What are the densest, most NYC looking neighborhoods in Chicago? (Evanston: elementary schools, camps)

[marothisu]

Yeah and north of Division in Gold Coast can have a little bit of an upper east side feel and I'd say that can even continue into the high rises along Lake Michigan/Lincoln Park in Lincoln Park and Lakeview. Not the same but a little of the same feeling. I was in a very elegant old condo a few weeks ago on the border of Lincoln Park and Lakeview a block in from the lake that reminded me of being in NYC more than Chicago.

[Nafster]

I'm happy with New York being New York and Chicago being Chicago. I love them both in their own special way.

I still really don't think there are any New York style neighborhoods in Chicago.

The only parallel I can find is that I really think parts of River North remind me of The Meatpacking District and parts of the Loop resemble Midtown.

[nearnorth]

Brooklyn and Chicago feel vaguely similar to me in some ways, because of the various distinct neighborhoods ranging from poor to affluent, the different ethnic enclaves, the neighborhood bars, etc. They also have nearly the same number of people with a similar racial breakdown in the demographics. Of course, Brooklyn crams that number of people into less than half as much space as Chicago.

Not much in Chicago feels like Manhattan to me, though, except maybe standing among the skyscrapers in the Loop on a weekday at noon or 5:00.

[nearnorth]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Mind explaining the mailman?

Dude...That's not just a mailman. That's Cliff Clavin.

[nearnorth]

Originally Posted by glass_of_merlot

You have to be a millionaire to live in NYC according to many people

I don't know who these "many" people are, but that's a silly thing to say.

NYC has 389,000 millionaires. That's a lot, but it's still less than 5% of their population.

Daily chart: Cities and their millionaires | The Economist

[chet everett]

Originally Posted by nearnorth

I don't know who these "many" people are, but that's a silly thing to say.

NYC has 389,000 millionaires. That's a lot, but it's still less than 5% of their population.

Daily chart: Cities and their millionaires | The Economist

Not so much that the number and "millionaires per thousand" are so much higher for NYC (which, come on people, REALLY IS in a whole other league...) or even that LA is also higher ( celebrity driven...) but how the heck does HOUSTON rate? Oil is largely a corporate thing, no? Economy of Houston - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia And also neat to see that Oska is pretty a "Japanese Chicago" when it comes to futures, which is where so much of Chicago "wealth engine" is really centererd -- Osaka - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Sort of a surprise...

[Manigault]

I've lived in Chicago and I've lived in NYC. The only place in Chicago which reminds me of Manhattan is Streeterville. Narrow streets, no parking, a little green space thrown in the middle.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by Nafster

Oh puh-leez.

What you said, despite your sarcasm, is actually correct.

Did suburbanites pay Chicago taxes? Did they vote for Chicago elections? Did they really work and breathe in Chicago? Do they really go out to the city THAT often?

This isn't so much against you or Chicago suburbanites as it is the people in general as a whole: Many of them leave the city, never having lived in it at all or for years, and think they are experts on it.

I tell them: best to stick to your expertise on Naperville, or Skokie, or if you're in California, Orange County.

You are right about the transportation but Internet? Surfing on brokehipster.com or looking at pretty pictures of Chicago on Flickr or Google Street view doesn't land anyone a medal qualifying them to talk about the city.

Yes, but I lived in Oak Park for two years, closer to the loop than many Chicago neighborhoods, a stone throw away from the Green line, which I rode through some of the most desperate neighborhoods in the city almost once a week. I took courses at DePaul, went to gastrpubs/microbrews in Wicker Park, at least once a month, did architectural tours, etc.

I lived in Oak Park, not only because I thought it was a good blend of urban and suburban, but because I actually felt that it was actually more progressive and more integrated than the vast majority of actual city neighborhoods. I did research and compared Oak Park to most other places in the city.

And you can't compare Chicagoland to SoCal. There is virtually no clearcut distinction between city and suburb there. Some of the most urban, some of the most "LA" neighborhoods (West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, East LA, etc.)are not even in the city of LA, while places like the West Valley/Woodland Hills or San Pedro are. There are multiple mini urban core areas, that don't exist in Chicagoland (which is why Chicagoland feels smaller than greater LA).

