Some random and highly opinionated thoughts on Chicago and New York from a person who is a shameless home town Chicagoan:

Every time I've returned home to Chicago from New York (a place I do like very much), I have never, ever felt I was returning to a lesser city. Weird as it might sound (and I know that it would to a New Yorker), I actually find Chicago more exciting than New York.

Now I do have to wonder why. Is it that the fact that it is my home town? Am I mentally unbalanced? Undoubtedly these are factors. Hell, this is nothing more than an opinion, right? But there is something more here.

If you look at the two cities, look at them as some sort of an organic wholes, remove the effect that they have on the individual experience, add up the superlatives, the inpact that they have on others, crunch the numbers, it probably is safe to say that NYC comes out on top. Hands down.

But if you look at the two cities from the perspective of an individual interacting with it (well, at least, this individual writing), Chicago comes out on top. Why? With all the huge buildings in Chicago, I never had the feeling of being engulfed within them as I do in Manhattan. Manhattan has a way of making me feel insignificant: the city overpowers; it does not cater. Chicago meanwhile draws me in....from the livable neighborhoods (so many of which are not overrun with high rises), from the parks and the lakefront (a lakefront that opens up Chicago in ways that NY's rivers and bay could never do). And once in the core, I am in awe: the architecture, the beauty, the energy, the sheer size...yet it does not overpower or overwhelm. And the pure excitement of watching a city transform and change in front of my eyes in startling new and beautiful urban and urbane settings (something NYC with all its massive construction can not do for me....it is already far more set in stone than Chgo is).

To me, Chicago is the ultimate metropolis because it combines an endless number of choices for an urban life style: restaurants, culture, entertainment, ethnic and urbane neighborhoods, attractiions, shopping, enough to give you endless choices....with a livablilty that Manhattan cannot offer.

Manhattanites thrill over the fact that their city has more neighborhoods, more nooks and crannies of interet than they could see in a lifetime. But I only have one lifetime. For an individual, Chicago will never leave you without something exciting to do, nor give me that many fewer options than NY does.

City vs. City comparisons are fine. But, to me, it is more important how the city interacts with the individual. Again, IMHO, Chicago wins that battle hands down. Again...just opinions....others could easily poke a million holes what I wrote, but Chicago, the City that Works, sure as hell works for me.

And forgive me for being such a shameless hometown Chicagoan!

Interesting perspective, but it seems as though you are speaking of New York as only consisting of Manhattan. Manhattan is the epicenter of the city, but it only comprises a tiny fraction of the whole city. Have you explored Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx or Staten Island? If you want breathing space, you need to get out of Manhattan. Of course I understand hometown bias, as it skews everyone's objectivity when comparing cities, but seriously-- NYC is home to over 8 million people, and over 6 million of those people live in the outer boroughs. Using Manahattan as the comparison barometer only further proves just how big that city is-- most people never even think to experience the rest. I urge you to explore the rest of (or should I say, majority of) New York City before drawing your conclusions.

So speaks Jive, the ultimate authority on all things New York.

Oh shut up Dampyre. Read what I wrote. Not even you can argue with it.

Oh shut up Dampyre. Read what I wrote. Not even you can argue with it.


That's not the point. Whenever these two cities are mentioned in the same sentence you feel the need to chime in. You are as predictable as a clock.

So are Chicago forumers. Come on, Chicago more exciting than New York? And you think I'm the one with the problem? First there's a thread about Chicago resenting the Midwest and then another one about how all Midwesterners should move to Chicago and then one about Manhattan vs. downtown Chicago and now this one. Something tells me I'm not the only one who's predictable.

p.s. I even said that edsg's viewpoint is interesting. I didn't even state my opinion on the matter other than to say that there's more to New York than what edsg mentioned.

Oh geez, he's back to troll some more. If you are going to troll you should hide the fact you are from tiny St. Decaylouis.

Ouch, that really hurts coming from you.

And actually, if you read my first post, I wasn't trolling at all. Can you people READ??

Is there anything outside of Manhattan? IMO,there is so little outside of Manhattan, that there isn't much reason to leave the island. (With the exception of places like Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO, and Williamsburg.)

^That is the most absurd statement I've ever heard. Some of the most authentic neighborhoods are in the outer boroughs.

"Oh geez, he's back to troll some more. If you are going to troll you should hide the fact you are from tiny St. Decaylouis."

And I have lived in a much larger city than you have. :)

^Love you signiture Jivecity. Very poetic.

And I have lived in a much larger city than you have. :)

Perhaps, but you are a product of St Louis. Someone who actually grew up in New York is another matter entirely.

[QUOTE=JivecitySTL]So are Chicago forumers. Come on, Chicago more exciting than New York? And you think I'm the one with the problem?QUOTE]

So what? That's his opinion and yours doesn't carry any extra weight. Not everyone is as fond of New York as you are.

Is there anything outside of Manhattan? IMO,there is so little outside of Manhattan, that there isn't much reason to leave the island. (With the exception of places like Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO, and Williamsburg.)


Brooklyn has a density of 35,000 PP/SM. The Bronx has 31,000 PP/SM. Queens has 20,000 PP/SM. Staten Island is denser than Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, or St. Louis.

Not only are the outer boroughs, as a whole, far denser than Chicago, they also contain, possibly, the greatest ethnic diversity anywhere on Earth.

So are Chicago forumers. Come on, Chicago more exciting than New York? And you think I'm the one with the problem? First there's a thread about Chicago resenting the Midwest and then another one about how all Midwesterners should move to Chicago and then one about Manhattan vs. downtown Chicago and now this one. Something tells me I'm not the only one who's predictable.

p.s. I even said that edsg's viewpoint is interesting. I didn't even state my opinion on the matter other than to say that there's more to New York than what edsg mentioned.

Two points on this one, JivecitySTL...first, I have been in all 4 outer boroughs, so I know well that there's a lot more to NYC than Manhattan.

Second, and this is more important than you think: I never said that Chicago was more exciting than New York. I said that I FIND Chicago to be more exciting than New York. A big distinction. I was expressing my opinion and my opinion hasn't changed. Would a lot of people see it differently than I would? Of course. But what does that hardly means that I'm wrong in seeing it differently...does it, JiveCitySTL?

Is there something implicit about NYC that makes it the most exciting city in the world (or nation) and if you don't see it you're blind?

As far as the whole Manhattan/5 boroughs thing, here's my spin:

Of all addresses in the country, which one has the largest number of residents?

CHICAGO

Sounds strange, no? But true. New York has plenty of people who use Brooklyn as an address, or various communities in Queens, Staten Island, etc. (Flushing, St. George, etc.)

How about LA? Mail is often sent to places like Van Nuys or San Pedro or North Hollywood.

Not Chicago. All mail is marked "Chicago"

Why?

It's one city. Uninterupted. No Staten Island off in its own world. No Brooklyn or Queens across the East River. No San Fernando Valley behind the Santa Monica Mountains. No independent Beverly Hills, smack in the middle of the city but not a part of it, but the far off San Fernando Valley is a part. Weird.

Chicago is one city. One environment. Hell, one grid. You may be as close in as Streeterville, highly urban, or in Sauganash, virtually suburban, yet you are still Chicago. And the whole, flat, gridded city is pulled inward to the core that is shared by everyone in town.

Again, I don't think that I'm right. Just sharing what I think. If I was going to develop the ultimate city from scratch, it would end up looking a heckuva lot like Chicago and not a lot like NY or LA.

JiveCitySTL, I had a choice when I posted this piece and decided to do it in the Chicago board and not the US or NYC. Why? I was flaming anyone. I was merely sharring my thoughts about Chicago with other Chicagoans (and others who were interested in it).

edsg-- I know what point you were making and I can appreciate you. I respect your opinions a lot because you actually listen to others and can appreciate points of view other than your own. I just said that about the outer boroughs because you didn't mention them at all in your initial post.

Dampyre-- I yes, I am from St. Louis. And I am as proud of it as you are of Chicago. St. Louis is no slouch and can hold its own. Come to think of it, why was St. Louis even mentioned in this thread? Oh wait, I forgot, someone from Chicago got sensitive again.

edsg-- I know what point you were making and I can appreciate you. I respect your opinions a lot because you actually listen to others and can appreciate points of view other than your own. I just said that about the outer boroughs because you didn't mention them at all in your initial post.
.

Sometimes it helps to ignore governmental units. In the case of NYC (and, as I said, LA), I think it works.

Fact is, "The City" means Manhattan in the Tri-State region. It is a term used in Bronx and much as in Westchester, in Brooklyn as much as on Long Island.

Meanwhile, Brooklyn, having once been its own city, still projects a city image of its own. Brooklyn is a place. Brooklyn Dodgers vs. New York Giants was about the two cities that existed when the rivalry began.

So Brooklyn is its own city. And chances are, if you live in Queens or Staten Island, you don't see your neighborhood as neighborhood, but as a village. That has been my experience with New Yorkers. They segment their city (as do Angelenos) in ways that Chicagoans don't.

JiveCitySTL,

As do you, I like St. Louis, too. I was surprised on my post on the Midwest board by a St. Louisan who ripped becasue he thought I was panning St. Louis when all I was trying to say was: it should be a lot better city than it is because of what it has going for it.

So I do have a question for you: wouldn't St. Louis be much more respected if suburbanites spoke better of it and actually used the city (I have too many say they never go there, which I feel is ridiculous).

Is the city hard to take as seriously as it should be because its population has fallen to that 300,000 range? That's a lot of abandonment.

And (as I asked on the other board), why did St. Louis allow Clayton to get such a large percentage of what should be downtown business?

St. Louis should be alot more of a major player than it is.

Sometimes it helps to ignore governmental units. In the case of NYC (and, as I said, LA), I think it works.

Fact is, "The City" means Manhattan in the Tri-State region. It is a term used in Bronx and much as in Westchester, in Brooklyn as much as on Long Island.

Meanwhile, Brooklyn, having once been its own city, still projects a city image of its own. Brooklyn is a place. Brooklyn Dodgers vs. New York Giants was about the two cities that existed when the rivalry began.

So Brooklyn is its own city. And chances are, if you live in Queens or Staten Island, you don't see your neighborhood as neighborhood, but as a village. That has been my experience with New Yorkers. They segment their city (as do Angelenos) in ways that Chicagoans don't.

You're right in a sense. but putting Staten Island and Queens as one in the same is a huge mistake. Staten Island is unlike any other borough, it's isolated from the rest not only geographically but I believe it choses to do so in how it functions and it's mentality.

^That is the most absurd statement I've ever heard. Some of the most authentic neighborhoods are in the outer boroughs.

