Which city has the most vibrant and urban "Manhattan"? (metro, downtown)

[prelude91]

I had a real life City Data-esque conversation today with a complete stranger, we were talking about the "Manhattan" of the major cities and which one was the overall best in terms of urban amenities that Manhattan is known for. I thought this would make for an interesting discussion.

I will set the criteria as follows:

Density
Walk-ability
Public Transportation
Public Spaces / Parks
Architecture
Quality of Food / Types of Food
Nightlife
Museums
"Other"


I know it is difficult to agree upon what each cities "Manhattan" would look like, but it should be equal in size to Manhattan, so roughly 20 square miles.

The picture below is what I thought Chicago's "Manhattan" would be, this is, generally speaking, the most trendy / vibrant part of the city.

Population: ~460,000
Area: ~19 sq miles
Density: ~24,000

I am interested to see how others think each compares.

[iNviNciBL3]

Well obviously NYC, its the only city with a "Manhattan"

Density
Walk-ability
Public Transportation
Public Spaces / Parks
Architecture
Quality of Food / Types of Food
Nightlife
Museums
"Other"

When i look at this list i think San Francisco and Chicago. but they are no way close to being like Manhattan

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by prelude91

Density: Chicago, San Fran, LA, Philly, Boston, DC
Walk-ability: All walkable, though LA would come in last
Public Transportation Chicago, DC, Boston, Philly, San Fran, LA
Public Spaces / Parks: Chicago, LA, DC, Philly, Boston, San Fran
Architecture: Chicago, Boston, DC, Philly, San Fran, LA
Quality of Food / Types of Food: Chicago, San Fran, LA, Philly, DC, Boston
Nightlife: Chicago, LA, DC, Philly, Boston, San Fran
Museums: DC, Chicago/Boston/Philly/San Fran, LA

Going off of Boston, Philly, DC, LA, San Fran - I think it would look like the above:

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by iNviNciBL3

Well obviously NYC, its the only city with a "Manhattan"

Obviously, that is why I left it off. Going more so with what Manhattan represents, and what the equivalent would be in other cities.

[18Montclair]

Density: San Francisco

Walkability: San Francisco

Public Transportation: Chicago

Public Spaces / Parks: Chicago

Architecture: Chicago

Quality of Food / Types of Food: San Francisco

Nightlife: Los Angeles

Museums: Washington DC

[kidphilly]

^^^ only issue on walkability with SF is the hills but in the core not so much.

Boston/SF/Philly are about equal in ease and compactness IMHO for the core

All are very walkable if you limit to just the core itself, splitting hairs

also on Food we may disagree but Chicago/SF are peers in this regard

[Chicago60614]

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
* They city's premier gay district, as well as Chinatown and Greektown
* 37,000 hotel rooms

Obviously not an equal of Manhattan, but our equivilent of the heart of the metro area.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Density: San Francisco

Walkability: San Francisco

Public Transportation: Chicago

Public Spaces / Parks: Chicago

Architecture: Chicago

Quality of Food / Types of Food: San Francisco

Nightlife: Los Angeles

Museums: Washington DC

I would be interested in seeing density numbers for San Fran in an area of ~20 sq miles, I know it would be very close to Chicago; On the food, I just can't give the edge to San Fran but they are very close. I think everything else looks good.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

^^^ only issue on walkability with SF is the hills but in the core not so much.

Boston/SF/Philly are about equal in ease and compactness IMHO for the core

All are very walkable if you limit to just the core itself, splitting hairs

also on Food we may disagree but Chicago/SF are peers in this regard

Yes but I decided to pick one cause someone has to be 1st in each category. LOL

Didnt say it was a landslide victory.

[scrantiX]

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 (Chicago for a couple of museums and DC for the free ones)

Quality of Food / Types of Food = Chicago, LA, and San Francisco