Osaka vs. Chicago: Which has better urban amenities/infrastructure? (apartment, condo)
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.
Beijing??? Last time I was there I couldn't see the ground from my hotel room because the pollution was so thick.
See: Outside of AQI : )
Impressive:
Health/Fitness of Residents
Transit Infrastructure/Airport
Extremely Safe
Walkable/Urban Areas (Wangfujing corridor, for instance and significant other parts of the central city due to hutongs spread around)
Green Spaces/Nature
Even though the air is bad, the ground is pretty much well maintained, buildings generally look new and in place
Ample food available for cheap, including health options.
There are probably more, including entertainment, culture etc on which Beijing can compare well to many cities, including many American ones. But this is an Osaka v Chicago thread. So, I digress.
Asian cities and I'd say also Latin American (for instance, Buenos Aires) and Middle Eastern (for instance, Tehran) cities are laughably underrated by the American populace and they are ignorant about.
For the many issues that even Beijing for example does have (AQI, etc.), it is laughably ahead of even the most urban American centers on so many levels, including certain QOL. Not meaning to jump too far off topic, just a general observation.
Out of curiosity do you have that list of busiest individual train stations? I had it at one point, but do not have it anymore at this time.
Thanks!
See link below (it’s slightly dated, but I doubt things have changed much in the last few years).
Of the top 20 stations, all are in Japan — 14 in greater Tokyo, 5 in the Osaka metro and 1 in Nagoya.
As public transit usage is highly correlated with urban vibrancy, I think this goes a long way to explain why Japan has some of the busiest and most vibrant cities in the developed world.
Living situations differ a lot (like, where in the city are you living in, how convenient / desirable it is). Square footage is generally smaller compared to most US city apartments and houses, but rent is also pretty cheap in Osaka. Standard bedroom / bathroom numbers are pretty common (i.e. parents / couples usually share a bedroom, kids generally have a room each, maybe there's a den, maybe there's a spare room). The bathrooms often have the toilet and sink separated from the shower / bath area (the idea of having them together is kinda gross to some) and it's very common for the entire shower / bath area to have a floor drain. Japanese houses sometimes have the room where the bathtub is in completely a shower because of that floor drain and the bathtub is often smaller in terms of length, but much deeper as the preferred position is to have the water come pretty high up. Japanese cities are also much more likely to tear down older houses (and by older, I mean even just a couple or few decades older) and build anew especially in areas with mass transit access and that is a lot of areas since mass transit is very extensive.
It is a hard sell to tell American families to give up their 2500+ square foot houses and move into a small apartment or condo.
Americans want a big living space, luxury and urban vibrancy all at the same time.
See link below (it’s slightly dated, but I doubt things have changed much in the last few years).
Of the top 20 stations, all are in Japan — 14 in greater Tokyo, 5 in the Osaka metro and 1 in Nagoya.
As public transit usage is highly correlated with urban vibrancy, I think this goes a long way to explain why Japan has some of the busiest and most vibrant cities in the developed world.
Amazing. They don't exactly photograph that well (apart from certain stations like Tokyo), and they don't even quite have the bottle necked crowds (at least that I saw), on certain other metro stations around the world. And yet the urban feel they give is indescribable.
This thread should not be about lessening a American city for not being ULTRA-URBAN overall. Japan is one of the most modern-urban dense Island Nations. Chicago is a American city that is close to the middle of a large continent on the Prairie that certainly was a Notion that did not lack land.
It is surprising it developed a dense core and credited with the FIRST OFFICIAL SKYSCRAPER BUILT with a steel skeleton and others right after. The first one is gone sadly. Others remain with I believe the second one fully intact and a landmark. It has a skyscraper that was the World's tallest for 25-years.
Aspects of comparisons to a Japanese major city are with much mismatching in city-layout and urban footprint by American standards vs the Olds dentist cities.
Its street-grid created standardized front green-space neighborhoods (outside of main streets) and 90% of the city has alleyways behind every home. (not as alleys in other parts of the world). Most lined with garages as the 20th century progressed. Its BUNGALOW-BELT as 1/3 the city..... rings the city and 40s the early 60s neighborhoods their own varieties that came as mid-century modern brick examples.
These were and are the Chicago icon in its cityscape primarily built late teens of the 20th century, the booming 1920s especially and 30s. Virtually all brick and stand proud today. Though mass-built they were well built. Chicago would not be a big row-housing city.
They represented the ruing middle-class American dream .... of a single home, green-space with a yard (though small yards especially if a garage took up much and close-knit by American standards vs suburban sprawl by far.
There is little comparison to ultra-urban cities or European cities even. These bungalows were a ultra-modern home f their era the middle-class could by. Older neighbors have their own housing still seen as more desired by the young professionals that moved back into US cores outward. But its bungalows still are a substantial part of this city's build.
Why these cites would be put vs each other is very odd indeed. Chicago had a vibrant and sometimes ... turbulent history. No one will confuse its look for anything but a American city. One of the most American cities .... good and bad and plenty of issues of its own as so many American cities.
The only city that could be compared to these ultra-dense US cities is NYC. But it would FAIL MISERABLY BY INFASTRUCTURE Age of the city vs Osaka too in urea-modern amenities and attributes.
So some praising urbanity in its densest .... should realize even our mighty NYC could lose here? Especially those that mock other American cities if not at NYC density standards.
** Most as Chicago ... CHOSE INTENTIONALLY, NOT to do a tenement-level NYC-style fabric. A substantial reason is having its Great 1871 Fire that change its history. Few argue that probably was for the better to become the newer Second city it did. Despite its sides so prevalent to American cities.
It is a hard sell to tell American families to give up their 2500+ square foot houses and move into a small apartment or condo.