If you will note, I started the sentence with IMO. As I have stated many times on this forum before, I am a hardcore urbanist. I am happiest being in the epicenter of all that is urbanity at it's highest level. I am not saying the outer boroughs lack authentic neigborhoods, I am just not that interested. Same goes for much of Chicago, there are neighborhoods in this city full of authenticity, but they don't really interest me, therefore, I don't have much reason to go to them. (That said, I will make it clear that I am glad they are there, they help contribute to the parts that I am interested in.)

Brooklyn has a density of 35,000 PP/SM. The Bronx has 31,000 PP/SM. Queens has 20,000 PP/SM. Staten Island is denser than Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, or St. Louis.

Not only are the outer boroughs, as a whole, far denser than Chicago, they also contain, possibly, the greatest ethnic diversity anywhere on Earth.

I will not begin to question ethnic diversity in NYC. But, just because the density is higher doesn't make the boroughs automatically interesting. Yes there are interesting parts, there are amazing ethnic neighborhoods, but all in all, there is also an emormous amount of bland boring neighborhoods. Manhattan is unlike anyplace else, but much of the boroughs are not really any different than the neighborhoods outside of the center city in Chicago, more density, not more interesting.

Just my opinion.:wink2:

I think edsg25 finally helped give words to the "feel" of new york city while I was there, and I'll use the same language: "individual interaction."

While I was in NYC, I was always reminded that I was in NYC. It wasn't like when I was in Boston and thought, "Yeah, I'm in Boston," or in Portland and thought, "Yeah, I'm in Portlad," it was the city saying to me, "Hey you, you're in NYC."

No matter where in the city I went (and by city I mean the 5 boroughs... well, save for Staten Island... didn't go there), there was something irrevocably NYC-stamped about it. No, it wasn't because the people there were arrogant New Yorkers who think they're on top of the world. There was just something about the city and the way it interacted with me that was... different.

Chicago didn't feel like that, not even the first time I went there and tramped around the Loop. And even if NYC wins 999,999 out of 1,000,000 city v city contests against Chicago (and I'm being nice to Chicago here), there's no changing the fact that Chicago is the city of choice for me. As edsg expressed in so many words... NYC just kinda forces its myriad of urban pradise onto you, Chicago lets you get into it. And even if that means Chicago has less south indian-vegetarian restaurants or pickle shops than NYC, it still has more than enough for me.

:lol:
And even if that means Chicago has less south indian-vegetarian restaurants or pickle shops than NYC, it still has more than enough for me.

A lot of questions have come up on this thread about the outer boroughs. Now I agree with observations that there are many charming neighborhoods spread through the four of them.

But I have also had other experiences with them. There are a number of places throughout the outer boroughs that almost appear third world to me. If Queens once had a reputation of being almost suburban, anyone driving to Manhattan from LaGuardia would get a totally opposite impression. Lots of crowded, impersonal, and unattractive neighborhoods. As far as the ethnic groups within them, often you can get a sense that they are there only temporarily and a neighborhood could switch to some other group very quickly. I have also found that many places in the outer boroughs are as impersonal as Manhattan.

Just my experience, I suppose, but I don't see that great of attraction in the outer boroughs.

I don't either. I see alot of grit, dirty streets..3rd world conditions in some areas. I really don't care for the countless slabs of public housing all over the city (including Manhattan) or the regular buildings that resemble the projects. Its just ugly as hell.

I don't either. I see alot of grit, dirty streets..3rd world conditions in some areas. I really don't care for the countless slabs of public housing all over the city (including Manhattan) or the regular buildings that resemble the projects. Its just ugly as hell.

Countless public housing slabs?

We talking about Hong Kong or NYC here?

I don't either. I see alot of grit, dirty streets..3rd world conditions in some areas. I really don't care for the countless slabs of public housing all over the city (including Manhattan) or the regular buildings that resemble the projects. Its just ugly as hell.

Hmm...interesting. From this post, I hear a lot of ignorance, unfamiliarity, misconceptions and shelteredness.

Seriously, if that's your true impression of New York, you must have somehow missed New York.

I did see alot of that. Some areas are nice, but some are not. There is a ton of public housing throughout the city, or other towers that resemble them. Those buildings are the ugliest structures, and NYC is the king of grit and grime for this country. You may like it, but most people don't.

I would hardly say that most people don't like NY. There's a reason it's the number 1 tourist destination in this country (aside from being... oh I don't know... the most populated city in the country). There's obviously 8 million people who like it enough to call it home.

Tourism is one thing, living in that same city is completely different. I didn't say most people don't like NYC, although there alot who don't. I said most people don't like grit and grime in general.

hmm.... i would have to agree with la1 on this. NYC (outside of the touristy things) is not for the faint of heart. not that I have any problems with it, but the typical tourist is probably a suburbanite who has never seen grit in his or her life.

Hmm...interesting. From this post, I hear a lot of ignorance, unfamiliarity, misconceptions and shelteredness.

Seriously, if that's your true impression of New York, you must have somehow missed New York.

This observation doesn't relate to Chicago, or with comparing it with New York. It deals with New York alone, and some of its fundamental differences from all other cities.

Of course you're right JivecitySTL about New York architecture. As I said before, I think that NYC is a great place, and of course, there is much that is attractive.

That said, let me add the following (much more about Manhattan than the city as a whole):

Manhattan is so much about making and exchanging money, about a culture of economics above all else (does anyone seriously think art and culture have grown in the city incrementally as economic activity has in the last 20 years?) that the buck rules all.

The result on the cityscape? Real estate is king. High rise buildings rise everywhere, with no regard for the size of the site or how they relate to the city as a whole. Residential buildings soar to stack folks higher and higher with no regard for architecture. In fact, much of the new stuff is mundane, if not abysmal. Interiors obviously count a helluva lot more than exteriors, even in the most upscale projects. Meanwhile, nobody is putting up 3-4 story buildings that offer contrast and much needed breathing more; obviously the real estate is too expensive for that. So up and up it goes. It is often hard to tell what street you are on in much of Manhattan because of the way the buildings go upward shoulder to shoulder. The most crowded place on the continent, the one so berift of open space, save for the vast reaches of Central Park, becomes more and more dense.

What does logic dictate? That great, big, constantly developing, constantly building machine is only going to move faster and get stronger. There is no off switch, unless you consider Depression a viable option. Think about what Manhattan will look like in 20 years, or even 10 years, if it keeps up the present rate of growth, let alone the more likely excellerated rate. My guess: a lot of fill-in and merging between the downtown and midtown skylines and views of the sky itself being a thing of the past. Add to that an intense development of Hudson and East riverfronts in Bkyn, Qns, and Jersey that will forever alter one of the true glories of the Manhattan skyline: its incredible vertical ability to soar overr the horrizontal reaches across its shores.

New York has the seeds of being so important, so relished, so desired, that it could ironically very well destroy itself in the process of buiding itself.

i dont get why alot of the chicagoans always compare chicago to new york, basically in every aspect :sleepy: :sleepy: :sleepy:
it just doesnt make sense to compare the two, new york wins hands down on everything, if you read this forum over and over again
* chicago is most liveable
* chicago is more breathable
* chicago is more walkable
* chicago is more bla bla bla bla

the only thing people ever (especially people from chicago) complain about is how much it costs to live nyc, well then your not making enough! thats it, if you have it then you have it and you can enjoy nyc, and IF you DONT then settle somewhere else!
obviously nyc is doing something right that some people are willing to work 2 or 4 jobs just to stay on the island!

^
What are you talking about? NYC is not just Manhattan. There are plenty of affordable areas in Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx and Staten Island.
Another thing, there are many people with money that do leave Manhattan for somewhere else. Judging from your post, you act like they don't.

i dont get why alot of the chicagoans always compare chicago to new york, basically in every aspect :sleepy: :sleepy: :sleepy:
it just doesnt make sense to compare the two, new york wins hands down on everything, if you read this forum over and over again
* chicago is most liveable
* chicago is more breathable
* chicago is more walkable
* chicago is more bla bla bla bla

the only thing people ever (especially people from chicago) complain about is how much it costs to live nyc, well then your not making enough! thats it, if you have it then you have it and you can enjoy nyc, and IF you DONT then settle somewhere else!
obviously nyc is doing something right that some people are willing to work 2 or 4 jobs just to stay on the island!

ebck120, I must admit that your astute observation is undisputedly correct. I have never heard a New Yorker refer to his town as "the world's greatest city" (undisputed, of course) or view the rest of the country (or even the rest of the city outside of Manhattan) as being provencial. Nobody in NYC ever thought those little town blues weren't melting away if they returned home from LA, Chgo, SF, DC, or Boston. In fact, I've never even seen a map of the US with a huge Manhattan and one or two dots to represent the rest of the country.

No, my experiences have always been that New York has been most humble in its relationships with the rest of the US, while Chicago remains totally arogant. Right on, ebck120; New Yorkers never obsess over New York.

^
What are you talking about? NYC is not just Manhattan. There are plenty of affordable areas in Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx and Staten Island.
Another thing, there are many people with money that do leave Manhattan for somewhere else. Judging from your post, you act like they don't.

i never stated that nyc was not affordable, i said thats what most of the people complain about, and i never said people never leave the city, i said SOME are willing to go beyond measures to stay on the island

ebck120, I must admit that your astute observation is undisputedly correct. I have never heard a New Yorker refer to his town as "the world's greatest city" (undisputed, of course) or view the rest of the country (or even the rest of the city outside of Manhattan) as being provencial. Nobody in NYC ever thought those little town blues weren't melting away if they returned home from LA, Chgo, SF, DC, or Boston. In fact, I've never even seen a map of the US with a huge Manhattan and one or two dots to represent the rest of the country.

No, my experiences have always been that New York has been most humble in its relationships with the rest of the US, while Chicago remains totally arogant. Right on, ebck120; New Yorkers never obsess over New York.

well put sarcastic statement

well put sarcastic statement

no doubt sarcastic.

let's face it, it would be hard to find too many people who are as obnoxious and self-focused on their cities as new york and chicago. these have always been cities filled with themselves, as well as having a rivalry going back and forth with comparisons for years.

that said, i'd be hard put to find any board on the internet that isn't generally in your face, partisan, and impolite. i guess that means that not only people from new york and chicago can get a little crazy regarding their home town, the rest of those cities out there do the same.

i don't know if this is a viable distinction here or not, but i generally try (and sometimes fail) to keep the partisan chicago crap for posting here, and not on the US or NYC boards. I figure I'm posting here mainly to share with other Chicagoans (although that's obviously not exclusively who's here).

as i said, ebck, i fully admit chicago's boastful side and how it is also a part of my personna. one of the things that fuels it, i have found, is that through business, i've been in contact with a lot of people from other places (nationally and internationally) who end up in chicago for business or pleasure....and it has been my experience (my overwhelming experience) that so many of these folks literally fall all over Chicago singing its praises and finding it an unbelievably great city (some of the biggest cheer leaders in this diaglouge has been from New Yorkers).

i never stated that nyc was not affordable, i said thats what most of the people complain about, and i never said people never leave the city, i said SOME are willing to go beyond measures to stay on the island

And? Im sure Tokyo, London, Paris, SF and Hong Kong have the same. Hell, even LA has those people. So what is your point? NYC isn't alone in what you just described.

