New Development: Chicago vs. New York

[Scraperfannyc]

It seems like projects in Chicago that are getting built/approved are generally alot taller than in NYC nowadays. I suppose that there is less nimby action in Chicago. For instance, Trump was able to start building a 96 story residential tower in Chicago without any opposition that I am aware of, but in NYC, his much shorter 72 story residential tower received major protests. Seems like taller projects are much more welcome in Chicago these days. At least I'm more impressed with what is getting built and approved in Chicago.

[Scraperfannyc]

Check out the news clip in the bottom left of the link below. They are all bragging about the big developments out there. I just don't see this in New York?


http://www.thelegacyatmillenniumpark.com/home.asp

[bjork]

nice find cool! Thanks :)

[antinimby]

Meanwhile, out in Chicago they get stuff like this:

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/2793/z04lgsq0.jpg

Even Maki's 4WTC can't touch this and this is just another run-of-the-mill tower for them.

At this point, I have lost a lot of interest in pulling for this city.

[londonlawyer]

Meanwhile, out in Chicago they get stuff like this:

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/2793/z04lgsq0.jpg

Even Maki's 4WTC can't touch this and this is just another run-of-the-mill tower for them.

At this point, I have lost a lot of interest in pulling for this city.

NY's old buildings make it great. With exceptions, its new buildings suck.

What is that building in Chicago?

[antinimby]

^ Chicago's got those too and at the rate we're getting rid of ours (Pennsylvania, Roosevelt, Drake, 55/57 St. townhouses, et al), I don't think we're going to be that far ahead in that category either.

Anyway, you can read more about that tower here in Chicago Reaching for the Sky (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7900&page=14).

[londonlawyer]

^ Chicago's got those too and at the rate we're getting rid of ours (Pennsylvania, Roosevelt, Drake, 55/57 St. townhouses, et al), I don't think we're going to be that far ahead in that category either.

Anyway, you can read more about that tower here in Chicago Reaching for the Sky (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7900&page=14).

I have been to Chicago at least 100 times, and it does not have anywhere near the volume of great old buildings that NY does. The area south of 42nd Street is practically all pre-WWII and is really beautiful. Chicago has nothing comparable.

I think that zoning laws which limit height and NIMBYS, neither of which Chicago has, hurt development. Also, having greedy SOBS like Macklowe, Solow and Zuckerman doesn't help either.

[antinimby]

I concur with some of what you said about zoning and NIMBYs but the greedy SOB part doesn't explain it though.

Are you saying their Chicago counterparts are somehow less greedy?

[macreator]

Just to enter for a moment, while I don't doubt that their Chicago counterparts are no less interested in making a profit on their investments, I do actually believe that many Chicago-based developers and business leaders are a bit more civic minded than many of our own NYC real estate moguls. That may sound naive, I know, and it doesn't apply to certain Chicagoans of course, but that's my experience on the subject.

[londonlawyer]

.... Are you saying their Chicago counterparts are somehow less greedy?

Yes. NY has good developers that are willing to spend money to produce a great project, such as Durst, Barnett, Zeckendorf and Rosen. NY also has cheap, reprehensible, scum developers like Macklowe, Solow and apparently, Zuckerman who build low cost crap that is guided by nothing but their profit margin. Solow wants to raze a few buildings on the south side of 57th St. just west of the Crown Building that are so magnificent. He should get his nads cut off.

[NewYorkDoc]

^ Chicago's got those too and at the rate we're getting rid of ours (Pennsylvania, Roosevelt, Drake, 55/57 St. townhouses, et al), I don't think we're going to be that far ahead in that category either.

Anyway, you can read more about that tower here in Chicago Reaching for the Sky (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7900&page=14).

I agree. Save the Hotel Penn!

[ASchwarz]

Chicago does not have anywhere near the number of old buildings as NYC. I doubt it has a tenth of the historic building stock.

As for the new buildings, I am mystified why recent Chicago architecture is always viewed so favorably on this forum. Every single new tower in Chicago has a giant parking garage as a base. Basically one quarter to one third of these buildings consist of space for cars. That alone makes these buildings vastly inferior from an urbanistic standpoint. Even our worst buildings have little or (more likely) no parking and meet the street with retail instead of parking spaces.

