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.
I sincerely apologize for any "name calling" but I have to agree with TexIl and others that find the "bending of the rules" for places that one holds affection for does directly contribute to the illogical bright line disinctions that far too often tend to be unproductive in the extreme.
In the context of folks using city-data to find out more about various places that may consider for relocation, the often ill fitting labels that some almost certainly resort to as "helpful" are too easy to be divisive -- the opposite of "dense and NYC-like" in such terms then become "sprawlish and uninteresting"...
The fact is that nearly the entire length of Lake Shore Drive has a narrow border of high rise apartment / condo buildings -- if folks want just the "views" they can get that in pretty much any of 'em. More importantly the handful of places where there are so many of these residential towers that there is also a distinctive mix of local businesses that actually cater to dwellers of these place can be assessed by not just the overall density of the surroounding of the neighborhood but also the mix of demographics that reflect what kind of employmment /income the residents have -- really there is a spotty patchwork of buildings that range from the newest places in the South Loop, "new east side" / Illinois Center, Streeterville, River North, Streaterville, Gold Coast, Lincoln Park and Lakeview to the often ancient and icky places in Edgewater or greater southside.
With so much info availble on not just the most current forums here but also the wide ranging statisitical data and competeing sites what is really accomplished by trying to use "short hand" to mark a part of Chicago as "most NY like"? It gives too much credit to a city that is demonstrably less well thought out than Chicago and serves no good ends...
Only a naive person would think Chicago is not walkable for large areas. It's not walkable everywhere, that's for sure, but it's easily one of the most walkable cities in the US after NYC (top 3). There's no competition in the US for NYC, case closed.
There are lots of things that lend appeal for residents in terms of density and while walkability is certainly a component it is also true that NYC is not merely walkable but so crisscrossed with transit and having so many magnetic attractions that one could undoubtedly spend far more time exploring its various charms than any other US city and most other cities on the planet...
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.
I will say this again, its very insulting and disrespectful to assume anything about someone based on their address. You don't know anything about any individual based on their address.
Some people are all about expanding their horizons, may have jobs that require being on the road a lot, some people have friends that they visit in many different areas, some dot t extensive research even if they have the slightest interest in possible relocation, etc. Some are also more observant about how places are different than others. I teach geography as a profession. Its a natural career path for me because it fits my keen observation about how places are similar and different.
And yes, someone who takes the green line through the west side and looks at aerial images of the "wild 100s" and the Calumet Harbor, observation how extensive that is compared with the prime parts of the city, does bring something else to the table.
Does this mean someone who does research in other countries doesn't know what they are talking about because they may only spend short periods of time there??
Naperville I could understand, as its 30 miles from the loop. It is a haul to get to the city. But Skokie?? Come on.
I will tell you one thing, for all thats great about Chicago, and all that is negative about California, I have not gotten ONCE any remarks or replies from natives who react like "what do you know you've only been here for less than two years. One of my jobs, requires being on the road, and collecting data at various locations, (in addition to teaching geography), I lead hikes through the regions mountain peaks and canyons. For the most part, I get positive responses from people who have been there all their lives, as if they are getting a fresh perspective from a transplant.
The "what do you know, you never actually lived there" to me is the equivalent of "you're a retard and you should just give up." My passion and purpose in life is to teach people that you CAN know what other places are like by analyzing geographic information. Climate data, topographic maps, demographic data.
I will say this again, its very insulting and disrespectful to assume anything about someone based on their address. You don't know anything about any individual based on their address.
Some people are all about expanding their horizons, may have jobs that require being on the road a lot, some people have friends that they visit in many different areas, some dot t extensive research even if they have the slightest interest in possible relocation, etc. Some are also more observant about how places are different than others. I teach geography as a profession. Its a natural career path for me because it fits my keen observation about how places are similar and different.
And yes, someone who takes the green line through the west side and looks at aerial images of the "wild 100s" and the Calumet Harbor, observation how extensive that is compared with the prime parts of the city, does bring something else to the table.
Does this mean someone who does research in other countries doesn't know what they are talking about because they may only spend short periods of time there??
Naperville I could understand, as its 30 miles from the loop. It is a haul to get to the city. But Skokie?? Come on.
I will tell you one thing, for all thats great about Chicago, and all that is negative about California, I have not gotten ONCE any remarks or replies from natives who react like "what do you know you've only been here for less than two years. One of my jobs, requires being on the road, and collecting data at various locations, (in addition to teaching geography), I lead hikes through the regions mountain peaks and canyons. For the most part, I get positive responses from people who have been there all their lives, as if they are getting a fresh perspective from a transplant.
The "what do you know, you never actually lived there" to me is the equivalent of "you're a retard and you should just give up." My passion and purpose in life is to teach people that you CAN know what other places are like by analyzing geographic information. Climate data, topographic maps, demographic data.
Just thought you should know.
And sadly, instead of shouting down the ill mannered boobs who believe one cannot recommend a quality steak without sticking one's head up a a cow's bunghole the response on these Chicago sub-boards is more often than not a pile-on of ignorance and bigotry...
The "what do you know, you've never lived there" DOES apply when having an argument about a city/region that a particular person is condemning , and then admits that he's never even VISITED there. I recently defended the honor of Chicago from some East Coast simpletons who referred to it as ( once again) " flyover country" and " a few skyscrapers in a cornfield". They finally admitted that they've never even seen Chicago. They deserved to get blasted.
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.
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.
Sorry edsg, my response was more towards Nafster.
BTW: I disagree with your gloom and doom last paragraph but thats a different topic altogether.
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.
Yeah I know it is close, but still strue, I double checked before posting lol. I just found it kind of hilarious he called it a small town.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25
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."
I'm pretty sure calling Forest Hills a small town suggests this... Real Suburbia also exists in Chicago. The older generation says that, correct. Forest Hills is extremely well connected to the rest of the city and is it's own place more so b/c it's a heavily Jewish and affluent area.
Honestly, to me, the most New York feeling neighborhoods in Chicago have always been Noble Square or Central Pilsen, the tenement look just feels like parts of Greenpoint or a slightly less dense version of East Village or East Harlem.
Pilsen, to me, doesn't look anything like Greenpoint. They're totally different architecture, scale and density.
And the East Village and East Harlem are totally different from each other, and from Greenpoint. Even less similar to Pilsen.
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.
Amen.
