Fast paced friendly cities??? (metro, east coast, between)
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.
My impression of Chicago and how fast-paced it is compared to other cities I think really comes down more to the fact that Chicago simply has more of its office space, cultural attractions all packed into a small area (like within two to three miles of the loop mostly). If that's how you define a fast paced city, based on its core. But then if you live outside three -four miles from the loop, it becomes significantly less fast paced. And even then, you're still in the city limits.
Yes, Chicago is massive, but I think its there within lies the major difference. But then again, if you live at least 10 miles from the downtown and you don't work in the downtown, and only go there on occasion you are simply live and work in an area that has more in common with Twin Cities, Greater St. Louis, Dallas-Fort Worth, metro Detroit-Ann Arbor (with a much better job market) etc.
Most of other major U.S. metropolitan areas simply have a good chunk of its places of employment, recreational attractions, etc. etc. in places a few miles beyond the downtown/central business district.
If you put all the museums, skyscrapers, etc. of Minneapolis, St. Paul together it would start to look like Chicago.
If you put the museums of Forest Park, St. Louis along the river front with the arch, and put all the tall buildings of Clayton next to downtown St. Louis, it would start to look a little like Chicago.
If you took the Las Colinas area of Irving, many of the attractions, buildings of Arlington and Fort Worth next to Dallas then it would REALLY start to look like Chicago.
Chicago just has much of what it offers within a fairly small radius in a planned out way so that everything is in the same view and very accesible. So, Chicago is particular good for those who like a city/metro area who don't want to bother looking at maps, guide books and figuring out where everything is.
The fast paced feel drops off rather quickly a few miles away (except directly to the north) and you get into an environment that is more like your "less cool" places.
My impression of Chicago and how fast-paced it is compared to other cities I think really comes down more to the fact that Chicago simply has more of its office space, cultural attractions all packed into a small area (like within two to three miles of the loop mostly). If that's how you define a fast paced city, based on its core. But then if you live outside three -four miles from the loop, it becomes significantly less fast paced. And even then, you're still in the city limits.
Yes, Chicago is massive, but I think its there within lies the major difference. But then again, if you live at least 10 miles from the downtown and you don't work in the downtown, and only go there on occasion you are simply live and work in an area that has more in common with Twin Cities, Greater St. Louis, Dallas-Fort Worth, metro Detroit-Ann Arbor (with a much better job market) etc.
Most of other major U.S. metropolitan areas simply have a good chunk of its places of employment, recreational attractions, etc. etc. in places a few miles beyond the downtown/central business district.
If you put all the museums, skyscrapers, etc. of Minneapolis, St. Paul together it would start to look like Chicago.
If you put the museums of Forest Park, St. Louis along the river front with the arch, and put all the tall buildings of Clayton next to downtown St. Louis, it would start to look a little like Chicago.
If you took the Las Colinas area of Irving, many of the attractions, buildings of Arlington and Fort Worth next to Dallas then it would REALLY start to look like Chicago.
Chicago just has much of what it offers within a fairly small radius in a planned out way so that everything is in the same view and very accesible. So, Chicago is particular good for those who like a city/metro area who don't want to bother looking at maps, guide books and figuring out where everything is.
The fast paced feel drops off rather quickly a few miles away (except directly to the north) and you get into an environment that is more like your "less cool" places.
Are you kidding? I'm sick of people saying the only thing in NYC and Chicago worth doing is seeing tall buildings. Sure, be a typical annoying tourist. But saying that there's no activity outside of downtown is ridiculous. Even saying it's not fast-paced outside of downtown is ridiculous. All the shops, cafes, above-ground subways, and walking make them extremely lively. New York and Chicago have tons of things to do outside of Downtown and Midtown. Some of the best dining in the world can be found outside of Downtown of both and Midtown of NYC, the most unique shops in the country, world class museums, architecture, cafes, true diversity, etc.
All I'm saying is what Chicagoland has to offer tends to be a little more compact and concentrated and very easy to find and get around too. To some people thats extremely important.
I like to give credit to other smaller metro areas that generally have more to offer, but you more likely than not will need a car to get around. Some people don't like that as much.
To quote what one poster once said (I forgot who it was and how exactly he/she said it.
Heres a hypothetical:
Whats the difference between 50 Italian restaurants that St. Louis may have, and say 200 that Chicago has? Whats the difference between a major Art Musuem that has 300 pieces in their collection and one that has 900? See where I'm going with this.
And why does every talk about Chicago always linking it with New York City???
Once you compare Chicago with New York IMO, that opens the doors to comparing a whole bunch of other cities with Chicago.
Chicago is simply St. Louis on steroids.
But thats just my opinion.
And I wasn't saying that areas outside downtown Chicago aren't fast-paced. I was saying within a few miles. Wicker Park/Bucktown is within three-four miles or so from the loop, same thing with Lincoln Park, Wrigleyville, Roscoe Vilage, etc. Its all very visible. Unlike Houston, where the really cool places are a little hidden.
I am originally from the mid-west and have been out in Baltimore for awhile now. It seems that people on the east coast in general live a much more fast-paced lifestyle than in the midwest. Time seems to rush by and everyone is in a hurry to get something done or accomplished. I often mention this to my coworkers and many from out west or the midwest tend to agree with me. To sum this up, I think it is very fast-paced all the way from the coast of Boston to Washington DC with everything in it included. Someone from Chicago mentioned he or she thought Baltimore was not to fast-paced which is funny because I just had a friend out here visiting from Chicago (Wrigleyville) who thought it was really fast-paced and he was surprised because Baltimore is so much smaller than Chicago. I personally try to slow down and "smell the roses" but I often fail and end up running around like a maniac also.