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Yes, but I lived in Oak Park for two years, closer to the loop than many Chicago neighborhoods, a stone throw away from the Green line, which I rode through some of the most desperate neighborhoods in the city almost once a week. I took courses at DePaul, went to gastrpubs/microbrews in Wicker Park, at least once a month, did architectural tours, etc.

I lived in Oak Park, not only because I thought it was a good blend of urban and suburban, but because I actually felt that it was actually more progressive and more integrated than the vast majority of actual city neighborhoods. I did research and compared Oak Park to most other places in the city.

And you can't compare Chicagoland to SoCal. There is virtually no clearcut distinction between city and suburb there. Some of the most urban, some of the most "LA" neighborhoods (West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, East LA, etc.)are not even in the city of LA, while places like the West Valley/Woodland Hills or San Pedro are. There are multiple mini urban core areas, that don't exist in Chicagoland (which is why Chicagoland feels smaller than greater LA).

excellent observation. The "real LA" is the LA Basin and it includes and surrounds those independent cities like SM and BH. The Valley to the north and the strip leading southward to and including San Pedro and the harbor are not, even though they are within city limits.

"Chicago", I believe, is the most populated address in the United States. If you live in Chicago, your address is Chicago, Illinois 606XX. If your address is "New York", you are probably in Manhattan and probably are outnumbered by those living in what was and still seems to be a city in its own right, Brooklyn. And chances are, in NYC, your address may that of a small town like Forest Hills in Queens or St. George in SI. LA works the same way, but there are no cities-turned-boroughs like Brooklyn. However, the old small towns engulfed by LA like Encino or Brentwood or San Pedro are still addresses.

Which may point to Chicago's uniqueness: of the three major cities, only one is all itself: if you're in Chicago, you're in Chicago (ok, I grant you Sagaunash may seem more suburban than Evanston and Evanston may feel more a part of the "real Chicago", but it no way comes across as a separate town that is so true of so many places in NY and LA.

Chicago alone doesn't bulk up on hinterlands that in places other than NY or LA (or those sprawling Houston's out in the southwest) would fall into the category (at least municipally) as suburbia.

Years back, Marshall Field's ran an ad campaign that said, "Marshall Field's Is Chicago".Well, it can also be said, Chicago Is Chicago.

[grapico]

Originally Posted by edsg25

excellent observation. The "real LA" is the LA Basin and it includes and surrounds those independent cities like SM and BH. The Valley to the north and the strip leading southward to and including San Pedro and the harbor are not, even though they are within city limits.

"Chicago", I believe, is the most populated address in the United States. If you live in Chicago, your address is Chicago, Illinois 606XX. If your address is "New York", you are probably in Manhattan and probably are outnumbered by those living in what was and still seems to be a city in its own right, Brooklyn. And chances are, in NYC, your address may that of a small town like Forest Hills in Queens or St. George in SI. LA works the same way, but there are no cities-turned-boroughs like Brooklyn. However, the old small towns engulfed by LA like Encino or Brentwood or San Pedro are still addresses.

Which may point to Chicago's uniqueness: of the three major cities, only one is all itself: if you're in Chicago, you're in Chicago (ok, I grant you Sagaunash may seem more suburban than Evanston and Evanston may feel more a part of the "real Chicago", but it no way comes across as a separate town that is so true of so many places in NY and LA.

Chicago alone doesn't bulk up on hinterlands that in places other than NY or LA (or those sprawling Houston's out in the southwest) would fall into the category (at least municipally) as suburbia.

Years back, Marshall Field's ran an ad campaign that said, "Marshall Field's Is Chicago".Well, it can also be said, Chicago Is Chicago.

Forest Hills is a small town? Forest Hills is denser and busier than every single community area in Chicago... What gave you the idea it was a "small town"? And what is this about Brooklyn being a city in it's own right? They both are part of NYC. They just have different addresses b/c of NYC incorporating them in the 1800s and they kept it, and a bit of neighborhood/borough pride. You can put New York, NY on the address and it will still get there, it's all sorted by zip codes anyhow.

Michael Perlman