Edsg, your observations are interesting.

I, myself, have faced the dilemma between Chicago and NYC. I am an urbanist, and NYC is an urbanist's wet dream--it's an amazing behemoth, hands down. But Chicago is such a loveable city (as well as very urban). But New York has such an obvious advantage in the NYC vs. Chicago comparisons that it's almost cheesy to take its side (just my opinion, of course..). Chicago has to create bold and beautiful things to attract the attention and importance that NYC inherently enjoys. That's what I love about Chicago, it's a city that fights tooth & nail for everything it has. Every corporate headquarters, every type of business/industry, trade show, and every new civic project. It wants the BEST in everything (although that doesn't always happen) to help attract visitors, residents, and businesses. New York does not have to work as hard as Chicago does to remain competitive. It's that never-ending spirit in Chicago that has created such a beautiful city, and the same spirit will ALWAYS drive it.

And that's why visitors and residents in Chicago so immediately feel welcome and fall in love. Chicago invites people to the city (although once people get here and live here for a while, they realize what I mean by "fighting tooth and nail"--just read the local news for a few months--but that's all under the skin) and entertains them. When you arrive in New York, the city feels as if you are very small and your presence or absence are of little consequence to the already great urban Goliath. Just my thoughts..

And? Im sure Tokyo, London, Paris, SF and Hong Kong have the same. Hell, even LA has those people. So what is your point? NYC isn't alone in what you just described.

oh come on! i thought we were comparing chicago and NYC here?
those two are not comparable in my honest opinion, two different levels, two different styles! it basically comes down to preference. i for one prefer new york, it just rings excitement and importance, i love it when the tourists from the middle of nowhere have that look of disgust on their face. i like the appeal of the city, i love the appeal of its people, just splurs fashion and creativity, i enjoy looking at its skyline from below, basically never ending tunnels of scrapers, and of course!!! in your face attitute where they dont care for tourists, if you are there visiting get your stuff together and do it, dont expect people to be all friendly, i like the fast pace and that people dont stop for anything, thats what i like about NYC, NYC IS NYC take it or GO !
from my observation i've met alot more rude people in chicago then anywhere else, talk about friendly i've never had to deal with such ignorant comments before, i remember a couple of times walking down belmont hearing stupid frat boys in pick up trucks drive by yelling gay comments, people randomly making asian comments to my friend, i feel people are just as rude if not worse, i've never dealt with such situations when i was nyc

...from my observation i've met alot more rude people in chicago then anywhere else, talk about friendly i've never had to deal with such ignorant comments before, i remember a couple of times walking down belmont hearing stupid frat boys in pick up trucks drive by yelling gay comments, people randomly making asian comments to my friend, i feel people are just as rude if not worse, i've never dealt with such situations when i was nyc

^Definitely something just as common in NYC. This so-called diverse Queens is where all of my cousins live. My uncles wear turbans (they are Sikhs) and they get pointed at and laughed at EVERY SINGLE DAY (and this is long before 9/11) by white youngsters in passing cars. I once wore a turban for a wedding in Queens (I normally don't wear one) and I cannot begin to tell you the difference in the way I was treated. People stared at me, pointed at me, and laughed at me. I heard some very rude and insulting comments ALL FUCKING DAY long (again, well before 9/11). NYC may be diverse but it is FAR from tolerant, so don't even begin your little drama about some ignorant teens yelling at you as some sort of midwestern-Chicago thing. It's not. Intolerance and ignorance is JUST as prevalent in New York City.

Forget about it.

^Definitely something just as common in NYC. This so-called diverse Queens is where all of my cousins live. My uncles wear turbans (they are Sikhs) and they get pointed at and laughed at EVERY SINGLE DAY (and this is long before 9/11) by white youngsters in passing cars. I once wore a turban for a wedding in Queens (I normally don't wear one) and I cannot begin to tell you the difference in the way I was treated. People stared at me, pointed at me, and laughed at me. I heard some very rude and insulting comments ALL FUCKING DAY long (again, well before 9/11). NYC may be diverse but it is FAR from tolerant, so don't even begin your little drama about some ignorant teens yelling at you as some sort of midwestern-Chicago thing. It's not. Intolerance and ignorance is JUST as prevalent in New York City.

Forget about it.

woops, i didnt mean to come off it as nyc didnt have any! i was saying it to show that it occurs in chicago where many say people are the friendliest

I see your point, Urban Politican, and totally agree that NY can achieve some things easily that Chgo really has to work for.

So let me try to put it this way and see if this makes sense to you. Let me know: take the most sophisticated people in Chicago and the suburbs, those with the income and the taste to enjoy the cultural, entertainment, and life style options that the city has to offer. I believe a very small, minute portion of this group would rather be in New York than in Chicago (unless, of course, it meant a significant rise in salary).

My point is: Chicagoans generally love being here. They find the city more than complete. They don't feel anything is lacking. Now I know someone could conceivably say the same thing living in Santa Barbara, Palm Beach, Princeton, any of a number of special places in this county to live. But Chicagoans are feeling it about being in a huge city offering the complete urban option.

So, yes, there are definitive advantages that NY has in attracting the top echolon of business and the arts. But this proves pretty irrelevant to Chicagoans who are plenty happy with the ammenities the city offers to them.

Also...and I would be interested in your input here...a lot of what is happening in Chicago's transformation has a long, long way to go. When i look at the critical mass that all this new downtown and surrounding areas residential construction is creating, I see a city that will be far more competitive with NY in ten years than it is now.

I see your point, Urban Politican, and totally agree that NY can achieve some things easily that Chgo really has to work for.

So let me try to put it this way and see if this makes sense to you. Let me know: take the most sophisticated people in Chicago and the suburbs, those with the income and the taste to enjoy the cultural, entertainment, and life style options that the city has to offer. I believe a very small, minute portion of this group would rather be in New York than in Chicago (unless, of course, it meant a significant rise in salary).

My point is: Chicagoans generally love being here. They find the city more than complete. They don't feel anything is lacking. Now I know someone could conceivably say the same thing living in Santa Barbara, Palm Beach, Princeton, any of a number of special places in this county to live. But Chicagoans are feeling it about being in a huge city offering the complete urban option.

So, yes, there are definitive advantages that NY has in attracting the top echolon of business and the arts. But this proves pretty irrelevant to Chicagoans who are plenty happy with the ammenities the city offers to them.

Also...and I would be interested in your input here...a lot of what is happening in Chicago's transformation has a long, long way to go. When i look at the critical mass that all this new downtown and surrounding areas residential construction is creating, I see a city that will be far more competitive with NY in ten years than it is now.

^absolutely agree. I could afford to live in NYC but I choose not to. Chicago offers an enormous platter of cultural, entertainment, and other opportunities that 99% of municipalities only dream of. I see no reason to go to New York, and so do great numbers of other wealthy people (as evidenced by the residential explosion downtown).

I also anticipate a sort-of "whole is greater than the sum of its parts" taking place downtown as the population approaches a critical mass. Even if the real estate market slows down, most experts believe that a genuine (not something flaky like the stock market) demand exists for downtown Chicago living, and that trend will continue. Surely downtown Chicago will approach a rennaissance in the next few decades and will be one of the world's greatest places (if it isn't close to being so already..)

The result on the cityscape? Real estate is king. High rise buildings rise everywhere, with no regard for the size of the site or how they relate to the city as a whole. Residential buildings soar to stack folks higher and higher with no regard for architecture. In fact, much of the new stuff is mundane, if not abysmal. Interiors obviously count a helluva lot more than exteriors, even in the most upscale projects. Meanwhile, nobody is putting up 3-4 story buildings that offer contrast and much needed breathing more; obviously the real estate is too expensive for that. So up and up it goes. It is often hard to tell what street you are on in much of Manhattan because of the way the buildings go upward shoulder to shoulder. The most crowded place on the continent, the one so berift of open space, save for the vast reaches of Central Park, becomes more and more dense.


The extreme high-rise urbanity described in the above paragraph is exactly why I like visiting NYC more than Chicago. I love Chicago but New York is America's ultimate urban experience. I love seeing NYC become more and more dense and I can't wait for Manhattan's skyline to spill over to the Brooklyn and Queens waterfront.

T


The extreme high-rise urbanity described in the above paragraph is exactly why I like visiting NYC more than Chicago. I love Chicago but New York is America's ultimate urban experience. I love seeing NYC become more and more dense and I can't wait for Manhattan's skyline to spill over to the Brooklyn and Queens waterfront.

And I don't blame you. It definitely can be one of the city's greatest qualities. But what if you take my supposition and carry it to the limit: what would the implication for life in Manhattan if it ever reached a point where it was virtually all high rise? To me, that would be a nightmere.

Now I know that it would take decades for even the possiblity of it happening and I don't expect Donald Trump to put up a 150 story building in the Village, but Manhattan cannot continue to build at the rate it is building without seriously altering quality of life issues (like the ability to see the sun and moon). Could you really live with a totally high rise Manhattan?????

And I don't blame you. It definitely can be one of the city's greatest qualities. But what if you take my supposition and carry it to the limit: what would the implication for life in Manhattan if it ever reached a point where it was virtually all high rise? To me, that would be a nightmere.

Now I know that it would take decades for even the possiblity of it happening and I don't expect Donald Trump to put up a 150 story building in the Village, but Manhattan cannot continue to build at the rate it is building without seriously altering quality of life issues (like the ability to see the sun and moon). Could you really live with a totally high rise Manhattan?????

^ One could argue the same thing about Chicago. Unless highrise construction expands outward further, ultimately downtown Chicago will be full of highrises. That's already an issue being faced by all three neighborhoods bordering the loop--rivernorth, west loop, and south loop (with LOTS of neighborhood opposition). Manhattan is already extremely dense, whereas downtown Chicago still has room to accommodate more--but the issue, eventually, will be the same..

