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.
New York absolutely should be compared to Paris and London, as they are arguably the most comparable cities. High-rise construction is overrated, and the most interesting neighborhoods in just about every major world city are typically low-to mid-rise in built form.
I don't think Paris is as comparable to NYC. London for sure. I think Paris is more comparable to LA IMO on the world stage.
NYC to me, the only true peers are London and Tokyo. I think not so much a peer, but more of a comparable type of city is Sao Paulo (diversity, density, vibrancy, economy, size).
To me Chicago is comparable to Toronto, Barcelona, Milan, Frankfurt, Melbourne.
LA to me is comparable to Rio de Janeiro, Paris, Shanghai, Sydney, Mexico City.
No one is dismissing the urban part of the equation. It’s the “core” that gets dismissed. Across a river, in a different state. Unlike Cambridge or Arlington, you can’t cross on foot. By car, it’s a $12.50 toll. There’s a real disconnect between Manhattan JC/Hoboken.
No one is dismissing the urban part of the equation. It’s the “core” that gets dismissed. Across a river, in a different state. Unlike Cambridge or Arlington, you can’t cross on foot. By car, it’s a $12.50 toll. There’s a real disconnect between Manhattan JC/Hoboken.
The counter-argument is that you’ve got 24 hour subway (running at 1 to 4 minute frequencies at rush hour) and ferry links getting you into Manhattan in 5 mins. You think it’s easier to get from Lincoln Park or Lakeview into DT Chicago than it is from downtown JC into Manhattan?
I would agree there is a bit of a cultural barrier separating NY and NJ. A lot of New Yorkers I know (including my wife) avoid NJ like the plague. However, all things considered (geographic proximity, transport links, demographics and built environment), I would still view Hoboken and the nice parts of JC as part of NYC’s expanded “core” (my third tier) in the same way that I would much of brownstone Brooklyn.
Last edited by Fitzrovian; 06-19-2019 at 10:11 AM..
I understand New York is three times bigger than Chicago in population, and 25% larger in area. NYC has a skyline that is 4.5x more expansive than Chicago. I got that. I grew up in Chicagoland and I think there is a vibe left over from the 50's, back when Chicago had a far larger population and people saw it differently.
But, it just breaks my heart when New Yorkers try to compare there city to London and Paris. If you ask me those cities don't even have legitimate skylines.
Sidenote: This century America will not be known for its cities but for its suburban sprawl i believe. NYC will have hard competition from various Asian cities for the largest skyline. I'm being honest when I say I feel Chicago has the world's most beautiful skyline. But, I'm biased.
Do you think you need a massive skyline to be a world city?
No one is dismissing the urban part of the equation. It’s the “core” that gets dismissed. Across a river, in a different state. Unlike Cambridge or Arlington, you can’t cross on foot. By car, it’s a $12.50 toll. There’s a real disconnect between Manhattan JC/Hoboken.
The tallest building in a "suburb" of New York City is 889 feet.
However, all things considered (geographic proximity, transport links, demographics and built environment), I would still view Hoboken and the nice parts of JC as part of NYC’s expanded “core” (my third tier) in the same way that I would much of brownstone Brooklyn.
Would you consider Oakland to be part of SF's expanded core? That seems to be as disconnected from SF as JC is from Manhattan.
So then cities like paris and London which are higher tier world cities than Chicago wouldn’t even be considered world cities at all for you because their skylines aren’t large enough? La is even more prominent on a world stage than Chicago and doesn’t have as nice of a skyline
Would you consider Oakland to be part of SF's expanded core? That seems to be as disconnected from SF as JC is from Manhattan.
I don’t know about that. Downtown Oakland is about 8 miles, as the crow flies, from SF’s financial district, whereas Exchange Place is only about a mile from Manhattan. It seems to me that SF Bay creates too wide of a gash in urban fabric to think of them as one cohesive urban core. But maybe someone could make an argument. I am not familiar enough with the area and how functionally cohesive SF and Oakland are with each other to be certain.
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.