There was a study done on this subject: It measure the pace of cities. They measured how many walking strides people made in a certain amount of time-And NYC was almost TWICE as fast as LA!
Agreed. St. Louis is in a different category than fast-paced. IMO the truly fast-paced cities are NYC, L.A., Chicago, the rest are slower, if not by much.
So you would call it slow-paced and laid-back? If that's the case, you and chitownwarrior need to wake up and smell the coffee, no hostilities. If it's not fast-paced, its moderately fast then. I never considered it one of the most fast-paced cities in the United States, but it is by no means laid back and casual and easy-going either. It is as fast-paced as places similar to it like Cleveland, Indy, Columbus, and Pittsburgh, and Cincinnati at the very minimum. The fastest paced cities in the U.S. in my opinion are New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, D.C., Seattle, Denver, Philadelphia, Boston, Detroit, D.C., and maybe the Twin Cities. Next on the list in terms of pace I would put places like Cleveland, St. Louis, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Columbus, San Antonio, and Phoenix. I might also include Tampa Bay and Orlando in this category...not sure though. After that I would put about the average pace like Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Louisvile, Nashville, Memphis, Wilmington (DE), etc. Finally, among the slower paced I'd probably put places like Albuquerque and Omaha. I dunno though. Everybody's opinion is different. Chitownwarrior just seems to have a problem with all of mine....it's his problem, not mine.
My impression of Chicago and how fast-paced it is compared to other cities I think really comes down more to the fact that Chicago simply has more of its office space, cultural attractions all packed into a small area (like within two to three miles of the loop mostly). If that's how you define a fast paced city, based on its core. But then if you live outside three -four miles from the loop, it becomes significantly less fast paced. And even then, you're still in the city limits.
Yes, Chicago is massive, but I think its there within lies the major difference. But then again, if you live at least 10 miles from the downtown and you don't work in the downtown, and only go there on occasion you are simply live and work in an area that has more in common with Twin Cities, Greater St. Louis, Dallas-Fort Worth, metro Detroit-Ann Arbor (with a much better job market) etc.
Most of other major U.S. metropolitan areas simply have a good chunk of its places of employment, recreational attractions, etc. etc. in places a few miles beyond the downtown/central business district.
If you put all the museums, skyscrapers, etc. of Minneapolis, St. Paul together it would start to look like Chicago.
If you put the museums of Forest Park, St. Louis along the river front with the arch, and put all the tall buildings of Clayton next to downtown St. Louis, it would start to look a little like Chicago.
If you took the Las Colinas area of Irving, many of the attractions, buildings of Arlington and Fort Worth next to Dallas then it would REALLY start to look like Chicago.
Chicago just has much of what it offers within a fairly small radius in a planned out way so that everything is in the same view and very accesible. So, Chicago is particular good for those who like a city/metro area who don't want to bother looking at maps, guide books and figuring out where everything is.
The fast paced feel drops off rather quickly a few miles away (except directly to the north) and you get into an environment that is more like your "less cool" places.
I agree completely with what you said about St. Louis. That is the very reason I consider it fast-paced. Unlike the MANY ignorant people out there, I realize that city limits are only political boundaries and nothing more. Because of St. Louis' unusual position of not being a part of its county, St. Louis has its data unfairly skewed and misrepresented in every single way I can think of. People, especially outsiders from here, typically from other big cities, like to take St. Louis and pretend that the many high-rises and apartments and business districts that continue up to 20 miles west and pack into noticeable density, do not exist. Anybody who would say that Greater St. Louis, the real St. Louis, is slow-paced IMO is truly on something. St. Louis is densely packed, especially along Interstate 64, as far as west as Chesterfield near where it crosses the Missouri River. That is almost 30 miles to the west of downtown. Interstate 70, 44, and 55 are pretty much the same story. Only 18 other cities I'd say could claim to be as fast-paced as St. Louis. I would probably make an argument of St. Louis being the fourth or fifth most fast-paced city in the Midwest.
I’d say the whole BosWash is twice as fast as LA. BosWash is totally gnarly dude like yaaa PEACE!
Moderator cut: If you've got another member on your Ignore list, then ignore him......otherwise it's a lot like trolling, isn't it?
NEW YORK IS WAYYY MORE FAST-PACED THAN LA. You can see it in the pics on TV and the computer. People constantly rushing around bodies from one place to another. It’s crazy here, and this is the most lively city in America and among the most lively for the world, if not the most.
Last edited by Cornerguy1; 12-08-2007 at 09:14 PM..
That's because you're from Chicago, one of the most fast-paced cities in the U.S., so of course everything will seem slow-paced to you St. Louis, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh and Milwaukee and the Twin Cities all run at about the same rate, so if they have to be considered medium-paced, fine. I agree with the Baltimore grouping.
How does Cincy go into that group of cities? We have nothing in common with those places... from the way people act right down to the accent.
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.
St. Louis, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh and Milwaukee and the Twin Cities all run at about the same rate, so if they have to be considered medium-paced, fine. I agree with the Baltimore grouping.
