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.
Chicago's "Manhattan" would probably be the area from Roger's Park on the north limits, down through the Mag Mile, the Loop and the South Loop, and inland up until around the Chicago River.
This area is:
530,000 people
around 23 square miles
around 23,000 people per square mile
It contains many of the nuts and bolts that make Chicago tick as far as culture, entertainment, business and lively residential areas.
* Over 1,000 highrises
* The downtown area with around 600,000 office workers
* Millions of square feet of retail
* Over a dozen colleges/universities with around 100,000 enrollment
* 54 above ground and underground transit stations
* 11 commuter rail stations
* Dozens of bus lines
* Over 1,700 acres of parkland
* 7 beaches
* 7 marinas with over 5,600 boat slips
* McCormick Place convention center with 2,670,000 sf of space
* US Cellular Field with the White Sox
* Soldier Field for the Bears football
* Wrigley Field for the Cubs
* Art Institute of Chicago
* Museum Campus contining the Shedd Aquarium, Field Museum and Adler Planetarium
* Navy Pier
* 2 major cemeteries with 470 acres of land
* I believe over 1,000 bars and an equal number of restaurants
Great info. I didn't go up to Rogers Park, because I think Wicker Park should be in the "Manhattan" footprint, but a case could be made either way.
Pretty much a thread for Chicago, San Francisco, and LA.
I think all cities do well in these categories, LA actually may be at a disadvantage at ~20 sq miles, but I do agree that Chicago and SF would do particularly well.
I think all cities do well in these categories, LA actually may be at a disadvantage at ~20 sq miles, but I do agree that Chicago and SF would do particularly well.
Just finished adding on to my post. Tell me what you think, since you've lived in NYC, DC, and Chicago. I cant give either San Francisco or Chicago the edge on food because they specialize in different types and for quality and different types LA is definitely in the mix IMO.
Pretty much a thread for Chicago, San Francisco, and LA.
Density, Public Spaces / Parks = San Francisco
Walk-ability = Chicago and San Francisco
Public Transportation, Architecture = Chicago
Other (Millennium Park- very toned down version of Times Square) (LA Live- toned down Times Square) = Chicago and LA
Museums, Nightlife = LA
Quality of Food / Types of Food = Chicago, LA, and San Francisco
I have to give Parks to Chicago (by a land slide) because of the Lakefront, no other city has a setting that's close. Millennium Park is nothing like Times Square.
Other than those two things I think your list looks good.
I have to give Parks to Chicago (by a land slide) because of the Lakefront, no other city has a setting that's close. Millennium Park is nothing like Times Square.
Other than those two things I think your list looks good.
I can concede parks to anyone from Chicago and Boston making cases for them. I beg to differ on Millennium Park, its not like Times Square by look but by function its the center for tourists in the downtown area and that's really what I meant. Tourist trap with lights, activities, outdoor concert places, surrounded by skyscrapers, etc etc.
I think Lincoln and Grant are fine parks and I was actually rethinking about that one but for parks my bias is leading me to GGP.
Great map and I like the diverse crossection of neighborhoods.
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.