Also, what's with all the complaining on this new office tower? The design hasn't even been released yet.

[londonlawyer]

Chicago does not have anywhere near the number of old buildings as NYC. I doubt it has a tenth of the historic building stock.....
Also, what's with all the complaining on this new office tower? The design hasn't even been released yet.

I agree with your first point.

With respect to your second point, I posted in this thread an interview with Zuckerman in which he described the building's design as "underwhelming" and compared it to the "simple elegance" of the Lever House (i.e., a boring box).

[lesterp4]

Another point is that almost all of these new buildings in Chicago are being built on vacant land or parking lots and they are residential or hotels.

[antinimby]

The assertion that Chicago's new projects are characterized mostly by parking garages and having little streetlevel retail is simply not true and probably based on old stereotypes.

From what I can tell, many of the new developments do not have above ground parking facilities and many are embracing retail shops in their bases. Times have changed you know.

Even in NY, quite a few large new developments do not always get that stuff right either. One only have to look at the proposals at the Con Ed site and the west side rail yards to see that many of the anti-urban features (large plazas/open space, parking garages, no streetlevel retail) are still being implemented in this city.

[ASchwarz]

The assertion that Chicago's new projects are characterized mostly by parking garages and having little streetlevel retail is simply not true and probably based on old stereotypes.

From what I can tell, many of the new developments do not have above ground parking facilities and many are embracing retail shops in their bases. Times have changed you know.

Even in NY, quite a few large new developments do not always get that stuff right either. One only have to look at the proposals at the Con Ed site and the west side rail yards to see that many of the anti-urban features (large plazas/open space, parking garages, no streetlevel retail) are still being implemented in this city.

Disagree 100%.

Name ONE recent Chicago project that lacks a giant garage at the base. Giant garages are required by law, and almost all are above ground and consist of at least one space per unit (often much more). Look at Trump Tower Chicago. The first third of the building is a giant garage.

Name ONE recent New York project that has a giant garage (or any surface garage, for that matter) at the base. Garages are actually banned from Manhattan without a special permit, and even then, they tend to be quite small and are always located underground.

Plazas and open space are not anti-urban.

I don't know what you're referring to with Hudson Yards and Con Ed, because I have not seen any street-level renderings. I can guarantee you that neither area will have giant Chicago-style surface parking podiums, though they may have some comparatively limited underground parking.

[spyguy999]

giant Chicago-style surface parking podiums

Where do you see these in new Chicago skyscrapers?

First, you're right that Chicago requires more parking, which is shame but one must also remember that Chicago doesn't have as extensive of a PT system as NY.

Second, underground excavation is more costly in Chicago which makes underground garages sometimes unfeasible (although there are many developments that do have parking underground).

And even if they do have parking podiums, almost all new skyscrapers have at least one floor of street-level retail.

Edit: and you can't forget that Chicago has a number of multi-level streets which often make podiums necessary.

[sfenn1117]

Chicago masks parking really well in most cases. Plus, as an added bonus, it adds around 10 floors to every skyscraper. Just another advantage Chicago has over NY

[investordude]

If the cost of a taller building is a parking lot at street level, call me glad I live in New York and not Chicago. I view that as a false choice anyway, you can build an underground lot and a tall skyscraper.

Cities should be places for people to live - they aren't just for looking at on postcards. Above ground garages create noise and a less pleasant pedestrian experience even when they are well hidden, though a poorly hidden garage is the worst case scenario obviously. And I think its fair to say New York does a better job at urban feel at street level - we do a good job maintaining street wall, inviting retail, and an inviting pedestrian landscape. Besides, there is just more population density in New York, which facilitaties vibrant streets.

Overground garages are more appropriate for places like Jersey City or Evanston that the premier urban and tourism districts of a metro area.

[antinimby]

Let's not get too carried away with all this parking garage talk.

I really believe it stems from the insecurity (and perhaps envy) that some NY forumers here have and that they are just trying to find anything negative to nitpick about Chicago.

The fact of the matter is that Chicago is clearly getting great and wonderful architecture while NY's, which I'm sorry to say, are mostly conservative and bland in comparison.

I'm not even talking about height because there's no competition when it comes to that category.

