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.
Or maybe, just maybe, SF is a much more physically active outdoors city than Chicago.
Best Cities For Cycling: Still The Greatest - bicycling.com (http://www.bicycling.com/article/0,6610,s1-2-19-17077-1,00.html - broken link)
I disagree, Chicago consistently ranks as a top city for cyclists right along with San Francisco. In fact, according to Bicycling Magazine, Chicago actually comes in ahead of SF.
Well, I have scaled the maps and I think I should give SF a little more credit than I initially did, since SF is no slouch either. Looks to be a solid 3rd in the US in terms of land area mass of walkable neighborhoods. The green areas are visibly smaller than Chicagos, but not dwarfed by any means. All of SF's green areas (walk score ~90) is roughly comparable to Chicagos loop, west town, and near north. The main difference then is the inclusion of Chicagos north shore and northwest hoods. The green in chicago that is away from the loop/north side are splotches mixed in with yellow (areas ~80). SF is more clumped/continuous, only in a relatively small area.
Both cities are dwarfed by NYC though in terms of land area of walkable neighborhoods..
Heres a comparison with other cities:
And it is true, there is no data for Oakland/Alameda, which Im sure is quite walkable - at least in the high 60's to 90's for most areas, or data for Daly city and south SF.
I would guess, on average the SF metro is more walkable/'vibrant' than Chicago, again due to the huge industrial corridors in Chicago in the southwest, west and south east sides of the metro (incl East Chicago/Gary - huge industrial areas). Although some burbs in cook county, and Evanston, parts of Cicero and Oak Park are also very walkable and would have decent scores as well. But yes, all metro areas have a steep drop off of walkability, because most suburbs suck - plain and simple.
I think these maps do a nice job of visually showing the location, and sizes of the vibrant areas of these cities. And they clearly illustrate that the three largest continuous areas of vibrant urban neighborhoods in the USA are in NYC, Chicago and SF respectively. Having visited or lived in all the top 7 cities (except Seattle) I would say this is accurate.
Yeah, that is a great post. Thanks for taking the time to put it together!
Although, I will say that what it lacks is showing the "vibrancy" (I know some people hate that word...deal with it) of the walkable areas. For instance, the large walkable swath of Seattle has a MUCH less urban vibe than the large walkable swath of San Francisco.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roboto
Well, I have scaled the maps and I think I should give SF a little more credit than I initially did, since SF is no slouch either. Looks to be a solid 3rd in the US in terms of land area mass of walkable neighborhoods. The green areas are visibly smaller than Chicagos, but not dwarfed by any means. All of SF's green areas (walk score ~90) is roughly comparable to Chicagos loop, west town, and near north. The main difference then is the inclusion of Chicagos north shore and northwest hoods. The green in chicago that is away from the loop/north side are splotches mixed in with yellow (areas ~80). SF is more clumped/continuous, only in a relatively small area.
Both cities are dwarfed by NYC though in terms of land area of walkable neighborhoods..
Heres a comparison with other cities:
And it is true, there is no data for Oakland/Alameda, which Im sure is quite walkable - at least in the high 60's to 90's for most areas, or data for Daly city and south SF.
I would guess, on average the SF metro is more walkable/'vibrant' than Chicago, again due to the huge industrial corridors in Chicago in the southwest, west and south east sides of the metro (incl East Chicago/Gary - huge industrial areas). Although some burbs in cook county, and Evanston, parts of Cicero and Oak Park are also very walkable and would have decent scores as well. But yes, all metro areas have a steep drop off of walkability, because most suburbs suck - plain and simple.
I think these maps do a nice job of visually showing the location, and sizes of the vibrant areas of these cities. And they clearly illustrate that the three largest continuous areas of vibrant urban neighborhoods in the USA are in NYC, Chicago and SF respectively. Having visited or lived in all the top 7 cities (except Seattle) I would say this is accurate.
now you could just combine that walkability with street traffic #'s perhaps to put in (vibrancy)... and maybe some more people could get a feel at what we are talking about...
I think SF has more pedestrian traffic in the hoods (i.e. out of finance area/loop)
Also chicago is certainly not near as vibrant in the winter... but it might peak higher in the summer...SF keeps this going pretty much year round.
Also again...these are probably my 2 favorite cities in the u.s. as places to live...NYC might be cool too but, seems almost too crazy though, like I couldn't put down any roots, but just lost in the huge swaths of people.
You are more then woelcomed to ignore my post. I do not see Chicago as vibrant or diverse: ten thousand people in Cubs jerseys do not look very diverse to me....
Neither do New Yorkers, they all look the same to me, too (http://photos-p.friendster.com/photos/82/88/1268828/154978789l.jpg (broken link)).
The reason why SF feels more urban and vibrant from Chicago at street level is because of the seemless transition between downtown and the neighborhoods-whereas in Chicago, there is a lot of industrial areas right next to downtown that creates an impediment to vibrancy, SF doesnt have most of the industrial/warehouse areas are south of downtown away from most of the neighborhoods.
Neither do New Yorkers, they all look the same to me, too (http://photos-p.friendster.com/photos/82/88/1268828/154978789l.jpg (broken link)).
Gee, its almost fun playing your games.
Almost.
I am not playing any games. I am posting my opinions based on personal observations. Chicago just does not seem really vibrant or diverse to me. This is judgemental Midwest hence originality is not really promoted here, neither in food, arts or lifestyle. Instead of NY style delies you have thousands of Potbellies, Arbys and other franchises. Not much of uniqness or originality here. The city is racially segregated like it was still 1960. On top of it for the large part of the year, the city goes to a screeching halt due to horrid cold and wind. I know it, you know it, so why do you play games?
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.