Americans want a big living space, luxury and urban vibrancy all at the same time.
I think the reasons for this are cultural as much as financial. Americans, as a cultural matter, generally care much more about the size of their house and number of bedrooms than they do about living in a vibrant neighborhood where they can walk to the grocery store, hang out on the streets and regularly see their neighbors. Whereas people in many parts of the world see the neighborhood as an extension of their living room (and have a much more social lifestyle as a consequence) Americans are content to sit in their McMansions and watch their big screen TVs. Yet the story of American cities getting decimated over the past few decades is as much about people running away from things (desegregation, crime, terrible schools and bad urban policies) as it is about running towards bigger houses and back yards. Now that the cat is out of the bag, it is very difficult to piece things back together and attract people back to a dense urban lifestyle. Today, in many urban areas, people don’t even conceive of city living as a viable option because frankly it isn’t one. If I live in a 2500 square-foot house in suburban Cleveland why would I trade that for a two-bedroom condo downtown with lackluster street life, mediocre public transit, bad schools and crime issues?
That said, the few American cities that still offer a quality urban experience are doing very well and continue to be magnets for those seeking the opportunities and excitement of dense urban living – else you wouldn’t have the highest real estate costs in the same places that also have the highest density of population. But creating a quality urban experience is by no means “easy” and it’s something where American cities have failed (and continue to fail) terribly.
I think the reasons for this are cultural as much as financial. Americans, as a cultural matter, generally care much more about the size of their house and number of bedrooms than they do about living in a vibrant neighborhood where they can walk to the grocery store, hang out on the streets and regularly see their neighbors. Whereas people in many parts of the world see the neighborhood as an extension of their living room (and have a much more social lifestyle as a consequence) Americans are content to sit in their McMansions and watch their big screen TVs. Yet the story of American cities getting decimated over the past few decades is as much about people running away from things (desegregation, crime, terrible schools and bad urban policies) as it is about running towards bigger houses and back yards. Now that the cat is out of the bag, it is very difficult to piece things back together and attract people back to a dense urban lifestyle. Today, in many urban areas, people don’t even conceive of city living as a viable option because frankly it isn’t one. If I live in a 2500 square-foot house in suburban Cleveland why would I trade that for a two-bedroom condo downtown with lackluster street life, mediocre public transit, bad schools and crime issues?
That said, the few American cities that still offer a quality urban experience are doing very well and continue to be magnets for those seeking the opportunities and excitement of dense urban living – else you wouldn’t have the highest real estate costs in the same places that also have the highest density of population. But creating a quality urban experience is by no means “easy” and it’s something where American cities have failed (and continue to fail) terribly.
Ok, I have to call you out on this. Osaka wins on all fronts if you're looking for high density ultra-modern living, but Chicago is not a McMansion town. Chicago is set on a grid and most of the homes are over 100 years old. Actually each neighborhood is different depending on what group of immigrants came and built it, using the standards of the time. You have a literal collection of the world's craftsmanship from different corners of the world. Also, Chicago is on a grid, with alleys to get trash away. Every 100 block is an 1/8 of a mile. So, if you're on Lawrewnce at 4800 North and you want to get to Irving Park at 4000 North. Even cooler is that every 400 is a commercial street. So you are never far from a commercial street. In fact, if you were living in the middle house on the odd 200 block, the most would be a quarter mile in any direction.
And the corners are historical, because that's where each neighborhood does its thing...and they do. That little bit of space makes it possible to have street dances, festivals, concerts. Each neighborhood develops its own charm and character. That's the diversity of it.
If you visit Chicago, the best thing to do is to take a day and explore a neighborhood, especially if they're holding an event. Take pictures and enjoy the event. The city is constantly on the remake...good or bad, that moment is yours, but when you next visit, it will be different yet again.
Ok, I have to call you out on this. Osaka wins on all fronts if you're looking for high density ultra-modern living, but Chicago is not a McMansion town. Chicago is set on a grid and most of the homes are over 100 years old. Actually each neighborhood is different depending on what group of immigrants came and built it, using the standards of the time. You have a literal collection of the world's craftsmanship from different corners of the world. Also, Chicago is on a grid, with alleys to get trash away. Every 100 block is an 1/8 of a mile. So, if you're on Lawrewnce at 4800 North and you want to get to Irving Park at 4000 North. Even cooler is that every 400 is a commercial street. So you are never far from a commercial street. In fact, if you were living in the middle house on the odd 200 block, the most would be a quarter mile in any direction.
And the corners are historical, because that's where each neighborhood does its thing...and they do. That little bit of space makes it possible to have street dances, festivals, concerts. Each neighborhood develops its own charm and character. That's the diversity of it.
If you visit Chicago, the best thing to do is to take a day and explore a neighborhood, especially if they're holding an event. Take pictures and enjoy the event. The city is constantly on the remake...good or bad, that moment is yours, but when you next visit, it will be different yet again.
I wasn’t talking about Chicago specifically, but commenting on BigCityDreamer’s general observation that “it is a hard sell to tell American families to give up their 2500+ square foot houses and move into a small apartment or condo.”
Most people in Chicago city proper do not live in 2500+ square foot houses. At the same time, if you look at Chicagoland — the roughly 10 million metro area — at least 90% of it (by area) is medium to low density suburban sprawl. So it is more relevant if you look at the wider picture.
I think there have been some fair points recently in this thread about the different styles of living and amenities. Americans generally do care more about larger personal living spaces and that difference is certainly reflected, so it is somewhat harder to compare. That said, Osaka is still certainly more urban on what is being compared, though Chicago does perform very strongly here by American standards. I guess I'm kind of on the fence here. For me at least, the 1600 ft. or so of my present residence is more than plenty... it is really a vast cultural divide around the world.
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.
