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.
This is spot on. The cities were designed with different purposes. They are built very different.
Chicago is close as you get to a major bustling city with copious high rise living that is still quite car friendly, many suburban style shopping near downtown, many condos with parking garages, many surface lots for commuters coming in to DT. DC is more difficult to having a car, this is obvious when visiting, and the statistics for ridership and such support that. They are both urban, but different forms of urban. DC is more cohesive and compact with less gaps like I posted. Chicago has more "city" neighborhoods but these are more broken up, especially if walking/biking/driving but still connected by an expansive public transit. Caveat a smaller piece of urbanity bounded by the lake/red line/sheridan zone going up. If you were to walk west, the urbanity declines quickly. By quickly, I mean a block or two wide of 20-30 story high rises then straight into 3 story buildings mixed with SFH's. There are also dramatic drops in scale from high skyscrapers then straight into 1-3 story buildings. It's less noticeable if you are popping around on the El. What's most impressive for most people about Chicago is the quite large downtown, but the rest of the city doesn't feel like that so much in most parts, including the majority of the northside. That's because once you get to areas of lakeview and beyond, these areas were designed specifically as commuter suburbs, so that is why you have the old trees, leafy feel, and fairly big yards for being so close to the core. Lakeview, Lincoln Square, Ravenswood etc were all part of the north shore original suburban development that later got annexed. Areas like Lincoln Park were probably denser before in terms of build but a lot of it burned down in the fire. The other major difference is obviously Chicago's industrial bones that are still prominent throughout the city, especially along the river running through it. Chicago is somewhere in urban form between the older East coast cities like DC/Philly/NYC/Boston and LA, and is the only city I know of built like that on a large scale. I know DC way less than Chicago but have visited there several times, and the last 2 summers as well with "urban planning" on my mind on my visits. The aesthetic differences are obvious.
Chicago is close as you get to a major bustling city with copious high rise living that is still quite car friendly, many suburban style shopping near downtown, many condos with parking garages, many surface lots for commuters coming in to DT. DC is more difficult to having a car, this is obvious when visiting, and the statistics for ridership and such support that. They are both urban, but different forms of urban. DC is more cohesive and compact with less gaps like I posted. Chicago has more "city" neighborhoods but these are more broken up, especially if walking/biking/driving but still connected by an expansive public transit. Caveat a smaller piece of urbanity bounded by the lake/red line/sheridan zone going up. If you were to walk west, the urbanity declines quickly. By quickly, I mean a block or two wide of 20-30 story high rises then straight into 3 story buildings mixed with SFH's. There are also dramatic drops in scale from high skyscrapers then straight into 1-3 story buildings. It's less noticeable if you are popping around on the El. What's most impressive for most people about Chicago is the quite large downtown, but the rest of the city doesn't feel like that so much in most parts, including the majority of the northside. That's because once you get to areas of lakeview and beyond, these areas were designed specifically as commuter suburbs, so that is why you have the old trees, leafy feel, and fairly big yards for being so close to the core. Lakeview, Lincoln Square, Ravenswood etc were all part of the north shore original suburban development that later got annexed. Areas like Lincoln Park were probably denser before in terms of build but a lot of it burned down in the fire. The other major difference is obviously Chicago's industrial bones that are still prominent throughout the city, especially along the river running through it. Chicago is somewhere in urban form between the older East coast cities like DC/Philly/NYC/Boston and LA, and is the only city I know of built like that on a large scale. I know DC way less than Chicago but have visited there several times, and the last 2 summers as well with "urban planning" on my mind on my visits. The aesthetic differences are obvious.
+1
I definitely think Chicago has more of a L.A. layout and it is evident from the air. They look very similar flying over them.
Chicago is close as you get to a major bustling city with copious high rise living that is still quite car friendly, many suburban style shopping near downtown, many condos with parking garages, many surface lots for commuters coming in to DT. DC is more difficult to having a car, this is obvious when visiting, and the statistics for ridership and such support that. They are both urban, but different forms of urban. DC is more cohesive and compact with less gaps like I posted. Chicago has more "city" neighborhoods but these are more broken up, especially if walking/biking/driving but still connected by an expansive public transit. Caveat a smaller piece of urbanity bounded by the lake/red line/sheridan zone going up. If you were to walk west, the urbanity declines quickly. By quickly, I mean a block or two wide of 20-30 story high rises then straight into 3 story buildings mixed with SFH's. There are also dramatic drops in scale from high skyscrapers then straight into 1-3 story buildings. It's less noticeable if you are popping around on the El. What's most impressive for most people about Chicago is the quite large downtown, but the rest of the city doesn't feel like that so much in most parts, including the majority of the northside. That's because once you get to areas of lakeview and beyond, these areas were designed specifically as commuter suburbs, so that is why you have the old trees, leafy feel, and fairly big yards for being so close to the core. Lakeview, Lincoln Square, Ravenswood etc were all part of the north shore original suburban development that later got annexed. Areas like Lincoln Park were probably denser before in terms of build but a lot of it burned down in the fire. The other major difference is obviously Chicago's industrial bones that are still prominent throughout the city, especially along the river running through it. Chicago is somewhere in urban form between the older East coast cities like DC/Philly/NYC/Boston and LA, and is the only city I know of built like that on a large scale. I know DC way less than Chicago but have visited there several times, and the last 2 summers as well with "urban planning" on my mind on my visits. The aesthetic differences are obvious.