How can any city go wrong when the head of a supposedly NIMBY group in that city, SOAR, makes this kind of intelligent statement (http://www.suntimes.com/business/578552,CST-FIN-build28.article) regarding the 100-story Waldorf-Astoria Chicago proposal (as opposed to the really stupid stuff coming from the NY ones):

...Carley said he will show his plans next week to the Streeterville Organization of Active Residents, the area's leading civic group.

SOAR's president, Gail Spreen, said height alone would not elicit objections from the group. It's main concern, she said, would be how the building works at the ground level and its impact on pedestrian and auto traffic.

Spreen, however, criticized the design of the Hanover project by Chicago firm Solomon Cordwell Buenz. She said the developers want a 125-foot concrete parking structure on Illinois that she likened to "ugly buildings that have gone up in River North."

The block should be planned as a whole, with allowances for open space and improvements for the neighboring Ogden Plaza, Spreen said. "We don't want to settle for anything less than fantastic architecture," she said. A Hanover executive couldn't be reached...

[ASchwarz]

The fact of the matter is that Chicago is clearly getting great and wonderful architecture while NY's, which I'm sorry to say, are mostly conservative and bland in comparison.

I'm not even talking about height because there's no competition when it comes to that category.



Again, false and false. Take a visit. I'm there all the time and like Chicago, but its recent architecture is generally super-bland, even compared to NYC. There's some nice stuff, but I generally see cooler architecture in Northern Europe and back here in NYC. You are comparing NYC to a much smaller, less urban, less mixed-use place, where people own cars and have different lifestyles, which is reflected in the architecture and urban form. Chicago isn't even the #2 American urban center. SF and DC (and arguably Philly and Boston) are more cosmopolitan and classicly "urban".

For some reason people on this forum think the grass is always greener somewhere else. We can learn alot from alot of cities, but I wouldn't put Chicago at the top of the list, even if we're just talking about the U.S.

The fact is that there is tons of crap going up in Chicago, and there are far fewer world-class designs going up. I don't think there is a city on earth that matches NYC for more highrises from more world-class architects. Practically every global name in architecture has a building or buildings planned for NYC. There are some big names in Chicago, but anot a comprehensive global roster of architects. There must be twenty starchitects working on thirty buildings in West Chelsea.

If you think all those Mag Mile, South Loop and West Loop parking garage/condos are daring, while the High Line, L.E.S. and Billyburg condos strike you as conservative, then fine, we have different tastes.

And you're absolutely right that there's no competition in the height category. Only HK is in NYC's league for height. Chicago doesn't have a fifth of NYC's highrises. It has a number of very tall buildings built and planned, but so does NYC, and unlike Chicago, we have high prices/demand and low vacancies, so we will see a lot more built in coming years. As for silly height comparisons, remember we had something called 9-11. Seems pretty stupid to criticize NYC for lack of height when its two tallest buildings are missing.

[ASchwarz]

Chicago masks parking really well in most cases. Plus, as an added bonus, it adds around 10 floors to every skyscraper. Just another advantage Chicago has over NY

Another one on the kool aid. If Chicago has such an "advantage", then why are median prices less than half of Manhattan, and lower even than Queens and Jersey City? Why is their citywide vacancy rate about three times our rate?

The market disagrees with your assertion.

[NewYorkDoc]

Chicago masks parking really well in most cases. Plus, as an added bonus, it adds around 10 floors to every skyscraper. Just another advantage Chicago has over NY

Um....ok then. That being an advantage is just silly. I guess not for the height obsessive though.

[ASchwarz]

How can any city go wrong when the head of a supposedly NIMBY group in that city, SOAR, makes this kind of intelligent statement (http://www.suntimes.com/business/578552,CST-FIN-build28.article) regarding the 100-story Waldorf-Astoria Chicago proposal (as opposed to the really stupid stuff coming from the NY ones):

Well on this we agree. They don't really have NYC-style NIMBYs if they have no objections to a 100-floor building, (and outside the Loop, no less). This would be the equivalent of NYC NIMBYs having no problem with a 100-floor hotel on Upper Madison Ave. The NYC NIMBYs went crazy over that much shorter Foster proposal on Mad in the high seventies, and I'm sure the upcoming reworked, shorter Foster proposal will still be met with jeers.