^Yeah exactly.
River North, most of these were not here even from only a few years ago in River North now add TRump and Waterview within the next few years and all the other buildings proposed, approved, and sold with financing. Currently no less than 34 proposed 300 foot or higher, approved and sold with 10 additional under construction now - that is just today let alone what the future holds :
http://www.philipmalenfant.com/chi2112

Loop:
http://www.philipmalenfant.com/chi2111

River North and Loop:
http://www.philipmalenfant.com/chi2113

^ One could argue the same thing about Chicago. Unless highrise construction expands outward further, ultimately downtown Chicago will be full of highrises. That's already an issue being faced by all three neighborhoods bordering the loop--rivernorth, west loop, and south loop (with LOTS of neighborhood opposition). Manhattan is already extremely dense, whereas downtown Chicago still has room to accommodate more--but the issue, eventually, will be the same..

Actually, Urban Politician, I was thinking the same thing. However, I must say out of the three that you identify, the only one that truly disturbs me in the way it is redeveloping is River North. More specifically, the blocks immediately west of the Mag Mile (Rush, Wabash, State, Dearborn) that have been brutaized by bland high rises with massive base garages that are not an improvement of what stood there before. Rail land in the South Loop means little has been torn down and, of course, in that area Printers Row has been allowed to totally maintain its original look. The West Loop was a pretty scary place before redevelopment and quality older buildigs have been saved.

Still, Chicago maintains a more low rise look beyond downtown and the lakefront, far more than New York.

My hope (impractical or not): downtown Chicago keeps its "doughnut holes", be they the Gold Coast, certain portions of River North, Old Town, etc. that need to remain low rise, while pushing development into areas close to the Loop that have less character.

:yes:
http://www.philipmalenfant.com/chi2111

People-Chicago, pleasant and extremely polite.

NYC, unappologetic but helpfull and interesting.


City-Chicago, beatifully and thoughtfully planned and clean.

NYC-layers and layers of human stories, chaotic. More sense of place.

My hope (impractical or not): downtown Chicago keeps its "doughnut holes", be they the Gold Coast, certain portions of River North, Old Town, etc. that need to remain low rise, while pushing development into areas close to the Loop that have less character

NOOOOOOOO!!!!! I want to see Manhattan Madness infect Chicago!!! I want people that live downtown to look confused and delighted when they get a glimpse at sunlight!!

OK, here's an opinion from a foreigner.

I'd prefer to go on holiday to New York but I'd prefer to live in Chicago.

The person who posted first is spot on. Chicago is so easy to walk around, is cheaper to live in, has great museums etc. It feels accomodating. I loved the parks, the fantastic architecture and the lake aspect. Sears, Big John and Lakepoint. Marina City, Michigan Avenue. The CBOT and CME were great, as were LaSalle street and that skyscraper cathedral. The Illinois Centre was amazing as well and the public library was very helpful. Also, the International Youth hostel was very impressive. This city has Soul, with a capital S!

The civic pride in this city really blew me away!

I did find it quite dangerous walking to the Greyhound bus shelter but otherwise my stay in Chicago was great fun. NYC is bigger and better (for a short time) but overall, I'd prefer to live and bring up a family in Chicago.

This is based on 4 days in Chicago and 2 weeks in New York on holiday. Don't take this as a slant, New Yorkers, I was just very impressed with Chicago :)

Thanks dom! I think all of us here are quite pleased with our fair City :0 At any rate... I've got to agree with 007 on some level... I wouldn't mind a bit more density in Chicago (ala Manhattan)... yes, that includes the Gold Coast and River North.

threads like these are silly. yes we all have our subjective opinions about why we prefer little old chicago over the big N-Y-C, but on any objective level of urbanism and "city", chicago is far inferior.

chicago is a fantastic city and no one loves it more than myself, but it ain't no NYC. it just ain't.

NYC is on a whole different level, subjective opinions and preferences aside.

Good point Jive. With over 2.5 million people, Brooklyn alone is nearly the size of Chicago.

Good point Jive. With over 2.5 million people, Brooklyn alone is nearly the size of Chicago.

^ what a retarded and meaningless statement.

Anyway, I have to agree that I want more density to be built downtown. I agree that certain historic structures should be preserved, but I don't mind even a few ugly buildings if they add to the urban experience of Chicago. Especially needed are more retail options in River North outside of the Michigan Avenue spine. It's amazing how crowded Michigan Avenue is but once walk a few blocks away, you don't see that many people.

Another major thing that would help "expand" the feel of downtown Chicago is to built parkland over the Kennedy expressway linking the central and west loops. I'm sorry guys, but the west loop will never feel continuous with and part of downtown as long as that giant divider exists.

Finally, the south loop should go ALL out! Sure, preserve some old buildings, i.e. Printer's Row, but I think everything around Dearborn Park I and II should be high density (which appears to be part of the central area plan).

Last note--those lowrise rowhouses across Chicago Avenue from the Bernardin--housing shops, Seattle's Best Coffee, etc. LOVE THEM! One of the few remaining vestiges of old River North, yet VERY VERY engaging to the pedestrian. Are they under threat? Will they be protected? Does anybody know?

threads like these are silly. yes we all have our subjective opinions about why we prefer little old chicago over the big N-Y-C, but on any objective level of urbanism and "city", chicago is far inferior.

chicago is a fantastic city and no one loves it more than myself, but it ain't no NYC. it just ain't.

NYC is on a whole different level, subjective opinions and preferences aside.

Sharptent, I respectfully disagree. It really is nothing but opinions. And I do believe that if anyone posts on this board that, by its nature, you have to be thick skinned because your home town or favorite city will be slammed.

Your paradigm says that cities can truly be ranked as to the elusive quality of greatness. My paradigm says that such rankings only exist in our minds and are irrelevant in reality. Greatness is a matter of what you like as an individual.

To me, it all comes down to how thinks are stated. If someone from Buffalo were to explain his opinion is that Buffalo is a greater city than Chicago, I have no problem with it. It is strictly personal preference. If he says that Buffalo is the greatest city in the world, no arugment....now THAT i would have problems with.

Part of New York's need to be "The World's Greatest City" stems from a uniquely American form of hucksterism, partisanship, and cheerleading that much of the rest of the world mercifully does not have.

Another major thing that would help "expand" the feel of downtown Chicago is to built parkland over the Kennedy expressway linking the central and west loops. I'm sorry guys, but the west loop will never feel continuous with and part of downtown as long as that giant divider exists.

I'm all for capping the Kennedy, but is there any political support for this?

NOOOOOOOO!!!!! I want to see Manhattan Madness infect Chicago!!! I want people that live downtown to look confused and delighted when they get a glimpse at sunlight!!

I want to make sure I understand you 007Kid:

If the Gold Coast wasn't protected by land mark status, are you saying that you would be perfectly comfortable in tearing downt the brownstones and greystones and all the other gorgeous homes on Astor, State Pkway, Dearborn, etc., and replace them with high rises


????????????????????????

This from a hometown Chicagoan, someone who loves the city more than any other place on earth:

I used to fumble for reasons for Chicago's superiority over New York in the face of a seemingly unconquerable megalopolis. There are many, most of which have been mentioned here. Then I decided I didn't need no reasons. Chicago is a better city because that's where I grew up, and anyone who says otherwise is itching for a fight. New York's a nice town, sure, but it doesn't hold a candle to Montrose Harbor on a Saturday afternoon.

That being said: I am amazed that people are calling Chicago "clean" and "liveable" with no ceveats. Obviously, these people have not been to the South or West Sides. Chicago has enormous racial, social and economic problems (not to say political--we have a mayor-for-life who was the son of another mayor-for-life and the most notorious big-city American boss ever), and the bar scene on North Avenue, or wherever the hell it is, and the flowers on Michigan Avenue don't change that. Part of a love for Chicago--and this goes for New York, too--is a commitment to its betterment. When the 5500 block of South Ashland is as homey as the 4200 block of North California, and when the South Shore is as attractive an urban setting as Uptown, then Chicago will truly be a place we can be proud of without reservations.

In my opinion, anyone who gushes about either of these cities--or LA, or London, or pretty much any other major city in the world--without acknowledging their deep flaws is a victim of shallow puppy love.

Not to be harsh or anything.

Good point Jive. With over 2.5 million people, Brooklyn alone is nearly the size of Chicago.

^ what a retarded and meaningless statement.

I don't understand why that is a retarded and meaningless statement. It is not good, it is not bad. It is the truth. Why is it so retarded?

That being said: I am amazed that people are calling Chicago "clean" and "liveable" with no ceveats. Obviously, these people have not been to the South or West Sides. Chicago has enormous racial, social and economic problems (not to say political--we have a mayor-for-life who was the son of another mayor-for-life and the most notorious big-city American boss ever), and the bar scene on North Avenue, or wherever the hell it is, and the flowers on Michigan Avenue don't change that.

In my opinion, anyone who gushes about either of these cities--or LA, or London, or pretty much any other major city in the world--without acknowledging their deep flaws is a victim of shallow puppy love.

Not to be harsh or anything.

Your point is very well taken and sadly correct. But the truth of the matter is this: you have identified an unspoken reality of every city. It's always been there. It always will be there. But we CHOOSE not to discuss it. We mark off the areas of a city that we care to look at (its downtown, cool neighborhoods, etc.) and the rest just disappears from our minds and maps. We ignore the fact that Detroit has decent neighborhoods and that San Francisco has some that are awful so that we can identify the types of cities we want to travel to and live in and avoid the others like a plague. Cool vs. discarded.

Cabrini Green, right smack in the heart of a developer's dream, has gotten far more press than the much bigger and departed Taylor Homes, down the Dan Ryan where a lot of yuppies never see them. If that isn't about the 3 most important words in real estate, I don't know what is.

oshkeoto, it's just the nature of the game.

Cabrini Green, right smack in the heart of a developer's dream, has gotten far more press than the much bigger and departed Taylor Homes, down the Dan Ryan where a lot of yuppies never see them. If that isn't about the 3 most important words in real estate, I don't know what is.

Ya, I always wondered why Cabrini Green got all the press, When the Robert Taylor homes were some on the HUGEST project building I had EVER SEEN!!! I mean these things were HUGE, and stretch for miles down State Street and I know far more crime was going on there than in CG. But CG got all the press.

Now it makes sense. Since RT was on S. Side away from the yuppies they didnt get a hoot what happened there. CG was near north were all the action is so it took the heat. OHHH I GET IT !!! :bash:

Robert Taylor was the biggest housing project complex in the world when it was full. As a kid living on the South Side, I'd take the Jackson Park/Englewood train and see them extending for what looked like 20 minutes.

Sharptent, I respectfully disagree. It really is nothing but opinions. And I do believe that if anyone posts on this board that, by its nature, you have to be thick skinned because your home town or favorite city will be slammed.

