Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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
The utter bunk that some nut cases engage in to falsely draw lines around Chicago as some "urban haven" is beyond laughable. In all honestly outside of a handful of streets high rise living in not the norm in Chicago. Not just Sauganash but pretty much EVERY border area of Chicago is indistinguishable from the NON-606xx addresses across the street in density, housing style and mix of residents on a visual basis. Of course the folks living in towns where the local government is responsive, the schools are markedly better and the overall costs are just a little more costly has a lot to do with why city workers that have to comply with residency rules often feel trapped...
The utter bunk that some nut cases engage in to falsely draw lines around Chicago as some "urban haven" is beyond laughable..
Most of NYC is on another level for the US, but after that, Chicago is up there amongst the top densest cities in the US with some of the densest areas along with SF, DC, and Boston. There's no disputing that and only a fool would, nor is anybody claiming the entire city as a haven for urbanism. However, in many areas you can simply live without a car which is not true in most (but not all) American cities for large physical areas of the city.
Speaking of Forest Hills, it is denser than every CA in Chicago, but there's a few it's denser than by only a little bit namely Rogers Park, Edgewater, Near North Side, and Lake View. They're all decently closer to Forest Hills, especially Edgewater. It's correct that Forest Hills is more than any big area though.
Last edited by marothisu; 12-09-2013 at 08:55 AM..
Most of NYC is on another level for the US, but after that, Chicago is up there amongst the top densest cities in the US with some of the densest areas along with SF, DC, and Boston. There's no disputing that and only a fool would, nor is anybody claiming the entire city as a haven for urbanism. However, in many areas you can simply live without a car which is not true in most (but not all) American cities for large physical areas of the city.
Speaking of Forest Hills, it is denser than every CA in Chicago, but there's a few it's denser than by only a little bit namely Rogers Park, Edgewater, Near North Side, and Lake View. They're all decently closer to Forest Hills, especially Edgewater. It's correct that Forest Hills is more than any big area though.
^This. Comparing the majority of New York City to any other US city in regards to urban landscape, density, etc. is pointless because NYC has no equivalent in this country.
Forest Hills, which is typically described as one of the most desirable neighborhoods in NYC is very similar in built environment to the lake front neighborhoods in Chicago. If Irving Park Rd - Halsted - Fullerton - Lake Michigan were boundaries of an official chicago neighborhood, it would resemble Forest Hills (on paper).
The utter bunk that some nut cases engage in to falsely draw lines around Chicago as some "urban haven" is beyond laughable. In all honestly outside of a handful of streets high rise living in not the norm in Chicago. Not just Sauganash but pretty much EVERY border area of Chicago is indistinguishable from the NON-606xx addresses across the street in density, housing style and mix of residents on a visual basis. Of course the folks living in towns where the local government is responsive, the schools are markedly better and the overall costs are just a little more costly has a lot to do with why city workers that have to comply with residency rules often feel trapped...
I'll bet that many residents of Jefferson/Norwood Park would love to sneak over the bridge at the Cumbelrnad Blue Line stop, and send their kids off to school in Park Ridge...
The utter bunk that some nut cases engage in to falsely draw lines around Chicago as some "urban haven" is beyond laughable. In all honestly outside of a handful of streets high rise living in not the norm in Chicago. Not just Sauganash but pretty much EVERY border area of Chicago is indistinguishable from the NON-606xx addresses across the street in density, housing style and mix of residents on a visual basis. Of course the folks living in towns where the local government is responsive, the schools are markedly better and the overall costs are just a little more costly has a lot to do with why city workers that have to comply with residency rules often feel trapped...
^This. Comparing the majority of New York City to any other US city in regards to urban landscape, density, etc. is pointless because NYC has no equivalent in this country.
Forest Hills, which is typically described as one of the most desirable neighborhoods in NYC is very similar in built environment to the lake front neighborhoods in Chicago. If Irving Park Rd - Halsted - Fullerton - Lake Michigan were boundaries of an official chicago neighborhood, it would resemble Forest Hills (on paper).
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
While I respect edsg25 a lot, and think he is very educated and articulate, I think he has concocted a lot of theories that push Chicago well beyond where it really stands.
That photo of Forest Hills looks like Edgewater of one Chicagos lakefront neighborhoods without the lakefront.
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.
Thats precisely the problem, IMO.
Either look upon Chicagos immediate core as its own world, where anything slightly beyond , or compare CSA to CSA (combined statistical area). This is one of the very things I can't stand. Claiming that Evanston is just part of Chicago?, whereas Brooklyn and Queens are separate cities, therefore Chicago is technically the biggest city???
Come on edsg25. You're only fueling the fire.
And your discussion about Sauganash and Evanston is also what fuels people like Nafster who think anyone not living in the city limits is tagged as a suburbanite rube or something. I realize the border suburbs and edge city neighborhoods are somewhat the exception to the rule, but the fact that Chicago is clearly city from suburbs.
So on one hand we have people saying, that the suburbs are very much an extension of Chicago, while you have others saying that even if you are within walking distance of the city, in a community that is actually more vibrant, progressive, diverse, and sophisticated, and go to the city all the time, it doesn't matter, "stay on your side and stick to what you know??""