I agree with this assessment. Nailed. Overall, I'd say Chicago is more large scale urban, but D.C is more contiguous, while smaller.
Chicago is close as you get to a major bustling city with copious high rise living that is still quite car friendly, many suburban style shopping near downtown, many condos with parking garages, many surface lots for commuters coming in to DT. DC is more difficult to having a car, this is obvious when visiting, and the statistics for ridership and such support that. They are both urban, but different forms of urban. DC is more cohesive and compact with less gaps like I posted. Chicago has more "city" neighborhoods but these are more broken up, especially if walking/biking/driving but still connected by an expansive public transit. Caveat a smaller piece of urbanity bounded by the lake/red line/sheridan zone going up. If you were to walk west, the urbanity declines quickly. By quickly, I mean a block or two wide of 20-30 story high rises then straight into 3 story buildings mixed with SFH's. There are also dramatic drops in scale from high skyscrapers then straight into 1-3 story buildings. It's less noticeable if you are popping around on the El. What's most impressive for most people about Chicago is the quite large downtown, but the rest of the city doesn't feel like that so much in most parts, including the majority of the northside. That's because once you get to areas of lakeview and beyond, these areas were designed specifically as commuter suburbs, so that is why you have the old trees, leafy feel, and fairly big yards for being so close to the core. Lakeview, Lincoln Square, Ravenswood etc were all part of the north shore original suburban development that later got annexed. Areas like Lincoln Park were probably denser before in terms of build but a lot of it burned down in the fire. The other major difference is obviously Chicago's industrial bones that are still prominent throughout the city, especially along the river running through it. Chicago is somewhere in urban form between the older East coast cities like DC/Philly/NYC/Boston and LA, and is the only city I know of built like that on a large scale. I know DC way less than Chicago but have visited there several times, and the last 2 summers as well with "urban planning" on my mind on my visits. The aesthetic differences are obvious.
+1
This is a good post. I wonder if LA will become much more like Chicago as infill there continues to take place.
I think Chicago's residential areas have some similarities to some of DC's residential areas (Woodley Park in particular).
I agree with this assessment. Nailed. Overall, I'd say Chicago is more large scale urban, but D.C is more contiguous, while smaller.
Chicago does have a ton of work to do before build out of some of the core neighborhoods get where they need to be. Take River North, the amount of parking lots in that neighborhood is beyond ridiculous. It detracts from the urbanity by a wide margin. It's almost impossible to get a continuous street wall.
In any case, Chicago has a lot of random empty space / parking lot strewn near its dense areas. But you have to cherrypick to find them, nearby there's also lots of pedestrian-oriented stuff, more typical than your examples. Its dense areas are still pedestrian friendly, they go on for long time, longer than I think DC's dos.
In any case, Chicago has a lot of random empty space / parking lot strewn near its dense areas. But you have to cherrypick to find them, nearby there's also lots of pedestrian-oriented stuff, more typical than your examples. Its dense areas are still pedestrian friendly, they go on for long time, longer than I think DC's dos.
But two of the McD's ones I posted are in the greater downtown area in the prime tourist/commercial shopping areas, and you can 50 story condos up right next to them. not far out in Harlem. Two more are in arguably the most popular neighborhoods in the city, Lincoln Park and Lakeview. I only showed one in RP, and one in Uptown that were just to show this type of development is prevalent in the other dense northside neighborhoods as well because somebody was making a pop density argument. Where as, I am talking about urban form.