Your paradigm says that cities can truly be ranked as to the elusive quality of greatness. My paradigm says that such rankings only exist in our minds and are irrelevant in reality. Greatness is a matter of what you like as an individual.

To me, it all comes down to how thinks are stated. If someone from Buffalo were to explain his opinion is that Buffalo is a greater city than Chicago, I have no problem with it. It is strictly personal preference. If he says that Buffalo is the greatest city in the world, no arugment....now THAT i would have problems with.

Part of New York's need to be "The World's Greatest City" stems from a uniquely American form of hucksterism, partisanship, and cheerleading that much of the rest of the world mercifully does not have.

i think that places can be objectively ranked with regards to levels of their urban development. things like pop. density, building density, pedestrian activity, public transit coverage and service frequency and efficiency, car ownership and usage rates, interconnectivity and pedestrian friendliness, etc. are all good indicators of how urban/unurban a place might be, and these are things that can be objectively measured. in the case of chicago and NYC, NYC just has so much more of what a truly urban city is. whether or not you or any other person prefers that is utterly irrelevant, NYC IS a more urban city than chicago in the same way that chicago is a more urban city than st. louis and st. louis is a more urban city than peoria and peoria is a more urban city than cairo, IL. people are free to prefer any of those places over the other ones, but on levels of urbanism, NYC is on a higher level than chicago. i would like to hear your argumnts if you disgree with that statement. remember, i'm talking purely about the level of urban development, NOT preferences, vibes, energy fields or any of that nonsense, just urbanism.

as i said before, i'm not talking about peoples' personal preferences, anyone can prefer anything over anything else, but on a more objective level, we can say that NYC is a significantly more urban city than chicago, and that's why i am making the case that it is on a different urban level than chicago. that doesn't mean that chicago is a bad city, just that it is a different city.

i think that places can be objectively ranked with regards to levels of their urban development. things like pop. density, building density, pedestrian activity, public transit coverage and service frequency and efficiency, car ownership and usage rates, interconnectivity and pedestrian friendliness, etc. are all good indicators of how urban/unurban a place might be, and these are things that can be objectively measured. in the case of chicago and NYC, NYC just has so much more of what a truly urban city is. whether or not you or any other person prefers that is utterly irrelevant, NYC IS a more urban city than chicago in the same way that chicago is a more urban city than st. louis and st. louis is a more urban city than peoria and peoria is a more urban city than cairo, IL. people are free to prefer any of those places over the other ones, but on levels of urbanism, NYC is on a higher level than chicago. i would like to hear your argumnts if you disgree with that statement. remember, i'm talking purely about the level of urban development, NOT preferences, vibes, energy fields or any of that nonsense, just urbanism.

as i said before, i'm not talking about peoples' personal preferences, anyone can prefer anything over anything else, but on a more objective level, we can say that NYC is a significantly more urban city than chicago, and that's why i am making the case that it is on a different urban level than chicago. that doesn't mean that chicago is a bad city, just that it is a different city.

I would agree with your point about density being an important factor that many people seek in a city. We also tend to look at population of being an issue as well. I believe that these are reflections of values (and certainly there is nothing wrong with valuing density). I'm not positive that either density or population give a full picture of any city.

There is no mystery in anyone's mind that US population centers will achieve tremendous growth over the rest of this century. There is even less mystery that urban areas in certain parts of the world, particularly in Asia, will grow at a much greater rate than ours.

Every projection made shows NYC sliding down the list of the world's most populous cities. I look at this as a bonus. My sense is that Asian urban growth will become unbearable in time (as Mexico City's is today) and that even American cities will have people asking "why in the hell are we living this way"

My guess: excessive density will not be looked at in such glowing terms in the not so distant future.

^ ok, but my contention is that NYC is a more urban city than chicago. do you disagree with that statement?

Your point is very well taken and sadly correct. But the truth of the matter is this: you have identified an unspoken reality of every city. It's always been there. It always will be there. But we CHOOSE not to discuss it. We mark off the areas of a city that we care to look at (its downtown, cool neighborhoods, etc.) and the rest just disappears from our minds and maps. We ignore the fact that Detroit has decent neighborhoods and that San Francisco has some that are awful so that we can identify the types of cities we want to travel to and live in and avoid the others like a plague. Cool vs. discarded.

oshkeoto, it's just the nature of the game.

Fine, but among people who consider themselves enlightened about urban issues, why are we comparing two cities without discussing this? We know Manhattan has more skyscrapers, we know all the population figures--by expanding the conversation, we might actually learn something, too.

Fine, but among people who consider themselves enlightened about urban issues, why are we comparing two cities without discussing this? We know Manhattan has more skyscrapers, we know all the population figures--by expanding the conversation, we might actually learn something, too.

You may have missed the point. I happen to be in complete agreement with you. My observations were more to highlight how Americans often look (or overlook) problems.

Fine, but among people who consider themselves enlightened about urban issues, why are we comparing two cities without discussing this? We know Manhattan has more skyscrapers, we know all the population figures--by expanding the conversation, we might actually learn something, too.


Amen, brother...completely and wholeheartedly agree. I like you. :)

The funny thing about midwesterners is that they have no sense of geography any place east of Detroit. I am living in Chicago and when I say I am going to visit my family in Buffalo they ivariably ask something like this. "Oh that should be fun are you going into the City?" And then I say with slight confusion " well... my family lives in the city so.... ah yes." and then they say "I thought your family lived in Buffalo." It turns out they think that anything in NYS is next to NYC. As if Buffalo was Yonkers or Newark. Then I have to tell them that Buffalo is about the same distance from Chicago as it is to NY so I don't think I will have the time or money to go into the City" and then they walk away with a very disbelieving look.

The funny thing about midwesterners is that they have no sense of geography any place east of Detroit. I am living in Chicago and when I say I am going to visit my family in Buffalo they ivariably ask something like this. "Oh that should be fun are you going into the City?" And then I say with slight confusion " well... my family lives in the city so.... ah yes." and then they say "I thought your family lived in Buffalo." It turns out they think that anything in NYS is next to NYC. As if Buffalo was Yonkers or Newark. Then I have to tell them that Buffalo is about the same distance from Chicago as it is to NY so I don't think I will have the time or money to go into the City" and then they walk away with a very disbelieving look.

Are you telling me that Niagara Falls is not between Yonkers and Scarsdale, like I thought?

Maybe we are geographically challenged, but then it could be worse. We could be living in Manhattan and not be able to distinguish between the locations of Jersey City and Fresno. Hey, they're both somewhere out there, across the Hudson. Assuming there is something across the Hudson.

Huge difference between Chicago and New York is that Chicago is the murder capital of the US and New York is the safest LARGE city in the US. . There is no excuse for a city with 3 million people yet has more murders than NYC with a population 3 times the size. Also, there is no multiculturalism in Chicago. It was probably the most segregated city I've been to. Not to mention it doesn't have the array of immigration groups that any Western city that is DOMINANT is supposed to have. There's more cultures and races of people even in Philly. It doesn't help that the the "good" parts of the city is so gentrified, not like NYC has. Also Chicago practically shuts down after 8pm. It doesn't have the nightlife that a city should have. It's basically a fly-over city. It hasn't had any impact on American culture, pop and otherwise for the past 60 to 70 years. There's Oprah and that's it. It doesn't hold a candle to NYC, and that's not hype or "self promoting"

^ that's quite a loaded attack.

I don't have the energy to bother with this retard

^gramnegative, Sorry to hear about the misfortune of your failed brain transplant. It can be so difficult transplanting the brain of an ignoramous into what might have been a perfectly normal person.

Huge difference between Chicago and New York is that Chicago is the murder capital of the US and New York is the safest LARGE city in the US. . There is no excuse for a city with 3 million people yet has more murders than NYC with a population 3 times the size. Also, there is no multiculturalism in Chicago. It was probably the most segregated city I've been to. Not to mention it doesn't have the array of immigration groups that any Western city that is DOMINANT is supposed to have. There's more cultures and races of people even in Philly. It doesn't help that the the "good" parts of the city is so gentrified, not like NYC has. Also Chicago practically shuts down after 8pm. It doesn't have the nightlife that a city should have. It's basically a fly-over city. It hasn't had any impact on American culture, pop and otherwise for the past 60 to 70 years. There's Oprah and that's it. It doesn't hold a candle to NYC, and that's not hype or "self promoting"

well, shuckz, we folks in cHicago is just stuck with our little ol' segregated and muderitourious city. Reckon I does'nt get that, what you call it, multy-kultism stuff, but I think you mean forneers. Well, we gots forneers!!!!! Old Ricardo, down there on Taylor street, he makes pizza pies for us at the Rosebud Pizza Palace so i reckon he makes up multy-kultril, write? His mommy was born in itallie. I believe dat there Mothers Tavern over Rush and Division wayz stays open till 'bout 8:30, lest on Thur nights, so there goes that one, I spose. I jus guess we all will have to be contenting having ol' Oprah, here since we kant hold no candle to dem big cities out east like New York and Philly.

and we'd like to thank you right kindly there, grandnegative, for y'all pointing out all them there faults of ours.

whatz dat gentree-kashun stuff you talked on? That is one high fullooting word. I think Aunt Dolly Mae has her gentre-kashun drained when she had the gout down there at ol' Kook Kounty Hosptall.

Y'all catch a view of those two damned big corn stalks we grew out there along the river? Darned things grew so tall, we started callin' Marina City.

You have a great day dere, grandnegative, and comes back and visits us reeeeeel soon.

^gramnegative, Sorry to hear about the misfortune of your failed brain transplant. It can be so difficult transplanting the brain of an ignoramous into what might have been a perfectly normal person.

HAHA. I think that was the most effective rebuttal I've ever seen.

and gramnegative needs to do something other than categorically assess a city. (not that we don't... but atleast don't do it in a forum DEDICATED to the city.)

Gramnegative, that was the most time spent on bullshit I've seen thus far. Congrats.

I was also a little disappointed by Chicago's nightlife...Maybe I didnt know where to look.

NYC is a 24hr population.

NYC goes to sleep around 3 AM. No city is truly 24 hour.

Literally yes, no city is 24 hrs, but NYC is the closest you will find in NA.

I was also a little disappointed by Chicago's nightlife...Maybe I didnt know where to look.

NYC is a 24hr population.

Hmmmm.....a metropolitan area of nearly 10 million and weak nightlife? Okay... :lol:

How can you say NYC is not a 24 hour city? The subways run all night, the streets of the E. Village and Chelsea are busy all night, most delis are open 24 hours. My gym is open 24 hours a day, etc...

