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.
No - Chicago neighborhoods like Lincoln Park, Wrigleyville and the Ukranian Village still blow places like Logan Circle away. Don't take this as a knock on DC - I lived in Adams Morgan and Mount Pleasant for almost a decade - but I think the Chicago neighborhoods offer a more robust urban experience.
I don't know if I would really use the term "blow" them away.
I guess I see urban neighborhoods as fitting into 3 categories:
1) super dense "high rise" neighborhoods (i.e. UES, UWS)- densities 100,000/ppsm+
2) high density mid rise rise neighborhoods (LES, East Village, North End, Tenderloin). Tightly packed mid-rise apartment buildings. densities around 50,000-60,0000/ppdsm
3) mid density urban- mix of multifamily row houses and apartment buildings (Dupont, Adams Morgan, South End, Back Bay, Lincoln Park, Lake View, etc) densities of around 30,000/ppsm.
IMO, Chicago's inner core neighborhoods are more or less comparable in density/pace to DC's most dense areas. It is just that Chicago's expand over a much wider area.
If the OP wants and NYC scale neighborhood AND a city that is bigger than DC, he/she is ultimately going to have to compromise. Places like SF and Bos come the closest to Greenwich village-like density. But, they aren't much larger than DC. Chicago doesn't have the super urban areas, but it comes the closest too NYC like hugeness.
Ultimately, what is more important? A small pocket of NYC-style urban density (SF/Bos) or the never ending NYC-style urban scale (Chicago). Or of course, you could try NYC out, you would probably adjust.
If the OP wants and NYC scale neighborhood AND a city that is bigger than DC, he/she is ultimately going to have to compromise. Places like SF and Bos come the closest to Greenwich village-like density. But, they aren't much larger than DC. Chicago doesn't have the super urban areas, but it comes the closest too NYC like hugeness.
some downtown SF neighborhoods really do have that kind of density.
Albany NY's Center Square neighborhood seems to fit the best description of the old Greenwich Village, as that neighborhood is older, dense, has the rowhouses/brownstones and the main street in the neighborhood in Lark Street, has that diversified vibe including a strong gay presence as well.
Albany is a very old city that goes back to the 1680's. So, it has the older density that is seen in bigger Northeastern cities.
Location: Boston (for now! Will be back in NY by spring '11)
42 posts, read 129,366 times
Reputation: 62
Albany does have a very attractive historic square -- but I'm sorry, there is no way Albany ever feels like Greenwich Village (and yes, I've been there, several times). If the OP wants a little more activity than DC, I think we would all have to agree he's not going to find it in Albany. (No hate, Upstate New York! You have a lot of things going for you, but this is not one of them.)
No - Chicago neighboroods like Lincoln Park, Wrigleyville and the Ukranian Village still blow places like Logan Circle away. Don't take this as a knock on DC - I lived in Adams Morgan and Mount Pleasant for almost a decade - but I think the Chicago neighborhoods offer a more robust urban experience.
I have a good friend who lives in Lincoln Park whom I've visited many times. I love it there--no doubt it's an outstanding neighborhood. But I don't agree that it "blows away" Logan. Within literally a three block radius of my home, I've got countless restaurants and cafes serving top-notch meals from a litany of cuisines; wine bars, clubs and lounges (new ones practically every week); three performance theaters; substantial retail and shopping; two rock clubs and half a dozen jazz clubs; grocery stores; gyms, spas and salons; and a couple of parks. Not to mention block after block of splendid residential architecture.
Add to that the fact that we are within walking distance to neighborhoods like Dupont, Columbia Heights, Adams-Morgan and Penn Quarter/Chinatown, and I absolutely think Logan more than holds its own against Lincoln Park and similar Chicago neighborhoods.
I am picturing the Central West End area of St. Louis has this element. It is a place that really revitalized the last decade or so and it seems the area is enlarging to adjacent areas. It also has a large urban park similar to Central Park, cultural amenities, and universities.
I have a good friend who lives in Lincoln Park whom I've visited many times. I love it there--no doubt it's an outstanding neighborhood. But I don't agree that it "blows away" Logan. Within literally a three block radius of my home, I've got countless restaurants and cafes serving top-notch meals from a litany of cuisines; wine bars, clubs and lounges (new ones practically every week); three performance theaters; substantial retail and shopping; two rock clubs and half a dozen jazz clubs; grocery stores; gyms, spas and salons; and a couple of parks. Not to mention block after block of splendid residential architecture.
Add to that the fact that we are within walking distance to neighborhoods like Dupont, Columbia Heights, Adams-Morgan and Penn Quarter/Chinatown, and I absolutely think Logan more than holds its own against Lincoln Park and similar Chicago neighborhoods.
I wish it were the case that Logan held its own against Chicago neighborhoods like Lincoln Park, but it just doesn't. Logan has a lot of fans now, but unless there's a sea change in behavior (and I don't discount that possibility entirely), most of the the Logan boosters in their 20s and 30s will decamp to Maryland, Virginia and posher quarters of DC eventually. In comparison, far more folks put down permanent roots in places like Lincoln Park, and that continuity of residents gives Chicago neighborhoods a quality that DC urban neighborhoods like Logan sorely lack.
I wish it were the case that Logan held its own against Chicago neighborhoods like Lincoln Park, but it just doesn't.
By what measure? As I mentioned, I've spent considerable time in Lincoln Park, and in fact live in Logan Circle, and I don't agree with your assessment.
The amenities and culture are there in both neighborhoods--I can't imagine by what criteria that might be measured you could say that Lincoln Park "blows away" Logan Circle. From where I sit, that just isn't the case.
Thanks for all the great suggestions. I guess I am looking for a place that captures the activity and built density of the Village. Not necessarily the super trendy celeb feel.
It looks like there is a consensus on 4 or so cities. I might have to visit them to get a better feel for them. Unfortunately, as I suspected all of the cities have some aspects of what I am looking for, but not everything.I guess I also cant rule out NYC all together.
P.S. the SF pictures are exactly what I am looking for. How much of SF looks like that?
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.
