Does Chicago feel like the third largest city? (Fulton, Phoenix: school, quality of life)

[nowincal11]

Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua

Yeah, my brother lives in Manhattan Beach and works in Burbank. It can take two hours on some mornings.

Ouch! That is a very rough commute. But I suppose he wants to live by the beach.

As a former Chicagoan and current Angelino, Chicago does "feel like a more urban city."

But I will say this: Los Angeles keeps going on and on with upper middle density development. LA feels like a much larger city than both Chicago and NYC. 2 hours in each direction is literally a concrete jungle in LA.

LA can't be compared to the East and Midwest cities. It wasn't built the same. The massive urban cores of the NYC and Chicago types grew outward. LA didn't. LA has a series of mini downtowns aside from the regular downtown (which isn't that great).

The population density of Chicago grows less dense as you move away from the lake and downtown, including into the suburbs. Similar to NYC, Boston, Philly, DC.

LA has more dense suburbs than the city itself and this appears to be more the rule than the exception. Plus, the density is pretty uniform throughout the city and throughout the Valley.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by nowincal11

Ouch! That is a very rough commute. But I suppose he wants to live by the beach.

As a former Chicagoan and current Angelino, Chicago does "feel like a more urban city."

But I will say this: Los Angeles keeps going on and on with upper middle density development. LA feels like a much larger city than both Chicago and NYC. 2 hours in each direction is literally a concrete jungle in LA.

LA can't be compared to the East and Midwest cities. It wasn't built the same. The massive urban cores of the NYC and Chicago types grew outward. LA didn't. LA has a series of mini downtowns aside from the regular downtown (which isn't that great).

The population density of Chicago grows less dense as you move away from the lake and downtown, including into the suburbs. Similar to NYC, Boston, Philly, DC.

LA has more dense suburbs than the city itself and this appears to be more the rule than the exception. Plus, the density is pretty uniform throughout the city and throughout the Valley.

LA is unique. There is nothing like it. To compare it, as some people do, to eastern and midwestern cities (or San Francisco, for that matter) is insane. What makes LA work is that it IS so different from anywhere else. It does its own thing in its own urban framework.

And let's make one thing VERY clear: that framework is very urban. Sure people will look at Houston, Phoenix, Vegas, or San Jose and see what they consider to be LA style sprawl, LA the supposed inventor of the concept. What they miss is that LA long since has phased into a different era in its development, one based on public transportation being an important factor, one where density counts, high rises grow, and hubs starting with the big one downtown and the others throughout the city grow. There is no stretch of urban America that can match the linear nature of the Wilshire Corridor from downtown to Santa Monica and the Pacific.

I don't think one can be very serious if one doesn't take LA very seriously. Experience LA for what it is, for what it is unique, as urban as any place, just with its own form of urbanity.

"LA has more dense suburbs than the city itself and this appears to be more the rule than the exception. Plus, the density is pretty uniform throughout the city and throughout the Valley."

It really is only the Hollywood Hills that separate basin from valley that doesn't have that form of density in all of LA.

[reppin_the_847]

I agree. The sprawl out there is pretty dense. You have heavy traffic that stretches all the way into Orange County (and other counties in multiple directions). No wonder Kobe Bryant commutes to the Staples Center (LA) from his Newport Coast home (Orange County) via helicopter. This would be a hellish 49.1 mile drive otherwise!

Originally Posted by edsg25

LA is unique. There is nothing like it. To compare it, as some people do, to eastern and midwestern cities (or San Francisco, for that matter) is insane. What makes LA work is that it IS so different from anywhere else. It does its own thing in its own urban framework.

And let's make one thing VERY clear: that framework is very urban. Sure people will look at Houston, Phoenix, Vegas, or San Jose and see what they consider to be LA style sprawl, LA the supposed inventor of the concept. What they miss is that LA long since has phased into a different era in its development, one based on public transportation being an important factor, one where density counts, high rises grow, and hubs starting with the big one downtown and the others throughout the city grow. There is no stretch of urban America that can match the linear nature of the Wilshire Corridor from downtown to Santa Monica and the Pacific.

I don't think one can be very serious if one doesn't take LA very seriously. Experience LA for what it is, for what it is unique, as urban as any place, just with its own form of urbanity.

"LA has more dense suburbs than the city itself and this appears to be more the rule than the exception. Plus, the density is pretty uniform throughout the city and throughout the Valley."

It really is only the Hollywood Hills that separate basin from valley that doesn't have that form of density in all of LA.

