Chicago is the REAL 2nd biggest city (Lincoln: construction, universities)

[TheProf]

Originally Posted by ChiGuy2.5

Am I supposed to be impressed? You can take one of two different L lines to the UC, Blue or Pink, plus many different bus lines run east/west or north south since Chicago is on a grid. If you're trying to state how easy it is to get to a lakers game then you likely won't impress me much.

You can't compare the transit accessibility and overall experience going to a Bulls game at the UC vs. a Lakers/Clippers game at Crypto.com Arena. LA is much better in this respect. LA Live and the surrounding vibrant/walkable complex of stores, restaurants, and sprouting high-rise apts/condos everywhere blows away the UC area, which features tons of surface parking, dead areas (rare for the close-in Loop), and walking to/from the L, mainly the Blue Line station (Illinois Med. Center), is several blocks away, which can be dicey at night in this sketchy near-West neighborhood. CTA's Pink Line L passes the UC just a few blocks to the East, but for reasons I've never understood, has no station stop there. I can't understand why CTA doesn't, at least, build a 'special events' station there, which would be much more accessible than walking to the Blue Line.

That said, Chicago's overall urban experience besides the UC area, blows LA away, in terms of walkability, street vibrancy, a fantastic vertical downtown, downtown (area) waterfront/Lakefront (which LA can only dream about), mass transit (sure, LA's situation has and is rapidly improving, but it's got a looong way to go to catch/match Chicago's CTA/RTA) and neighborhood vibrancy, museums, etc, etc., etc...

[Losfrisco]

Originally Posted by TheProf

You can't compare the transit accessibility and overall experience going to a Bulls game at the UC vs. a Lakers/Clippers game at Crypto.com Arena. LA is much better in this respect. LA Live and the surrounding vibrant/walkable complex of stores, restaurants, and sprouting high-rise apts/condos everywhere blows away the UC area, which features tons of surface parking, dead areas (rare for the close-in Loop), and walking to/from the L, mainly the Blue Line station (Illinois Med. Center), is several blocks away, which can be dicey at night in this sketchy near-West neighborhood. CTA's Pink Line L passes the UC just a few blocks to the East, but for reasons I've never understood, has no station stop there. I can't understand why CTA doesn't, at least, build a 'special events' station there, which would be much more accessible than walking to the Blue Line.

That said, Chicago's overall urban experience besides the UC area, blows LA away, in terms of walkability, street vibrancy, a fantastic vertical downtown, downtown (area) waterfront/Lakefront (which LA can only dream about), mass transit (sure, LA's situation has and is rapidly improving, but it's got a looong way to go to catch/match Chicago's CTA/RTA) and neighborhood vibrancy, museums, etc, etc., etc...

LA Metro Rail is a larger system than CTA Rail *right now* (109 miles to 103 miles).

I agree that the L is still a better experience with more ridership but like I mentioned earlier it doesn't really feel like there is any deficit in urban rail coverage in L.A., and they are obviously hammering out new lines and stations like nobody's business still.

I've noticed that the Chicago side of this thread seems to keep re-directing the topic to "downtown" even though the thread topic is the city. How many of Chicago's 227 square miles is downtown? Five? Obviously Chicago is loaded with iconic urban neighborhoods outside of downtown, but dwelling on a neighborhood that is maybe 4% of the city might be a red flag for Chicago.

[SonySegaTendo617]

Originally Posted by Losfrisco

I used only CTA rail and buses the whole four days I was there. Transit times were pushing 50 minutes from downtown, and I was already getting emails from the venue advising that I arrive super early. Wasn't going to happen.

Just so everyone can see, here what one would be dealing with tonight from near where I stayed to go to the United Center:


https://www.google.com/maps/dir/John...!5i4?entry=ttu

I honestly would've stayed instead in the West Loop/Randolph St area(or say like near Greektown), if you were going to an event at the United Center. Just my thought, though. Plus there are a LOT of bars and restaurants clustered near each other in the West Loop, vs. what you might find in River North.

And the existing Ashland Green/Pink Line L station isn't that far away, from the UC. Next year there will be an even closer L station, at Damen on the Green Line. I wish CTA would also consider building a Madison Pink Line station, since a station used to exist there before CTA took over L system operations in the 50s.

[Losfrisco]

Originally Posted by SonySegaTendo617

I honestly would've stayed instead in the West Loop/Randolph St area(or say like near Greektown), if you were going to an event at the United Center. Just my thought, though. Plus there are a LOT of bars and restaurants clustered near each other in the West Loop, vs. what you might find in River North.