Huge difference between Chicago and New York is that Chicago is the murder capital of the US and New York is the safest LARGE city in the US. . There is no excuse for a city with 3 million people yet has more murders than NYC with a population 3 times the size. Also, there is no multiculturalism in Chicago. It was probably the most segregated city I've been to. Not to mention it doesn't have the array of immigration groups that any Western city that is DOMINANT is supposed to have. There's more cultures and races of people even in Philly. It doesn't help that the the "good" parts of the city is so gentrified, not like NYC has. Also Chicago practically shuts down after 8pm. It doesn't have the nightlife that a city should have. It's basically a fly-over city. It hasn't had any impact on American culture, pop and otherwise for the past 60 to 70 years. There's Oprah and that's it. It doesn't hold a candle to NYC, and that's not hype or "self promoting"

Right on GRAMNEGATIVE. There are only two real cities for real nightlife. NY and LA. Maybe Chicago was hip to my grandparents.

Hmmmm.....a metropolitan area of nearly 10 million and weak nightlife? Okay...

I know, thats why I was disappointed.

The hotel concierge and even waitress' pointed me towards a couple areas but all I found was some local pubs, college and sports type bars. There were a couple "wanna be shooter" lounges, but were exactly that.

Like I said...I probably had no idea where to go.

How can you say NYC is not a 24 hour city? The subways run all night, the streets of the E. Village and Chelsea are busy all night, most delis are open 24 hours. My gym is open 24 hours a day, etc...


Thats just the reason. The term "24 hour city" evokes images of streetlife and amentieis at an intensity close to the daytime in all areas. Its misleading.

Wicker Park in Chicago rivals any nightlife I've seen. Too bad tourists never visit, even with its own movie.

Silverlake is Gramnegative.

I know, thats why I was disappointed.

The hotel concierge and even waitress' pointed me towards a couple areas but all I found was some local pubs, college and sports type bars. There were a couple "wanna be shooter" lounges, but were exactly that.

Like I said...I probably had no idea where to go.


I could not get to the nightlife in LA becasue I did not have a car.

Right on GRAMNEGATIVE. There are only two real cities for real nightlife. NY and LA. Maybe Chicago was hip to my grandparents.

LA nightlife isn't all that. Clubs close at 2:30 adn 24 hour options are quite limited.

I know, thats why I was disappointed.

The hotel concierge and even waitress' pointed me towards a couple areas but all I found was some local pubs, college and sports type bars. There were a couple "wanna be shooter" lounges, but were exactly that.

Like I said...I probably had no idea where to go.

If that's all you found you were not looking very hard.

Silverlake is Gramnegative.

Or maybe they are just two damnable fools.

Silverlake, you realize that clubs in Chicago by law serve liquor later than LA, so you guys can be considered flyover country now.

LA nightlife is comparable to Chicago, not to NYC or Miami Beach. NYC has that combo of accessiblity and services that LA lacks, and Chicago has in smaller quantities.

Nightlife includes:

Food
Clubs
Transit
Jobs
Services

Speaking of, Miami Beach is probably the only city with a volume of people at night that match the daytime, then again, Miami Beach is only home to less than 100,000 people.

Buffalo, NY has later liquor serving laws as well.

But what are the areas I shouldve been in?

But what are the areas I shouldve been in?

Depends on what you like. Black, white, hispanic mixed, house, rap, reggae, etc....

so you need to go to different neighbourhoods for these?

so you need to go to different neighbourhoods for these?

Not neccessarily but you do have to go to different establishments. Of course, the nightlife is scattered through various neighborhoods. Some have higher concentrations than others.

People who don't think Chicago has awesome night life really don't know where they're going. You don't go to Bridgeport for some raging clubbing.

^ and especially not the Loop

People who don't think Chicago has awesome night life really don't know where they're going. You don't go to Bridgeport for some raging clubbing.

Agreed.

so you need to go to different neighbourhoods for these?

Are you asking this because your city has only one neighborhood with nightlife?

^ and especially not the Loop

The Loop has a smattering of clubs, especially over by Franklin.

Are you asking this because your city has only one neighborhood with nightlife?

Just thought there's a district w/ a bunch of things to do...most cities do.

I dont like to cross town for places to go, rather be in one area and pick and choose to my liking.

Just thought there's a district w/ a bunch of things to do...most cities do.

I dont like to cross town for places to go, rather be in one area and pick and choose to my liking.

So you are asking because where you are from there is maybe just one street with some bars and restaurants instead of maybe a few hundred streets and neighborhoods with high concentrations of activity such as in Chicago and it is incovienient for you to have to choose because you are used to not having to. Is that a correct understanding?

Just thought there's a district w/ a bunch of things to do...most cities do.

I dont like to cross town for places to go, rather be in one area and pick and choose to my liking.

There are several neighborhoods with a "bunch of things to do".

Maybe he means a diverse neighborhood, with nightlife as diverse, which subsequently doesn't exist in the US. Toronto has one though.

How can you say NYC is not a 24 hour city? The subways run all night, the streets of the E. Village and Chelsea are busy all night, most delis are open 24 hours. My gym is open 24 hours a day, etc...

^I partied my ass off in Chicago. In Chicago, people don't even show up to clubs until 1 am, and numerous clubs are open till 6 am. I recall spending several boring nights in midtown Manhattan with blocks and blocks and blocks of closed restaurants and storefronts at midnight. And by the way, Chicago's 2 largest 'L lines run 24 hours as well.
New York is not more awake at night than Chicago. And those of you who think so have just not been to the right areas or clubs, just like my being in Midtown Manhattan incorrectly tainted my opinion of NYC's nightlife.

Just plain wrong

Like I said...I probably had no idea where to go.

Exactly.

Chicago's nightlife is humungous and varied. I partied every friggin night in Chicago at various clubs all over the city and was up till 4-5 am, then would eat burritos, etc and late night restaurants.

Man, Simadon, what the hell are you TALKING about? You really have no idea what you missed. Next time you visit Chicago, stay with someone who knows the city

NYC is more alive at night than Chicago. NY has about 15 lines running 24 hours and they are pretty lively, although not like it is in the day. And BTW, you're starting to get on my nerves.

^goonsta, I hope you weren't addressing that to me.

I have supported you and your picture taking for a long time.

But if you have to make statements like that, then be ready to back it up

Either way, at least Daley understands the importance of nightlife. He even stated in an interview that he realizes the importance of nightclubs and bars in attracting young professionals to town. He has always maintained a goal of keeping Chicago a 24/7 city, and I think he is definitely successful.

I realize that there are parts of Manhattan that are crowded with people trying to get into clubs at all hours of the night. But in my point of view, just because Chicago's nightlife isn't as blatant doesn't mean it is not very vital and full of life!

Perhaps my own experiences have been different. But during the short time I lived in Chicago, I was thrilled with its nightlife and I loved the fact that so many places were open so late, and the fact that one could party till the crack of dawn if he liked. Some Chicagoans, when constantly comparing themselves to NYC, don't realize how good they have it. I live in DC and have lived in Philadelphia--in both cities you can't buy alcohol after 9-10 pm, and ALL clubs, by LAW, close at 2 am. Imagine that.

Chicago doesn't even come close to having those limitations. It is a full-blown party city and it shows.

Here's a cool experience I had in the city. One night I was partying at a club with 2 friends. We left the club at around 3:30 in the morning and, as usual around River North, it was crowded with young partiers. We drove (sorry guys--I usually used to cab it) to the Northwest side, near where my friend lived, and decided to stop and walk along Lawrence Avenue to find another club. We saw a storefront with its lights on and peered inside. We were blown away! At 4 am, it was a large hall full of middle-aged men wearing ties and shirts, sitting at tables, along with some waitresses. They were all Arab or Persian. At the front of the room was a beautiful Middle Eastern woman with a microphone singing in Arabic. We immediately left, but a few people called us to stay. Either way, we left and decided to crash.

Chicago is a big city and is full of various things like this. That's what makes it so fun and interesting--there are tons of things going on, but it is not so blatantly obvious as it is in a supercrowded place like Manhattan.

Those are my 2 cents. Agree or not, I can only speak from my experiences

Exactly.

Chicago's nightlife is humungous and varied. I partied every friggin night in Chicago at various clubs all over the city and was up till 4-5 am, then would eat burritos, etc and late night restaurants.



Hell yeah! I feel ya' on this!

Taqueria Michoacan at the Sheridan El stop. I used burritos from that place to soak up the liquor from Nick's Uptown that had somehow collected in my liver. At 4:00 a.m. to boot.

Who cares what city has the most exciting nightlife. who cares if dc and philly close after 2 am. Until then we still know how to party!!!

Why do you feel the need to bring dead threads back to life?

Hell yeah! I feel ya' on this!
Oh man! I used to hit Division until midnight, Green st. until 3 or 4 then go to Garcias on Lawrence and Western in Lincoln Sqr. for burritos as big as your head around 5 am.! This was from 1990- 1998. I used to go teach Jr. High school kids half lit! Now I'm married so it has become a biweekly event.
http://www.zentranightclub.com/photos/2004/12/11/photos/012.jpg
http://www.w36.com/inactive/dragonroom/pix/people2.jpg

^I partied my ass off in Chicago. In Chicago, people don't even show up to clubs until 1 am, and numerous clubs are open till 6 am. I recall spending several boring nights in midtown Manhattan with blocks and blocks and blocks of closed restaurants and storefronts at midnight. And by the way, Chicago's 2 largest 'L lines run 24 hours as well.
New York is not more awake at night than Chicago. And those of you who think so have just not been to the right areas or clubs, just like my being in Midtown Manhattan incorrectly tainted my opinion of NYC's nightlife.

Just plain wrong

man I could have told you there were some garbage a** clubs in midtown...
i've never been to chi, but the system here is always running...not all of the lines or buses are 24 hrs..but still quite a few run (hell even the lirr has late nite service)

but on a side note


I would really like to visit chicago and see the whole city, most of my life I've only been around citys where I live (ny) and traveled to cities where I've had family (boston, Miami), and chicago seems like a very interesting place. I feel that i'll really enjoy my trip whenever I get to go out there, I have alittle change and i've been debating going out there on one of my breaks (maybe spring break)....i'll be broke as f*ck, but i'm already broke as it is..and you only live once...so If I can get out there I will....

i'm not really into comparing cities or anything...but its interesting to read the threads you guys create

In defense of Philly, even though the clubs close relatively early, there are plenty of after-hours speakeasies nestled in obscure locations throughout the city. I've been to a few there-- serving until 6 or 7am. Right over the bridge in Jersey, clubs stay open later, I think until 4:00.