You might have this impression of all these Chicago megahighrises because they don't really have comprehensive zoning, so all kinds of megatowers are proposed, and most aren't built. In NYC, a condo is financed before any marketing (because the market is super strong) but the weaker Chicago market requires selling at least half the units before the developer can get financing. This means that many proposals are made, while only some are built (Chicago Spire will be a forthcoming example of the gap between vision and a fully financed project).

I know nothing of this Waldorf project, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is a Skyneedle, Chicago Spire, etc. type development that is less than likely to be built in its present incarnation. If it's built, kudos to Chicago, but I would like to see a bank loan money for a 100-floor hotel in a glutted market during this credit crunch.

[sfenn1117]

Another one on the kool aid. If Chicago has such an "advantage", then why are median prices less than half of Manhattan, and lower even than Queens and Jersey City? Why is their citywide vacancy rate about three times our rate?

The market disagrees with your assertion.

Because income levels are less in Chicago hence housing costs less. I'm not saying Chicago is a better city, but if you think Chicago is getting bland designs, you are sorely mistaken. Show me any fedders buildings going up anywhere in Chicago. These buildings are ruining Brooklyn, and it's no exaggeration. The workmanship in Chicago is far superior to that in NY. Chicago is getting many more tall buildings than NY, and they support those tall buildings here.

In this boom, Chicago is just owning NY. Case closed.

[ASchwarz]

Show me any fedders buildings going up anywhere in Chicago. These buildings are ruining Brooklyn, and it's no exaggeration. The workmanship in Chicago is far superior to that in NY. Chicago is getting many more tall buildings than NY, and they support those tall buildings here.

In this boom, Chicago is just owning NY. Case closed.

I'm sorry, but every claim you make is completely false.

Chicago has tons of megacrap Fedders buildings, except theirs comes with street level parking. Sometimes even surface parking, no less! Take a walk up Lincoln Avenue, Diversey, Clybourn, Armitage, Clark or any other major North Side street, and you will see tons of crap that rivals NYC's worst. My sister used to live in one of these crapholes (with rickety outdoor wooden stairs, no less) in Lakeview. They even have suburban-style strip malls in the middle of the city. The Mag Mile Whole Foods is in a strip mall! Much worse than Fedders crap in BK.

Chicago is not getting "many more" tall buildings than NYC. There are far more tall buildings proposed in NYC, and more will get built than Chicago, because we have huge demand and no vacancies, while they have weak demand and high vacancies. We are growing, while their population is shrinking.

As for "in this boom, Chicago is just owning NY", ha! Over the last few years, on an annual basis, NYC has consistently built three times as many new residential units as Chicago. Remember that we are NIMBYtown and they are Anything Goes Town, yet we still build 3X as much. Don't believe me? Check out the Census link:
http://censtats.census.gov/bldg/bldgprmt.shtml

Compare the numbers for any recent year, and you will see that NYC has far more construction than Chicago. In fact, Brooklyn alone has had more construction than Chicago in a few select years.

This thread is turning into a NYC/Chicago comparison. I think everyone has made their point(s). Maybe we should get back on topic.

[sfenn1117]

NY is also 3 times the size of Chicago....it should be building 3 times the amount of units. Show me one 1,000 foot tower going up in NY right now outside the WTC, which is a special case. Sorry, spires don't count. So that's three for Chicago, and zero for NY, including the tallest building in the nation. How many 70+ floor residential towers proposed or u/c in Chicago right now? By my count around 10. NY? I believe two.

Just compare Chicago's "340 on the Park" to our Barclay Tower. It's depressing.

And yeah we're way off topic. Can the mods move these posts so we can continue the disc elsewhere?

[infoshare]

And yeah we're way off topic. Can the mods move these posts so we can continue the disc elsewhere?

I agree with the final remark in the previous post: "This thread is turning into a NYC/Chicago comparison. I think everyone has made their point(s). Maybe we should get back on topic". You can always start another thread if you want to continue the discussion elsewhere.

Cheers

[antinimby]

^ Not until I get my last word in. :D

Chicago beats NY in the heights of the new towers by a "magnificent" mile. Not only that but even the architecture of these be projects, NY could only wish they could get what Chicago is getting.