Can somone please explain to me, how the suburbs are an extension of Chicago and should be included in describing how huge Chicago is, yet at the same time, those people outside the city limits, can't truly know Chicago??
I'll bet that many residents of Jefferson/Norwood Park would love to sneak over the bridge at the Cumbelrnad Blue Line stop, and send their kids off to school in Park Ridge...
Norwood park has some of the best elementary schools in the city with property taxes around half as much as neighboring Park Ridge.
Either look upon Chicagos immediate core as its own world, where anything slightly beyond , or compare CSA to CSA (combined statistical area). This is one of the very things I can't stand. Claiming that Evanston is just part of Chicago?, whereas Brooklyn and Queens are separate cities, therefore Chicago is technically the biggest city???
Come on edsg25. You're only fueling the fire.
And your discussion about Sauganash and Evanston is also what fuels people like Nafster who think anyone not living in the city limits is tagged as a suburbanite rube or something. I realize the border suburbs and edge city neighborhoods are somewhat the exception to the rule, but the fact that Chicago is clearly city from suburbs.
So on one hand we have people saying, that the suburbs are very much an extension of Chicago, while you have others saying that even if you are within walking distance of the city, in a community that is actually more vibrant, progressive, diverse, and sophisticated, and go to the city all the time, it doesn't matter, "stay on your side and stick to what you know??""
Can somone please explain to me, how the suburbs are an extension of Chicago and should be included in describing how huge Chicago is, yet at the same time, those people outside the city limits, can't truly know Chicago??
sorry. i'm not trying to fuel any fire. in fact, i don't even see a battle:
New York, Los Angeles, Chicago: 3 great cities, their compositions very different
not more, not less, just different. You will never hear me state the absurd notion that Chicago is a greater city than either New York or Los Angeles.
And, yes, I do find Chicago more "holistic" for what it is worth. NYC and LA both grew far differently than Chicago. To start with, topography (in New York, it's water in the form of rivers and bay) and in LA hills and mountains, divide in way that does not happen in Chicago.
Yes, Chicago, like all cities grew and incorporated outlying areas. Largely piecemeal. NYC and LA grew in ways that other cities didn't. In NYC, it was a dramatic act of state legislature at the end of the 19th century that created "Greater New York", well over doubling the size of the NYC of that time which was confounded to the island of Manhattan and its northern extensions in the western part of the Bronx. LA drew in massive portions of the San Fernando Valley through its ability to extend water rights.
And, yes, I do see elements of Brooklyn that retain the large city of its own that it once was. And I never suggested, as some said I did, that Forest Hills lacked an urban quality. It does. But its in some ways its own place; people in Queens often refer to the neighborhoods by their former title, villages. But there are regions in the southern 2/3 of Staten Island and where Queens abuts Long Island that real suburbia does exist. and from many areas in the outer boroughs, going into Manhattan is spoken as "going into the city."
And where did I suggest that suburban Chicagoans don't know the city? I live in Buffalo Grove and don't consider myself unknowledgable about Chicago (admittedly I was born there and have lived closer to it, but so what). My experiences with other suburbanites is very much along the line that (1) they love the city and (2) tend to know it pretty well.
as I said, Chicago, to me, is the most holistic, the most united in sense of being part of that same grid, part of a flat landscape throughout, one that interconnects between the divisions and barriers I stated.
But how is this better? How does this knock down NY or LA. Strictly on opinion and nothing else (mere assessment on my part), I tend to see the United States having 6 truly great cities. To step on no toes of any on the list, I'll name them east to west: Boston, New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. So please note that NY and LA are every bit a part of my list as Chicago is.
and please tell me where I made any absorb claim that Chicago was the "biggest city". I didn't. again, those references were to the unified nature of Chicago, not its population. Indeed, to me, an urban population of 3,000,000 in a metro area of 10,000,000 would be ideal: not too big, not to small. A literal baby (Chicago) bear "just right". Indeed NYC itself should be overjoyed that that it is not even close to the size of largest cities on the planet….and the hell hole prospect that entails.
I never even suggested that suburbia (by municipal distinctions) can't be more dense than city. In fact, in Washington, where zoning laws keep the skyline low, you have the phenomenium of extremely dense commercial/residential complexes in both the MD and VA suburbs. High rise living in the DC area is more confined to VA and MD than DC. Yet I would still see Washington as the urban core and those states and the outlying portions of the metro area.
that said, I don't have a problem with you misreading or even disagreeing with my words. You got me wrong (as far as I was trying to express myself), but you didn't by any means rip into me. The thing that made this thread a place I didn't want to come back to is Chet's totally abusive commuting and name calling. What a horrible way to have a conversation.
The United States, as a number of posters have suggested, is a nation in serious, serious trouble. It's about time that great cities like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles are not competing camps but are on the same team in the same boat. And it is sinking. Badly. This nation and its divide between rich and poor, power and powerless, will bring all three down, along with the rest. And there are many of us in America who think that is going to happen very, very soon.
Last edited by edsg25; 12-09-2013 at 01:01 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