Anyway, McDonald's is not even the big deal breaker. The other ones I posted, which are more of an eyesore are gigantic suburban style parking lots taking up several city blocks that are right next to Downtown/Near North Side borders. Still, the others are urban prairies. Again, these are *not* parks, they are fenced off giant urban lots with grass growing on them and as far as I know have no plans of being developed on. I wasn't cherry picking, 90% of those are in PRIME busy areas. As far as I know DC doesn't have these gaps as close to the DT core. Even new development near the core is suburban in style. That is why all the new big box retail looks and IS suburban in form on North Ave, Clybourn and Roosevelt Road. People will make the argument that it was better than the industrial stuff that used to be there, but, they could have built it out differently for sure. They are basically catering to suburban minded people who move to the city and still want their suburban amenities to be able to drive there with their cars and park. There is a fight against it by some people in Chicago as new condos continue to go up with attached parking lots, and more big box stores and chains continue to come into the city. These voices are being drowned out by the majority and the alderman's though. There is no question about that in my mind. If DC were not more contiguous, it would have to have significant gaps within a 3 square mile area and very large ones on the edge of it as that is about the size as the the built area from Roosevelt Road to Division bounded by the river
Chicago does have a ton of work to do before build out of some of the core neighborhoods get where they need to be. Take River North, the amount of parking lots in that neighborhood is beyond ridiculous. It detracts from the urbanity by a wide margin. It's almost impossible to get a continuous street wall.
Continuous street walls aren't everything. Lol sike.
I feel like many cities messed up the potential for urban redevelopment in the 90s/early 2000s on former industrial sites. I view Columbus boulevard in Philadelphia the same way, but that area is even worse-- big box stores, auto oriented development, lacking sidewalks and not accessible by public transport.
At least in Chicago, these big box areas are easily accessible by public transportation. Future developments could be fixed by simply placing parking back and orienting stores to the street front. But that seemed to be happening -- an area in DC I can even point to is the area by the Columbia Heights Metro station. But transit oriented development is en vogue anyways.
But two of the McD's ones I posted are in the greater downtown area in the prime tourist/commercial shopping areas, and you can 50 story condos up right next to them. not far out in Harlem. Two more are in arguably the most popular neighborhoods in the city, Lincoln Park and Lakeview. I only showed one in RP, and one in Uptown that were not just to show this type of development is prevalent in the other dense northside neighborhoods as well because somebody was making a pop density argument. Where as, I am talking about urban form. The other ones I posted, which are more of an eyesore are gigantic suburban style parking lots taking up several city blocks that are right next to Downtown/Near North Side borders. Still, the others are urban prairies. Again, these are *not* parks, they are fenced off giant urban lots with grass growing on them and as far as I know have no plans of being developed on. I wasn't cherry picking, 90% of those are in PRIME busy areas. As far as I know DC doesn't have these gaps as close to the DT core. If so it would have to have significant gaps within a 3 square mile area as that is about the size as the the built area from Roosevelt Road to Division bounded by the river
It wouldn't have those types of empty lots. DC was never industrial.
It wouldn't have those types of empty lots. DC was never industrial.
Well yeah, I know that. Assuming you are agreeing with me. . As far as 90s/2000s goes. Most of that happened in the 2000s and late 2000's at least all the dev on roosevelt road, and many things are still opening up in the 2010's that are still being built this way in Chicago. Roosevelt / North Ave and Clybourn all continue to grow in the big box, massive parking lot form style. Even older development were like this it seems, such as the Kmart/Jewel Osco on Ashland. There are like 2-3 of these on Ashland, along with Whole Foods/Petco. Ashland isn't as bad as North ave/Clybourn/Roosevelt Road though. If you go further out there is a lot of big box store stuff on Western also. I'm a believer in supply/demand... and the reason you see these going up in Chicago is there is still a large demand. Go to these places on a weekend and the parking lots will be slam packed and on the lots that aren't huge, you will need to circle around to find a spot especially if at Whole Foods... these places are traffic nightmares around North/Clybourn/Roosevelt and cause major congestion, not just eyesores.
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.
As far as 90s/2000s goes. Most of that happened in the 2000s and late 2000's at least all the dev on roosevelt road, and many things are still opening up in the 2010's that are still being built this way in Chicago. Roosevelt / North Ave and Clybourn all continue to grow in the big box, massive parking lot form style. Even older development were like this it seems, such as the Kmart/Jewel Osco on Ashland. There are like 2-3 of these on Ashland, along with Whole Foods/Petco. Ashland isn't as bad as North ave/Clybourn/Roosevelt Road though. If you go further out there is a lot of big box store stuff on Western also. I'm a believer in supply/demand... and the reason you see these going up in Chicago is there is still a large demand. Go to these places on a weekend and the parking lots will be slam packed and on the lots that aren't huge, you will need to circle around to find a spot especially if at Whole Foods... these places are traffic nightmares around North/Clybourn/Roosevelt and cause major congestion, not just eyesores.