With all the McSams and O'Hara littering all over Manhattan as well as the Fedder brick boxes that sfenn alluded to, NY is not only not improving but getting uglier with each passing day.

By the way, this is the 100 story Waldorf Astoria Chicago:

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/6569/obaq927podre20070926234gd3.jpg

Drool over this because hell would freeze over before this city even gets anything close to resembling this.

[ASchwarz]

Antinimby, I bet that tower won't get built, just like all the other conceptual supertalls that never get built.

You are comparing existing NYC buildings to proposed, never-to-be built Chicago buildings.

When one compares realistic proposals, Trump and Waterview do not compare to WTC, Hudson Yards and Penn Station/MSG. Both cities have a ton of somewhat shorter 500-800 foot buildings planned, but I would wager there are many more in NYC.

In terms of what gets built, there are more and will be more in NYC than in Chicago. NYC is a bigger city that is growing faster and has more demand.

Plus the height comparisons are skewed because we don't have 15-20 floors of parking in every large new tower.

[sfenn1117]

At least Trump and Waterview are out of the ground. Hopefully the WTC will be next year....Hudson Yards maybe a decade away? MSG 15 years away?

Meanwhile the Chicago Spire was unknown two years ago and is already u/c

[Scraperfannyc]

These chicago projects are taking off without delay or much modifications.

One problem I see in NYC, which I said before on this forum, is that it was done so good the first time and it became so popular, that profiteers try to capitalize on the successes of their predecessors. Then here come the Macklowe's, the Mc Sams, etc, building the lowest quality stuff just to capitalize on how great NYC was made. Meanwhile, they are destroying NYC in this process. This and the NYC Nimby's are bad news for NYC.

Yet, I have hope for the barren parts of manhattan in the West Side, where they need to build great to get the highest rents. I still expect some nimby problems (look at Atlantic Yards for instance). For instance, the far west side is not yet an established part of Manhattan. It's the parts of NYC that have nothing where I expect the greatest developments in NYC outside the WTC. Macklowe will remain detroying our gems in the well established parts of NYC.

[ASchwarz]

At least Trump and Waterview are out of the ground. Hopefully the WTC will be next year....Hudson Yards maybe a decade away? MSG 15 years away?

Meanwhile the Chicago Spire was unknown two years ago and is already u/c

Re. Hudson Yards. take a visit. There are already a number of smaller projects u/c right now. Hudson Yards is now. A few of the larger projects have already been permitted and will break ground over the next few months.

Chicago Spire is not u/c. It hasn't even received financing. They are doing some excavation, and something will be built at some time, but nothing resembling the Chicago Spire. I would guess the current owner will sell the land at some point, just like Fordham Companies sold the land. It's all for publicity.

It will never be built because you cannot receive conventional financing for such a project. You couldn't even finance this project back when credit was easy, not even in a more lucrative market like NYC or London.

Now it's completely impossible. A 2,000 foot residential building could not be built anywhere in the world outside of Dubai, because it is guaranteed to be a gigantic money loser. Buildings rarely make economic sense above around 1,000 feet. A 2,000 foot residential building will be mostly elevator space in the upper levels.

[Scraperfannyc]

Here is my last off-topic response to an interesting subject (the NYC/Chicago discussion)

True, NYC, has more than 3 times the amount of office space, and the demand is much higher. Also, the residential population in the downtown area of chicago, where all the taller buildings are, is only around 100K, if that. Given this, it is interesing that Trump Chicago is building the tallest residential in the USA right here, and chicago has had the tallest office tower in the USA (sears with about 4 msf of office space) for a number of years. The new WTC towers have nice designs, but they do not match the amount of bulk and office space of the former 4+ msf of office space per TT. It could have been alot worse though.

As for the spire, it's fun to look at even if it is a publicity stunt. Who knows, it could actually be real.

[antinimby]

I think this post from krulltime sums up the disparity between new developments in Chicago versus NY perfectly:

So in Chicago the new InterContinental Hotel looks like this nice tall one...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/thumbnails/photo/2005-11/20263883.jpg

and their first one in NYC looks like this dump?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02052007/photos/biz034.jpg

The new Gene Kaufman?