New York is not more awake at night than Chicago.
^Whatever you say. I don't think the majority would agree with you on that. New York is more awake than every city in this country by default just because there are so many fucking people in such a compact area. They don't call it "The City that Never Sleeps" for nothing.

In defense of Philly, even though the clubs close relatively early, there are plenty of after-hours speakeasies nestled in obscure locations throughout the city. I've been to a few there-- serving until 6 or 7am. Right over the bridge in Jersey, clubs stay open later, I think until 4:00.


^Whatever you say. I don't think the majority would agree with you on that. New York is more awake than every city in this country by default just because there are so many fucking people in such a compact area. They don't call it "The City that Never Sleeps" for nothing.

^Just because people are densely packed together doesn't mean it's any more awake at night. Chicago has plenty of clubs open till the crack of dawn. Chicago also never sleeps, although some of the new yuppie NIMBY's are trying to change that. If it makes you happy, though, I'll concede that New York has more things to do at 4 am, just like at 4 pm.....and 6pm.....and 10 pm.......get the trend?

On the subject of not experiencing the whole of New York, but rather just Manhattan:

I've been to New York many times, but I've only left Manhattan once (trips to the airports notwithstanding). I'm sure this will change eventually, as I'm moving there in June. But this isn't uncommon - I doubt most Manhattanites leave the island regularly, either.

And that brings me to this conclusion: While New York may have many areas that offer the neighborhood feel of Chicago - not quiet and boring, but rather lively, full of activity, but still on a somewhat smaller, more human scale - they're not as accessible as they are in Chicago. One can easily live or work (or both) in the downtown area of Chicago, which itself is quite large and offers just about anything anyone would ever need in life, and get to the neighborhoods with a short $10 cab ride or a few stops on the L. This isn't the case in New York. Places like Lakeview or Wicker Park or Lincoln Park are perhaps comparable, in a lot of ways, to the more gentrified parts of Brooklyn. But it's a hell of a lot easier to get from the Loop to those neighborhoods than it is to get from Midtown to Brooklyn.

New York is a much larger city, and thus logically has somewhat more of everything to offer. But I don't think New York really has anything Chicago just plain doesn't have. It's just that, if Chicago has 3 of something (speaking in the abstract here), New York has 5 or 6 or 7 of that something. But Chicago also allows one to more easily experience each of those things on a regular basis, because they're closer together and more accessible. Sometimes less is more.

For instance, I was talking to a friend of mine from Connecticut (wealthy NY suburbs), who said that she loves Chicago (she's been going to school in Wisconsin for 4 years, so she's bound to... it's the only place that resembles home), but she could never live in the Midwest because she needs to be near the ocean. Then I asked her how many times she makes it to the beach each summer now that she lives in New York. Her answer was "once or twice". Living in Lincoln Park, I go every weekend. Yeah, it's a lake, but who cares. It's still sun, sand, volleyball, drinks with little umbrellas in them and a place to cool off in the water.

Chicagoans see their city as a whole moreso than New Yorkers of Angelenos because the way that Chicago is set up makes it much easier to do so, and I think that's a good thing, not a bad thing.

Right over the bridge in Jersey, clubs stay open later, I think until 4:00.

Everything in Jerz shuts down at 2. Private members-only clubs are open later.



And to the gentleman that said NYC is a sleepy town b/c he saw restaurants in Midtown closed at midnight, that's because you were in Midtown.

I think Chi-town hit the nail on the head, especially with the last two paragraphs.

Chi-town,

I couldn't agree with you more.

In Chicago, the North, South, and West sides seamlessly flow into downtown; they are fully a part of the city.

In New York, water separates the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and more than all, Staten Island, In New York, Manhattan is considered "The City".

Chicago is a huge city as compared to any other cities in the United States. EXCEPT when compared to New York City. Chicago's entire downtown is only comparable to New York's downtown area below Chinatown and Tribeca. They are simply apples and oranges to compare.

Chicago can be fairly compared to Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Houston, and San Francisco. New York is in an entirely different league than Chicago.

^Well, if you're talking about the size of a downtown and/or its skyline, Chicago is clearly ahead of all of those cities, and New York is clearly ahead of Chicago on the whole. Downtown Chicago in size is about halfway between Lower Manhattan and Midtown Manhattan.

It's still sun, sand, volleyball, drinks with little umbrellas in them and a place to cool off in the water.

You forgot the women...in tight swimsuits. Surely the best feature of any beach, unless there's an overabundance of fatties.

Oi! To compare Chicago's CBD with Philly, SFO, LA, etc. is just ludicrous. Haven't we already been over this? Chicago is not NY... and nobody else is Chicago.

Chicago is a huge city as compared to any other cities in the United States. EXCEPT when compared to New York City. Chicago's entire downtown is only comparable to New York's downtown area below Chinatown and Tribeca. They are simply apples and oranges to compare.

Chicago can be fairly compared to Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Houston, and San Francisco. New York is in an entirely different league than Chicago.

actually downtown Chicago is huge compared to lower Manhattan. There is literally no comparison.

I see nothing wrong with you thinking New York is in another league than Chicago. I think it's anything but and my opinion is no more likely to change their yours is. Although I do find New York to be a nice town.

Chi-town,

I couldn't agree with you more.

In Chicago, the North, South, and West sides seamlessly flow into downtown; they are fully a part of the city.

In New York, water separates the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and more than all, Staten Island, In New York, Manhattan is considered "The City".

i agree with you, and admit it is true most people consider manhattan "the city". This is only a label, while very dense and completely urban are brooklyn, the bronx, most of queens. You could say people from Long Island, Connecticut and Northern Jersey, even parts of west chester would not limit the title "City" To Manhattan alone.
There are many venues in brooklyn, and brooklyn offers fine dining, and it's own attractions that could stack up to manhattan. I can't say the same for the bronx, or even Queens,though i am from Brooklyn, and to me it is every much part of New York City than Battery Park City, or The Upper East Side.
To people in westchester, who want a night out on the town, jimmys bronx cafe is the place for them, i haver been to jimmy's bronx cafe, now Xbar, Gigantic Nite Club in the bronx by the B.C.C, lot's of people are mostly from The Bronx, but you get equally the same amount of people from WestChester, Yonkers, Rockland.
For people in Long Island, the hot spots in brooklyn is it, this goes for people in Staten Island who are a short trip over the Verrezanno Bridge. Coney Island is packed in the summer. There are huge shopping strips in Brooklyn and Queens. So i wouldn't exactly limit the title "CITY" to Manhattan and cancel out the other boroughs, while it is true Manhattan has no limit to the imagination on what you can spend your time doing, it offers far more attractions than the outter boroughs, i would say it is the Center of the City, and though seperated by water from the other boroughs, does not take away from their urban charm.
Just my opinion. Hope i didn't take it too far out of text. Enjoy your thread.

Every part of New york city (brooklyn, queens, staten island, bronx) is exciting to me

I'm pretty sure most people who have been to both NY and Chicago would consider NYC to be on a completely different level. Chicago is head and shoulders above most other cities, but New York is head and shoulders above everything, not just in quantity, but also when it comes to all the qualities that make a place diverse and exciting. It is a caricature of urban life.

"New York is head and shoulders above everything, not just in quantity, but also when it comes to all the qualities that make a place diverse and exciting. It is a caricature of urban life."

I'll give you the quantities, but I really think you're on a New York kick when you say it's way beyond anything else in terms of quality. If you think the higher the density, the higher the quality, I'll disagree with the premise but agree with the conclusion; but other than that, what do you base that on?

I didn't mean NYC beats everything in quality. I think there are many things about many cities that can stand up to New York. What I meant is that New York obliterates any other city when it comes to urban qualities-- diversity, density, buzz, media, indulgence, extremes, international influence, etc. So I meant exactly what I said-- that New York beats everything when it comes to not only quantity, but also in all the qualities that make a place diverse and exciting. I wasn't talking about restaurants or parks or architecture or shopping. I was talking in general about the intangibles that comprise the city's one-of-a-kind atmosphere.

I'm pretty sure most people who have been to both NY and Chicago would consider NYC to be on a completely different level. Chicago is head and shoulders above most other cities, but New York is head and shoulders above everything, not just in quantity, but also when it comes to all the qualities that make a place diverse and exciting. It is a caricature of urban life.


Well put, I couldn't agree more. As great as Chicago is, whenever I spend time in Manhattan, I feel like Chicago is a small town in Iowa. (But, then I go to a city with a metro of... say, one or two million, and I am truly thankful of just how large Chicago is.)

Just thought there's a district w/ a bunch of things to do...most cities do.

I dont like to cross town for places to go, rather be in one area and pick and choose to my liking.
Try Rivernorth, the Rush/State triangle, West Loop, Lincoln Park, Wrigleyville, Wicker Park/Bucktown... shall I go on?

Chicago is a huge city as compared to any other cities in the United States. EXCEPT when compared to New York City. Chicago's entire downtown is only comparable to New York's downtown area below Chinatown and Tribeca. They are simply apples and oranges to compare.

In physical size, yes. But there's a hell of a lot more to do in Chicago's downtown than there is in Manhattan below Chinatown and Tribeca. It's more like taking Midtown, and compressing it to a slightly smaller size.

"What I meant is that New York obliterates any other city when it comes to urban qualities-- diversity, density, buzz, media, indulgence, extremes, international influence, etc. "

Again, I'll give you that it beats out any other American city at density, though at the same time I'd question whether greater density automatically equals greater urbanity.

But on diversity--it's certainly arguable that New York is more diverse than Chicago, but it's simply not reasonable to say that it obliterates Chicago on diversity. And the rest--whoever said "indulgence" was an urban quality? Whoever said media and international influence were necessary for real cities? I've been to the Lower East Side of Manhattan, and it was great, but I didn't walk past a Jewish deli and think, "Mm, smell that media presence."

There are debates in which those things are relevant; but "urban-ness" is not one of them.

^The more you challenge the points I make about NY being supreme, the deeper in denial you appear.

Come on, we're not talking about Chicago vs. Phoenix or even Chicago vs. Toronto. We're talking about New York. There aren't many people who would argue that Chicago has anything on New York.

Don't be offended either, I never ever slighted Chicago in this thread. It beats most other cities. New York ain't one of 'em though.

Tourism is one thing, living in that same city is completely different. I didn't say most people don't like NYC, although there alot who don't. I said most people don't like grit and grime in general.

I don't feel like I'm in an urban enviornment if I don't see a little grit.

