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.
Please tell me why you're fighting over how many people in these two cities live like sardines? I'd say, the city with the fewer sardine cans, is the luckier city. Give me some space to spread my wings, have a back yard barbecue, build a tree house, pitch a tent for the kids, etc. Not everyone aspires to live like like a sardine.
Please tell me why you're fighting over how many people in these two cities live like sardines? I'd say, the city with the fewer sardine cans, is the luckier city. Give me some space to spread my wings, have a back yard barbecue, build a tree house, pitch a tent for the kids, etc. Not everyone aspires to live like like a sardine.
Because "living like sardines" is the definition of urban living. New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Berlin, Rome or London prove that. "Living like sardines", in a dense environment, basically differentiates cities from suburbs and small towns. If you don't like that than just say you don't like big cities and that's ok too.
New York has a better downtown if you look at criteria such as energy, flavor, density ,etc. However, I gotta say that I agree with the majority of Travel & Leisure's readers who think Chicago skyline is more beautiful than New York skyline.
And I would agree with movie industry that has been showcasing New York's skyline and architecture far far more than Chicago's. It would be hard to count movies showing aerial shots of NYC but not so much for Chicago. Nobody denies Chicago's skyline is impressive and picturesque but NYC skyline simply dwarfs it and has more variety with beautiful bridges like Brooklyn or Manhattan Bridge and world-famous monuments such as Statue of Liberty.
It's no contest, IMHO.
Because "living like sardines" is the definition of urban living. New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Berlin, Rome, London prove that. "Living like sardines", in a dense environment, basically differentiates cities from suburbs and small towns. If you don't like that than just say you don't like big cities and that's ok too.
Oh, I love big cities, particularly Chicago. I could never live happily as a sardine, though. Give me the northern suburbs, with winding roads, big yards, and a canopy of trees.
1939 and earlier, Chicago has slightly more (45% vs 41%) but for post-1980 construction, Chicago has slightly more. New York City has more postwar-era (1940-1970) construction, some of it infill of new apartment buildings in already built up areas, but much of more suburban-style housing on the edges of the city. Since the prewar city of NYC is denser than Chicago, some of the outer edges (mainly E Queens, a few spots of NE Bronx and Staten Island) remained undeveloped in the mid 40s. On the edge of Chicago (I think) you'd encounter the pre-war bungalow belt, for New York City mid century construction.
So how'd NYC's population stay stable while Chicago's grew? Either:
(1) Overcrowding — the average Chicago household declined per in people / household than New York City. This makes sense given how expensive rent is New York City, the incentize to fill up your household is much higher. A young single person making a good but not very high salary might find roommates, in Chicago she might keep an apartment by herself. The last few decades in New York City have seen very heavy immigration together with domestic outmigration. Immigrants tend to live in more crowded conditions.
(2) Chicago has some abandoned housing. The census lists a 14% housing vacancy rate for Chicago, 9% housing vacancy for New York City
The 5% must account for some of the difference; the rest must be from overcrowding. Since many cities had a population decline without any abandonment (Boston, for example) the fact New York City didn't decline must be more from household size not declining rather than new construction.
Another difference I noted in the downtowns was the Loop Area of the Chicago felt much less diverse. The white non-hispanic % of both cities is similar. While the rich areas of Manhattan are mostly white in commercial areas such as Midtown or the Union Square are Manhattan you'll see more non-white people than I saw in downtown Chicago. Lots of young hispanics, blacks and asians walking around in Manhattan Perhaps I got a bad glimpse of Chicago.
Plus, since Chicago has "sides" more than New York City, I found a subway line with mostly white people, which would be difficult in New York City.
Oh, I love big cities, particularly Chicago. I could never live happily as a sardine, though. Give me the northern suburbs, with winding roads, big yards, and a canopy of trees.
So you like the burbs. Ok. Nothing wrong with that but has nothing to do with big cities,
Plus, since Chicago has "sides" more than New York City, I found a subway line with mostly white people, which would be difficult in New York City.
Yes. Chicago is mostly racially segregated. The north side is mostly lilly white. In NYC people are mostly segregated by affluence. By the way, Queens is the only county in the nation ( or one of very few) where blacks make more on average than whites. Queens is also the most diverse county in the entire us. Yes, New York is very unique there is many, many ways.
Yes. Chicago is mostly racially segregated. The north side is mostly lilly white. In NYC people are mostly segregated by affluence. For instance Queens is the only county in the nation ( or one of very few) where blacks make more on average than whites. Queens is also the most diverse county in the entire us. Yes, New York is very unique there is many, many ways.
Except most of the blacks in Queens live in the same part, in sections that have few white people*. Even though they're not poor, that's racial segregation not income segregation. While not as racially segregated as Chicago, it's still one of the more segregated cities in the country, it just doesn't have "sides" the way Chicago, it's more neighborhood to neighborhood. So you're more likely to bump into someone from other background (though I've spent little time in Chicago), and the fact it's more of a walking city helps (that, together with the density means the streets don't empty out of people as much at night, which improves the safety).
One unique thing about Queens is NE Queens is slowly becoming more Asian. Someone commented that it may follow a similar trajectory as San Gabriel Valley. By its large urban asian population, New York City may have more in common with Californian cities than any eastern or midwestern one.
*They used to be white, but they left because the "neighborhood was changing" as a friend said his grandparents told him
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.