And the existing Ashland Green/Pink Line L station isn't that far away, from the UC. Next year there will be an even closer L station, at Damen on the Green Line. I wish CTA would also consider building a Madison Pink Line station, since a station used to exist there before CTA took over L system operations in the 50s.

The game wasn't the point of the trip, just another box to check. If I had followed the advice of the venue to arrive early AND used CTA from downtown, I would have been looking at about a five hour block of time from a four day trip to see an NBA game.

As for the cool urban guy who said I "couldn't figure out transit" and I guess therefore must have been some suburbanite driving an F-250 around the Loop, here is tonight's CTA times, which look about 15 minutes or so faster from when I was there (holiday?).

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/John...!3e3?entry=ttu

Add that to emails from the venue advising early arrival and it felt like I might have well drove into the game from out of town.

[Rusty Nailz]

Originally Posted by Losfrisco

The game wasn't the point of the trip, just another box to check. If I had followed the advice of the venue to arrive early AND used CTA from downtown, I would have been looking at about a five hour block of time from a four day trip to see an NBA game.

As for the cool urban guy who said I "couldn't figure out transit" and I guess therefore must have been some suburbanite driving an F-250 around the Loop, here is tonight's CTA times, which look about 15 minutes or so faster from when I was there (holiday?).

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/John...!3e3?entry=ttu

Add that to emails from the venue advising early arrival and it felt like I might have well drove into the game from out of town.

40 minutes door to door isn't that bad IMO.

[Rusty Nailz]

Originally Posted by Losfrisco

LA Metro Rail is a larger system than CTA Rail *right now* (109 miles to 103 miles).

I agree that the L is still a better experience with more ridership but like I mentioned earlier it doesn't really feel like there is any deficit in urban rail coverage in L.A., and they are obviously hammering out new lines and stations like nobody's business still.

I've noticed that the Chicago side of this thread seems to keep re-directing the topic to "downtown" even though the thread topic is the city. How many of Chicago's 227 square miles is downtown? Five? Obviously Chicago is loaded with iconic urban neighborhoods outside of downtown, but dwelling on a neighborhood that is maybe 4% of the city might be a red flag for Chicago.

Los Angeles is also twice as much area as Chicago, so in reality there is less coverage.

[Kmanshouse]

I think why Chicago wins a lot of these kinds of arguments is the utterly stunning beauty of the Chicago River's slicing through the downtown with buildings flanking its banks as it turns and goes east into Lake Michigan. The bridges, the lit up architecture, the boats, the overall gleaming appearance of that, to me, surpasses any spot in the US for urban gorgeousness. It's really phenomenal.

On top of that you just have such a well contained skyline - it drops off on either side into a flat landscape, which makes it stand out so well, and it has interesting architecture as part of it, plus the front yard of Grant Park, and the coastline of the Lake.

It's really hard to beat the visuals of these two elements of Chicago's downtown. And this tends to spill over into the overall urbanity discussions.

I mean, look at this.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C0y73...RlODBiNWFlZA==

[ToriaT]

I agree completely. Los Angeles considers areas we would count as suburbs as part of Los Angeles. My brother in law lives in Porter Ranch which is way up north and I think his address is Los Angeles. In no way would that happen in the Chicago area.

[CBOTfan]

Originally Posted by Kmanshouse

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C0y73...RlODBiNWFlZA==

That is sexy as hell!

[sf_arkitect]

Originally Posted by Losfrisco

LA Metro Rail is a larger system than CTA Rail *right now* (109 miles to 103 miles).

I agree that the L is still a better experience with more ridership but like I mentioned earlier it doesn't really feel like there is any deficit in urban rail coverage in L.A., and they are obviously hammering out new lines and stations like nobody's business still.

I've noticed that the Chicago side of this thread seems to keep re-directing the topic to "downtown" even though the thread topic is the city. How many of Chicago's 227 square miles is downtown? Five? Obviously Chicago is loaded with iconic urban neighborhoods outside of downtown, but dwelling on a neighborhood that is maybe 4% of the city might be a red flag for Chicago.

I think it would still be a losing battle for LA if we take into account neighborhoods beyond downtown. Remember, Chicago was the fastest growing city in the world during the later half of the 19th century. A construction boom always coincides with a population boom, so Chicago has a much larger quantity of pre-World War I housing stock compared to LA. Chicago neighborhoods are older and denser - filled with 2 and 3 flats, courtyard apartments, and newer multifamily buildings.

Chicago is a 19th century city and Los Angeles is a 20th century city.