Well put, I couldn't agree more. As great as Chicago is, whenever I spend time in Manhattan, I feel like Chicago is a small town in Iowa. (But, then I go to a city with a metro of... say, one or two million, and I am truly thankful of just how large Chicago is.)

I'd say a lot of people have a similiar reaction to yours, InTheLoop. And I do realize you are talking about size and not greatness. But as far as a "major" feel, I have (ironically?) come back from trips to NYC to Chicago feeling I was in a much classier city. NY is so much about size and power that often they will put up any piece of shit, as long as its tall shit, in the heart of Manhattan. There are so many structures in NY that you'd never see in Chicago. And the density that the city has (high and midrise buildings dominate much of the landscape from Central Pk to the Battery) can give an opressive feel that Chicago just doesn't have. I think NY is great, but I honstly believe that Chicago is much more the type of sane setting I'd personally rather have for a major city. Personal preference, I suppose, but to me Chicago is designed to work better than NY.

"There aren't many people who would argue that Chicago has anything on New York. "

That just isn't true. You look at the pan-American versus threads and there are plenty of people who prefer Chicago--or San Francisco, or Boston, or for that matter LA--to New York, and there are legitimate reasons for all of those. For the vast majority of us, media presence or Fortune 500 companies and all of that really don't affect our daily lives, and if Chicago has only 150 theater options for me on a Friday night instead of New York's 400, or whatever it is, what does that matter? In Chicago I can probably actually afford to go to some of those.

New York is not the be-all-end-all of urbanism. It's the biggest and densest in America; great. But that does not not make it some kind of untouchable metropolis on the human scale.

^The more you challenge the points I make about NY being supreme, the deeper in denial you appear.

Come on, we're not talking about Chicago vs. Phoenix or even Chicago vs. Toronto. We're talking about New York. There aren't many people who would argue that Chicago has anything on New York.

Don't be offended either, I never ever slighted Chicago in this thread. It beats most other cities. New York ain't one of 'em though.

^I don't argue that NY isn't supreme. It is. But Chicago is a full, complete city that has everything that an international crowd would ever need, and that alone makes it stand out. New York has all of that in enormous abundance, but Chicago holds its own...

^I never, ever suggested otherwise. But a statement like this one...
"But as far as a "major" feel, I have (ironically?) come back from trips to NYC to Chicago feeling I was in a much classier city"
...is an example of why a few of us think some of you Chicagoans were dropped on your heads.

There's a certain point where hometown pride gives way to absurdity, and I'm sorry, that comment crossed the line.

Oh god that didn't last long.

^I never, ever suggested otherwise. But a statement like this one...

...is an example of why a few of us think some of you Chicagoans were dropped on your heads.

There's a certain point where hometown pride gives way to absurdity, and I'm sorry, that comment crossed the line.

^but Jive, I still don't see what is wrong with that statement by Edsg. Since when did "bigger" and "more important" equate to being more classy? In some ways, Chicago may be a more classy town, even if it's not as big.

We can just agree to disagree on this one. In my opinion, that suggestion is absolutely foolish.

btw, I think edsg is a genuinely great guy with a very profound love for his city. I admire and respect that. But it's really no different than someone from Atlanta coming here and saying that Atlanta feels classier than Chicago. You may sincerely think that, but you're gonna lose some people with comments like that.

^The more you challenge the points I make about NY being supreme, the deeper in denial you appear.

Come on, we're not talking about Chicago vs. Phoenix or even Chicago vs. Toronto. We're talking about New York. There aren't many people who would argue that Chicago has anything on New York.

Don't be offended either, I never ever slighted Chicago in this thread. It beats most other cities. New York ain't one of 'em though.

Well, I will argue that Chicago's urban waterfront easily beats New York's. This is because Chicago is oriented toward the water while Manhattan is oriented inland (think Broadway, Fifth Avenue, Central Park).

We can just agree to disagree on this one. In my opinion, that suggestion is absolutely foolish.

btw, I think edsg is a genuinely great guy with a very profound love for his city. I admire and respect that. But it's really no different than someone from Atlanta coming here and saying that Atlanta feels classier than Chicago. You may sincerely think that, but you're gonna lose some people with comments like that.

Fine. Then using your logic, Chicago is more classy than St Louis.

I guess classy means bigger.

Whatever

Who said classy means bigger? You did. Now you're stretching. I assume you think Chicago is classier than New York too?

okeeeeeee...

Oh man...

^It never ends year after year.

from mid-spring through mid-fall, there is a special lakefront culture in Chicago that is incomparable to anything in New York. That incredible urban strip behind the wide, endless lake, with its beaches, parks, harbors, high rises, and charming neighborhoods (residential and commercial) behind.

This is urban class without peer, with a wonderful mix of high rise and far more quality lower density construction. It's one of those special places that reminds me that cities like Chicago (or San Francisco) do not have to fill up every space with high rise and mid rise buildings, that human scale is still important, that density is important but does not rule how you define your environment, that saying "NO!" to developers can often make your city a better place.

I'd say a city that is more interested in the quality of construction than it is in its sheer height and bulk is a sign of true class.

from mid-spring through mid-fall, there is a special lakefront culture in Chicago that is incomparable to anything in New York. That incredible urban strip behind the wide, endless lake, with its beaches, parks, harbors, high rises, and charming neighborhoods (residential and commercial) behind.

This is urban class without peer, with a wonderful mix of high rise and far more quality lower density construction. It's one of those special places that reminds me that cities like Chicago (or San Francisco) do not have to fill up every space with high rise and mid rise buildings, that human scale is still important, that density is important but does not rule how you define your environment, that saying "NO!" to developers can often make your city a better place.

I'd say a city that is more interested in the quality of construction than it is in its sheer height and bulk is a sign of true class.

Edsg, I totally agree with you about the Lakerfront, it is the best watefront I have ever seen and NY really has nothing like it. I disagree with you, however, that Chicago has a higher quality built enviroment than NY, if that is what you are trying to say. A much higher percentage of the land area of the Chicago city proper consists of blight, decay, poverty, warehouses, and industry than compared to the Five Boroughs. Yes, downtown Chicago, the North Side, Hyde Park and the Lakerfront are magnifacent, but, beyond those areas, it is a completely different story.

edsg-- what you're describing is not class, it's aesthetics. And in that case, I agree with you. I think Chicago is one of the best examples of practical, aesthetically-pleasing urban design, especially downtown and areas north. The juxtaposition of the city and the waterfront is unparalleled in this country IMO. "Class" is a different animal entirely.

"Yes, downtown Chicago, the North Side, Hyde Park and the Lakerfront are magnifacent, but, beyond those areas, it is a completely different story."

Come now. Let's not pretend that everything outside of those neighborhoods is empty fields and crumbling public housing. Up and down the lakefront--North and South Sides--you'll find first-class architectural housing, although admittedly not as much as if you had gone there sixty years ago. Neighborhoods like Bridgeport and Pilsen have beautiful, unique buildings and are very pleasing urban environments. Even in the blighted neighborhoods you'll find beautiful things; I'm not sure I have seen a better urban park than Garfield Park on the West Side, and certainly no fieldhouse that beats the one there.

Edsg, I totally agree with you about the Lakerfront, it is the best watefront I have ever seen and NY really has nothing like it. I disagree with you, however, that Chicago has a higher quality built enviroment than NY, if that is what you are trying to say. A much higher percentage of the land area of the Chicago city proper consists of blight, decay, poverty, warehouses, and industry than compared to the Five Boroughs. Yes, downtown Chicago, the North Side, Hyde Park and the Lakerfront are magnifacent, but, beyond those areas, it is a completely different story.

i can't imagine where you're getting this idea, a4. i don't believe there is any question that chicago neighborhoods measure up as healthy as new york's are.

the old paradigm in Chicago had the magnificent lakefront and downtown as a facade with poverty behind it. that's long gone. to start with it, huge numbers of North Side neighborhoods are more than fine from lakefront to western city limits.

Inland areas like Bucktown and Wicker Park on the North Side (and even west of the Kennedy) are exceedingly expensive. The West Side from the Loop to the United Center is also pricey as is the area south of the Eisenhower between the two UIC campuses. On the South Side, prices are going up in inland neighborhoods like Chinatown and Bridgeport.

Most people are worrying about the opposite of what you're suggesting. Where Chicago is truly falling down is making itself unaffordable for the poor and, to a rising degree, the middle class.

i can't imagine where you're getting this idea, a4. i don't believe there is any question that chicago neighborhoods measure up as healthy as new york's are.

the old paradigm in Chicago had the magnificent lakefront and downtown as a facade with poverty behind it. that's long gone. to start with it, huge numbers of North Side neighborhoods are more than fine from lakefront to western city limits.

Inland areas like Bucktown and Wicker Park on the North Side (and even west of the Kennedy) are exceedingly expensive. The West Side from the Loop to the United Center is also pricey as is the area south of the Eisenhower between the two UIC campuses. On the South Side, prices are going up in inland neighborhoods like Chinatown and Bridgeport.

Most people are worrying about the opposite of what you're suggesting. Where Chicago is truly falling down is making itself unaffordable for the poor and, to a rising degree, the middle class.

^I'd have to say that Edsg, being the oldest among us all (and probably having seen Chicago through its worst days), likely has the best perspective. Edsg, putting your personal love for Chicago aside, how much would you say Chicago has improved in the past 20-30 years?

^I'd have to say that Edsg, being the oldest among us all (and probably having seen Chicago through its worst days), likely has the best perspective. Edsg, putting your personal love for Chicago aside, how much would you say Chicago has improved in the past 20-30 years?

great question. and so complex. i really do look at the success of the last 20-30 years to have been appreciable. the city really has come of age. Matured tremendously. I still remember when industry held sway with commerce. The transiton years weren't good with the exodus to the suburbs, racial conflict and racial politics. The city really struggled with its identiy.

Luckily for Chicago, the infrastructure was still in place...the business and financial communities, the educational and cultural institutions. These made the city hold in a way that wasn't going to happen in, say, Detroit.

Chicago, more so than most cities, has a tremendous ability to reinvent itself. Because it never sank to the degree that so many other US cities did (I used Detroit as an example; there are so many others), the city was able to take advantage to the reinvigorazation of urban life in the 90's. It was ahead of the game in that respect.

Things go in spurts and this is definitely our era. The city is on a roll in a way I've never seen before.

I know the atmosphere between LA and Chicago folks on this board gets awfully hot. Considering that climate, I think some LA folks found it offensive when I suggested that while LA was on the assent in the post-WWII years with the attraction of mobility of the car culture, Chicago may be more in tune today with a more concentrated, walkable urbanity.

I've been all over the place on this one (there is sooooooooo much to this) that I hope made some degree of sense on it.