The sad part of this is that even the nicer developments in NY don't even come close to matching that of the InterContinental Chicago above let alone the cheap McSam-like hotels.

[NYatKNIGHT]

The New York - Chicago posts have been moved here from this thread:

West 55th and Eighth Ave. - 1 Million sqft. Office Tower (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8287&page=16)

[Stern]

I think this post from krulltime sums up the disparity between new developments in Chicago versus NY perfectly:



The sad part of this is that even the nicer developments in NY don't even come close to matching that of the InterContinental Chicago above let alone the cheap McSam-like hotels.

All true but Chicago as a city doesn't even come close to the city that New York is. I love architecture, but really what's more important?

[investordude]

I would actually say its bad that New York, SF, DC vacancies are so low. Of course, high vacancies are also bad, but Chicago represents a healthy balance between supply and demand, where they build tall buildings to respond to increases in supply. What New York should learn from this is great, tall buildings can be built if we reduce the regulatory costs of building in New York by reducing NIMBY thinking.

Furthermore, the O'Hara buildings are another response to awful government policy - mandatory affordable housing. Affordable housing is a tax on new development that ironically just makes housing more expensive for everyone. A high quality apartment in the south loop that would be considered the pinnacle of luxury in New York ironically often costs less than $1000 a month in Chicago. Chicago has less extreme government meddling - they just build enough apartments to satisfy demand. As a result, people buying affordable apartments don't think of their apartments as government crap, and don't live in buildings built by O'Hara type architects.

Sure, New York is the more worldly city than Chicago, and it always has been, but the idea that expensive is good is a flawed model - we should be trying to be cheaper than other cities for the same value. And New York benefits from less "pay to play" politics, because there is as of right zoning to build tall.

I do agree though that New York has better street life, primarily because the population density in Manhattan is at least twice that of Chicago, because Manhattan never gets so cold to forbid street life, etc. I think there is more than architecture explaining the different street life.

[londonlawyer]

Chicago is a cowtown, and its residents, by and large, are unsophisticated hicks who moved to the "big city" after leaving Oh, In, Wi, Mich, etc. I'd much rather live in Philly, Boston or DC, let alone NY, than in Chicago and that's notwithstanding the fact that Chicago is dirt cheap.

[alonzo-ny]

I think this post from krulltime sums up the disparity between new developments in Chicago versus NY perfectly:



The sad part of this is that even the nicer developments in NY don't even come close to matching that of the InterContinental Chicago above let alone the cheap McSam-like hotels.

Yes very good, compare the absolute worst project in NY to one of the better Chicago ones. I venture that chicago isnt that much in the lead over new york, at the tall, good quality end it has more but they are still building middle ground bland crap too, take a look at the 'chicago building taller or whatever' thread, those four towers at the end of the park are all crap save for one of them being average. I wish people would stop acting like everything in NY is McSams and everything in chicago is ChiSpires. IMO the new WTC is amazing, atlantic yards is above average, beekman is unique, calatravas cubes is the best in the world if built, libeskinds tower will be above average at least unique, hudson yards has amazing potential, the bond street buildings are beautiful, one madison park is great, jean nouvels buildings are beautiful, 15 CPW thumbs up, BOA, NYT, Silvercup, foster on lex, riverside south potential, portzamparcs tower near mad sq., new museum on the bowery, 11 T SQ, 50 W St, steven holl on the westside, silversteins new res tower has amazing potential, shigeru ban in chelsea, never mind all the fantastic smaller scale buildings around the city that are beautiful. Add that to our existing stock of absolutely beautiful old buildings and the best urban environment in the world does chicago really look that great? As for the best of what chicago has planned most of it is nowhere yet and has a history of spire-esk buildings being proposed and never being built. trump is very good but the other buildings i see in chicago that are solidly there UC at least are average at best.

[investordude]

Clearly, Chicago has a larger US born population than the east coast cities, but again, I think that's because people see value for their money and a great lifestyle there. The east coast cities get a huge bonus, because Boston and Philly are basically great Ivy league college towns, and all the college graduates then move to New York and DC when they graduate so you get cool twenty somethings with money in those places.

