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.
But while it may be true of the Downtown and points north. Downtown Chicago doesnt seem very well connected to the westside of the city or the south side imo.
I mean in the sense that the transition between Downtown and the neighborhoods is not as seamless as it is in San Francisco. In SF, Downtown and the neighborhoods overlap into each other and that makes for a really great overall city experience.
I think it has to do with SF being so small and compact, there are no real industrial areas that separate Downtown from the neighborhoods in any direction.
On the other hand, Chicago is so big that the Downtown Area is so large that you have enough urban life close to Downtown that you don't really need to venture out whereas in SF, you really have to.
DC and Boston are similar to SF in this nature. I think that's one advantage that all three have. The cities are so small and dense that everything is very connected.
Actually Chicago is a known immigrant safe grounds... he is right about the illegals, I am not sure about 4 mil...that is pushing it. I would say it is over 3 though plus chicago is one extremely connected city region unlike others and lots of people come in, everything radiates out from the core, 8 subway lines, 13 suburban rail lines and 6 interstates all come together in the downtown area
If that's the case, NYC must have at least 25 million people!
I don't consider a Downtown to be great without great shopping.
Just me, but I'd much rather walk around a beautiful area like Georgetown and shop at all the boutiques. There are department stores in downtown DC, but it's not as interesting.
Chicago has the second largest downtown...that's fact. But I think there are a lot of factors that contribute to how busy a downtown seems. In my opinion, the Financial District in Boston is most similar to Gotham or downtown New York. The streets are pretty tight down there and obstruct much of the sunlight. Plus, you have all of the vendors selling falafel and hot dogs and it just seems much more like New York. Although falafel stands have nothing to do with the actual number of people on the streets, in my view, it's just one of the things that makes Boston's downtown seem a bit more active than Chicago's.
It's really hard to say whose downtown is second to NYC after you've spent time in NYC. I sat outside of Penn Station one morning and watched a nonstop flood of people leave the building for an hour. When I say nonstop, I mean, the doors never closed. It was like watching a dam burst.
From what I've heard, Philadelphia has the third-largest "downtown" population of any U.S. city, behind only New York and Chicago.
That's probably true. Center City might be the coolest downtown because it's all so mixed up. It really isn't vacated after working hours the way many downtowns are.
bostons downtown is definitely not more active than chicago... there are more people in downtown chicago in the daytime than bostons entire population. and that we are on the subject, there is more going on in san francisco downtown than boston.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,035,535 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
Chicago has the second largest downtown...that's fact. But I think there are a lot of factors that contribute to how busy a downtown seems. In my opinion, the Financial District in Boston is most similar to Gotham or downtown New York. The streets are pretty tight down there and obstruct much of the sunlight. Plus, you have all of the vendors selling falafel and hot dogs and it just seems much more like New York. Although falafel stands have nothing to do with the actual number of people on the streets, in my view, it's just one of the things that makes Boston's downtown seem a bit more active than Chicago's.
It's really hard to say whose downtown is second to NYC after you've spent time in NYC. I sat outside of Penn Station one morning and watched a nonstop flood of people leave the building for an hour. When I say nonstop, I mean, the doors never closed. It was like watching a dam burst.
Funny you mention Gotham, Chicago was Gotham in TDK.
Anyways, I have to disagree, I find Chicago's downtown more "active" than Boston's. But that's just my opinion, I can't prove it as fact until get some study for it. Boston's feels denser and more close together, and remember it's smaller, so you're bound to have more people per block than Chicago.
But activity in downtown Chicago is pretty sweet. Second to NYC. Third to none.
Just me, but I'd much rather walk around a beautiful area like Georgetown and shop at all the boutiques. There are department stores in downtown DC, but it's not as interesting.
excellent point.
I just think that an awesome shopping scene is a major component in making a downtown more than just for working.
From what I've heard, Philadelphia has the third-largest "downtown" population of any U.S. city, behind only New York and Chicago.
I often hear that thrown around as well (usually 80,000-90,000 people). But, it seems kinda flimsy since definitions of what constitutes a downtown vary.
The 80,000 figure includes residential rowhouse neighborhoods south of south street and north of vine.
If Boston and SF include adjoining residential areas they can also come up with fairly comparable figures.
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.