zones for at least high-rises alone anyway? So it is kinda inevitable. But YOU'LL want a WIN NOW for even skyscrapers it seems? Again... If you want 6.5sq/miles of core? Then
I knew Chicago still had the skyscraper total. But I did not go for the jugular to claim it was already Toronto (in a post of some ridicules stats I can't find now).... maybe they had tome to remove it proven it was off? . Other clearly fact-checked did they not? At least Mr Burns made it clear in past threads ..... Toronto surpasses ALL US major cities but NYC. Others circle around it till they anger and you know what they really believe. Americans who vote Chicago are biased against Canada and won't listen to Toronto's claims of arrival and surpassing you want noted it seems or inferred (that word again)....
Now even Old Toronto being more dense then SF and stats are even undercounted? My as well say its in NYC density range no? ? Sure you say Chicago has this and that in its favor (favour) as a consolation prize. But it is Toronto that deserves the win.
If you believe Toronto should win this poll and thread? Just say it. So Toronto wins Density too? Just say it.... But ilk not a fan of super density like parts of NYC. There is a point it gets too much congestion to me.... just saying. Good density with some green-space too, trees too I prefer. So to boast density doesn't win if a great urban built exist with a bit less. It's then all good.
Kinda a rant here. I said Toronto zones and wants high-rises over other URBAN HOUSING like Town-houses Chicago gets new developments of. I also said Chicago doesn't zone for ONLY high-rises in new construction. I said NOTHING on MATERIALS LIKE BRICK, COLOR (COLOUR). I said OTHER THE HIGH- RISES Chicago allows other Urban housing to still be built in its core and citywide.
I noted just in the South Loop are many townhouse developments they won't give you the density of all high-rises.... but they are a urban form and offer VARIETY to live by the Loop of skyscrapers and ability to have a private green-space with a low-rise townhouse too. Or old buildings to loft living or high-rises (yes I know Toronto has these). Seems I have to add a Yes Toronto has some as not to be accused of inferring it has none? Or no Brownstones as someone mentioned..... THANKS FOR NOTICING CHICAGO'S DIVERSITY IN EVEN A HIGHRISE CAN BE BRICK TOO like in my picture I posted showed ..... my point was town-housing not materials high-rises are built of.
I did not say Toronto builds inferior high-rises, or should allow other forms....I complemented Chicago for still allowing them as options on new construction or even a single home. I said I understood high immigration influx means higher density high-rises was made a zoned choice. But I prefer a mix of UDBAN FORM and Apparently you noticed my picture showed brick and mortal high-rises and you saw how nice they were But I NEVER SAID Toronto should build more brick high-rises or inferred it.
MY POINT WAS .... Chicago allowing even new town-housing with high-rises gives LESS COOKIE-CUTTER LOOKS Adds diversity and choice in preferred urban form. That I would infer definitely.
Just as Toronto mixes some old into the mix.... Chicago adds even new diverse housing into a mix that is not less urban no matter what bit lower density it might give vs more high-rises instead IMO. Like diversity of people mixed .....
River North New town-houses- South Loop town-housing
Toronto does not only zone for highrises. I follow Toronto developments closely and midrises and low rises are always part of the mix.
A fantastic place to grow up, warm summer evenings were the bomb. Playing soccer until well after 11pm then grab some ice cream from the Rabba on the walk home with your friends who live in the surrounding highrises.
It completely sold me on urban living, absolutely destroys the suburban house with a fence lifestyle that I lived through the later years on the west coast. Everyone isolated, need drive to get anywhere, etc... Just a horrendous way to build a city.
Last edited by Mr. Burns; 01-27-2018 at 08:45 PM..
I've been exchanging information with some posters now for years. I have even taken in what some have said about say Chicago and of course, I've actually been there so I've been very clear that I know Chicago is a great city, has a lot of varied architecture and has interesting and vibrant nabe's. I know it isn't just a crime ridden wasteland. I've also learned a lot about Philly's urban form and have gained a new appreciation for that city from this forum.
There are some posters however not all but some, that regardless of how much real information you provide that they will still regurgitate the same crap they have convinced themselves is the only thing worth vomiting. It won't matter how much good information you provide, how many bay and gables, how many Edwardians, how many Annex type nabes to show rather convincingly that the assumption and stereotypes are incorrect. They are convinced that only a certain type or style of urban architecture and form that is of a certain colour of brick and mortar is the only urban form worth considering urban. They would say that Bangkok isn't urban because it doesn't have row houses like they have lol - seriously. They will only pounce on things that will provide them with a confirmation bias. They are only comfortable with that which is familiar...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Burns
Toronto does not only zone for highrises. I follow Toronto developments closely and midrises and low rises are always part of the mix.
A fantastic place to grow up, warm summer evenings were the bomb. Playing soccer until well after 11pm then grab some ice cream from the Rabba on the walk home with your friends who live in the surrounding highrises.
It completely sold me on urban living, absolutely destroys the suburban house with a fence lifestyle that I lived through the later years on the west coast. Everyone isolated, need drive to get anywhere, etc... Just a horrendous way to build a city.
Me too. In a small city in PA I live near today. Not soccer though. I'm sure Even in a Chicagoan they can claim that. Baskin Robins 32-flavors (I believe )Ice cream were popular. Can't leave it appear only Torontonian's had this right? That could be bias? You probably grew up with a lot of American TV shows too.
None of the cities on the list are called cities that sprawl.... or do you in infer they do? I'm still fine with suburban that isn't all sprawl. Room for diversity right? Like people in cities in Canada loving their diversity. Lot of nice single homes in Canada Toronto too right? Of course.
*** I think I'm gonna give threads with Toronto vs. Chicago in a break.... what if they convince me Toronto is the greatest city... Please don't tempt me ....
Me too. In a small city in PA I live near today. Not soccer though. I'm sure Even in achicago they can claim that. Baskin Robins 32-flavors (I believe )Ice cream were popular. Can't leave it appear only Torontonian's had this right? That could be bias? You probably grew up with a lot of American TV shows too.
Non of the cities on the list are called cities that sprawl.... or do you in infer they do? I'm still fine with suburban that isn't all sprawl. Room for diversity right? Like people in cities in Canada loving their diversity. Lot of nice single homes in Canada Toronto too right? Of course.
I'm not inferring anything.
Suburban sprawl sucks no matter where it is, Toronto included.
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.
. Other clearly fact-checked did they not? At least Mr Burns made it clear in past threads ..... Toronto surpasses ALL US major cities but NYC. Others circle around it till they anger and you know what they really believe. Americans who vote Chicago are biased against Canada and won't listen to Toronto's claims of arrival and surpassing you want noted it seems or inferred (that word again)....
THANKS FOR NOTICING CHICAGO'S DIVERSITY IN EVEN A HIGHRISE CAN BE BRICK TOO like in my picture I posted showed ..... my point was town-housing not materials high-rises are built of.
Please don't tempt me .... 