But I'd argue that once you get beyond this "best and the brightest crowd" - admittedly a cool feature of the east coast cities and their main west coast counterpart in SF, it's still advantageous that Chicago is cheaper.

I'm not arguing the east coast isn't a better place to be given the college and post-college scene and the international scene, but why can't we have those things and also support enough development so that price rises lead to supply increases as well and a rational housing market.

The people here are good, but the NIMBY politics makes it more expensive to enjoy the lifestyle here than it should be.

[antinimby]

@alonzony

Oh please. For your information, I did not take New York's worst (lord knows there's plenty to choose from) or take one of Chicago's best.

If you were a bit more keen then you would know that they both had one thing in common: new InterContinental hotels for each city respectively. That's the reason I picked those particular designs.

It's easy to say that those four Chicago towers is crap because you're just trying to argue against them but most people would agree that those towers are the type of buildings that if they were proposed in New York would get a lot of people here excited.

They are creative and interesting, not boring and conventional boxes who's designs hasn't changed much since they were first introduced in the 50's.

Not only are designs superior but Chicago and Chicagoans are now at the forefront of urban thinking because as you saw from my quote a few posts back, they are embracing tall towers, density and pedestrian friendly groundlevels, things that even most New Yorkers are still light years behind.

I can understand that many of you New York forumers need to argue in favor of this city but to turn a blind eye to what another city is doing and doing better is just foolish.

[antinimby]

The only reason why New York is larger and generally more wealthier than Chicago is geography. New York is fortunate to be located where it is.

Flip flop the two cities and I will guarantee you that Chicago would be doing better with what it has than what New York has accomplished so far.

[Stern]

The only reason why New York is larger and generally more wealthier than Chicago is geography. New York is fortunate to be located where it is.

Flip flop the two cities and I will guarantee you that Chicago would be doing better with what it has than what New York has accomplished so far.

I dont see your point, the reason New York is what it is, is because of its great location and everything that developed because of it in the last 300 years. Chicago could be set 50 miles north or south on Lake Michigan, it wouldn't have made a difference. What do you flip-flop the Daley's for Bloomberg? Al Capone for John Gotti?

[alonzo-ny]

It's easy to say that those four Chicago towers is crap because you're just trying to argue against them but most people would agree that those towers are the type of buildings that if they were proposed in New York would get a lot of people here excited.

.

No i dont debate like that its moronic. Those four towers barring one are crap, sorry crap with crowns thats what makes them so amazing? They are still crap i wouldnt want any of the worse 3 in NY. What my point is not that NY isnt building alot of crap its that everyone needs to stop putting Chi on a pedestal, NY is building ALOT of good architecture along with its crap and chicago is building crap with its good stuff so even out the picture.

[antinimby]

I dont see your point, the reason New York is what it is, is because of its great location and everything that developed because of it in the last 300 years. Chicago could be set 50 miles north or south on Lake Michigan, it wouldn't have made a difference. What do you flip-flop the Daley's for Bloomberg? Al Capone for John Gotti?You obviously didn't understand me. You apparently are agreeing with me because you even said yourself that New York became a success because of its location, on the East Coast, with a great harbor, the southern end of the Hudson river and acting as a gateway to the rest of the country.

Those are enviable traits that no other city is blessed with, not Boston, not Philadelphia. That is precisely the reason why I said New York's success has as much to do with what it was given. Chicago on the other hand has some advantages being where it is but no where as good as what New York has.

My point is that if these two cities were to change their geographic location with one another, i.e. Chicago switch places with NY, then Chicago, too can do what NY has done and I'm quite sure they would even surpass it.

Alas, the discussion is more of architecture between these two cities so I'll go no further with these "who's mightier" talk.

No i dont debate like that its moronic. Those four towers barring one are crap, sorry crap with crowns thats what makes them so amazing? They are still crap i wouldnt want any of the worse 3 in NY. What my point is not that NY isnt building alot of crap its that everyone needs to stop putting Chi on a pedestal, NY is building ALOT of good architecture along with its crap and chicago is building crap with its good stuff so even out the picture.You know what moronic? What you have said so far. You say those very elegant and well designed Chicago towers are crap but couldn't anyone just as easily say all these NY projects that you contend that were wonderful, couldn't they be crap also?