[tribecavsbrowns]

Originally Posted by emathias

As someone else pointed out, Toronto has clusters of high-rises around most of their subway stops or even large intersections of trolley or bus lines. They also have a lot more housing blocks of highrises. They're not super-talls, they're just like 20-story buildings which, compared to the Loop or something, isn't much. But they're still high-rises.

I actually wish Chicago had more clustering around subway/L stations. Imagine what a few 20-story buildings around Belmont and Fullerton and Wellington would do for density in those areas? North/Clyborn would probably be more pedestrian-oriented, and Wilson, if they had some more market-rate highrise density, would almost certainly be a safer neighborhood. Howard could handle more high-rises, as could places like Logan Square and the Belmont Blue Line stations. The Pink Line might actually start carrying enough riders to justify the rebuild they did if there were multiple high-rises near most of its stations. That's why Toronto's subway carries far more riders per mile and per station than Chicago's "L" does.

It would increase it. So what?

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by reppin_the_847

No wonder Kobe Bryant commutes to the Staples Center (LA) from his Newport Coast home (Orange County) via helicopter. This would be a hellish 49.1 mile drive otherwise!

Last time I was in LA, I wittnessed hell, but in reverse; that is, I was driving south (early in the morning, maybe 6:30) from Sunset Strip down to Disneyland in Anaheim, seeing hell going the opposite direction. It is unbelievable how many cars are crammed on the northbound freeway as well as ramps overhead loaded with cars heading inbound on ramps from other freeways that feed into the Santa Ana. All at a crawl-to-gridlock pace. Mind boggling.

[nowincal11]

Orange County is so expensive in the nicer areas that a lot of people live in the South Bay (Long Beach, Redondo Beach, etc.) or the South Gate area (Cerritos, Cypress) and commute into Anaheim, Costa Mesa, and downtown Santa Ana.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by edsg25

Last time I was in LA, I wittnessed hell, but in reverse; that is, I was driving south (early in the morning, maybe 6:30) from Sunset Strip down to Disneyland in Anaheim, seeing hell going the opposite direction. It is unbelievable how many cars are crammed on the northbound freeway as well as ramps overhead loaded with cars heading inbound on ramps from other freeways that feed into the Santa Ana. All at a crawl-to-gridlock pace. Mind boggling.

I must have lucked out last time I was there. (Right around just after New Years) and didn't hit any major back-ups.

[xavier xerxes]

I lived in LA for four years.
It feels like the third largest(Chicago).

I know its a strange sentiment for a Chicagoan to vote/think like this,
but its true. Chicago doesnt feel as big as LA. And thats okay.

LA is a larger city population and size wise and influence wise.

[xavier xerxes]

Originally Posted by edsg25

Last time I was in LA, I wittnessed hell, but in reverse; that is, I was driving south (early in the morning, maybe 6:30) from Sunset Strip down to Disneyland in Anaheim, seeing hell going the opposite direction. It is unbelievable how many cars are crammed on the northbound freeway as well as ramps overhead loaded with cars heading inbound on ramps from other freeways that feed into the Santa Ana. All at a crawl-to-gridlock pace. Mind boggling.

However the commute from Santa Monica to downtown isnt that bad.
The 10 going east in the am and west in the pm isnt that bad.
Thats because you cant live underwater.......

[supermanpansy]

Originally Posted by tomcho

High-rises...yes more than twice as many.

•
New York City2,716 •
Toronto2,162 •
Chicago1,193 •
Shanghai1,052 •
Hong Kong737 •
Mexico711 •
Vancouver700 •
Montreal647 •
Los Angeles581 •
London570

I have to correct you tomcho, because I hate misinformation. Where NYC is involved, you can replace that first two with a five. Slighting NYC 3 thousand highrises short is a little uncool. I don't think that you did it on purpose, that is why I am simply correcting you. Plus, I think Toronto's highrise total is off by a couple hundred.

Anyhow, to get too the original question. I think that Chicago seems like the second biggest city in the US. I have lived in LA, and that cities downtown is weak compared to Chicago and their metro is just way too spread out. Chicago by and far seems like the second biggest city in this country. And probaby for good reason. It once was. It was built to be the second and their downtown reflects that. In the United states downtowns were a big indicator of size. Certain cities like LA, Phoenix, San Jose, etc are exceptions. Some cities didn't have the ground to build like NY. NY lies on granite. For Chicago to be as built up as it is, is pretty remarkable. For every huge skyscraper built in Chicago, a foundation has to be put in first, unlike NYC.