What makes those NY projects not crap and the Chicago ones, crap? Is it just your overly biased opinion?

[Stern]

You obviously didn't understand me. You apparently are agreeing with me because you even said yourself that New York became a success because of its location, on the East Coast, with a great harbor, the southern end of the Hudson river and acting as a gateway to the rest of the country.

Those are enviable traits that no other city is blessed with, not Boston, not Philadelphia. That is precisely the reason why I said New York's success has as much to do with what it was given. Chicago on the other hand has some advantages being where it is but no where as good as what New York has.

My point is that if these two cities were to change their geographic location with one another, i.e. Chicago switch places with NY, then Chicago, too can do what NY has done and I'm quite sure they would even surpass it.

Alas, the discussion is more of architecture between these two cities so I'll go no further with these "who's mightier" talk.

I'm not understanding the argument, cities aren't people, they don't think, they just are. If you replaced New York with Chicago and Chicago with New York you'd still have Chicago and New York. :rolleyes:

[antinimby]

Oh god Stern!!! One more try.

It's all hypothetical, obviously. New York is lifted up and moved to where Chicago is at right now and Chicago gets lifted up and moves to where New York is.

They are switching their physical locations. Do you get it now? ;)

[alonzo-ny]

You know what moronic? What you have said so far. You say those very elegant and well designed Chicago towers are crap but couldn't anyone just as easily say all these NY projects that you contend that were wonderful, couldn't they be crap also?

What makes those NY projects not crap and the Chicago ones, crap? Is it just your overly biased opinion?

Hmm no ive not made any moronic statements, im not biased about a buildings design just because of the city it happens to be in. I do like chicago but find it sterile and boring in comparison to NY. Just because i live here doesnt mean i have deluded home town pride, i can see both cities objectively. If you think those towers are elegant then your standards are lower than mine, people could think the buildings i listed are not attractive but thats the beauty of opinion. I was stating mine.

I also dont understand your switching cities statement. do you mean move all the people and government etc because what your saying means we would just have the same cities again. Are you saying the people and city spirit would make it better? for your information New York was built by people also and it is a much greater city because of those very people who built it from nothing. Chicago just has a different culture. Im sure if you transported its entire population here eventually they would become nimbys and greedy developers too.

[Stern]

Oh god Stern!!! One more try.

It's all hypothetical, obviously. New York is lifted up and moved to where Chicago is at right now and Chicago gets lifted up and moves to where New York is.

They are switching their physical locations. Do you get it now? ;)

Or just rename New York, Chicago and Chicago, New York. I understand what you're saying, I just don't get the point of it.

[antinimby]

alonzo, it is pointless discussing with you on the new Chicago towers because you are a biased booster, no different than a JCMan. Nothing in JC is bad and nobody is better than what they've got in JC except in your case, just replace JC with NY.

To say that those wonderful new projects in Chicago is crap and then say how NY is getting better designs totally undermines your opinion, even if it is just your opinion. Read the threads in the new development section and you will see that quite a few forumers here are disenchanted with what is happening overall in NY, me being one of them.

Are we getting all bad designs? No, of course not but for a world-class city and the preeminent city in the country and perhaps the world, the architecture we are getting is very disappointing and inferior to many other cities, including Chicago.

I am not putting Chicago on a pedestal as you said. I'm just pointing out as an example of a place that is right now, getting much better (although you obviously don't agree but many people do) than New York.

I know that some of you are proud of NY and don't want to hear the truth, no matter how much the truth may hurt but if you are objective, then you have to sometimes admit that others are better.

As for the switching the two cities, it was because someone had said that New York was so much more far superior to Chicago in population, wealth, status symbol, etc. I was trying to make the point that success is due more to their physical location than anything else.

The point is that if Chicago was given what NY has, they too can be just as successful if not more. If you still don't get this, I'm not explaining it again.

[antinimby]

Or just rename New York, Chicago and Chicago, New York. I understand what you're saying, I just don't get the point of it.If you rename it, then everything basically stays the same. The people, the people's mentality, the city laws, etc. I'm saying you must move those too.

Basically, I want to see how successful Chicago would be if it had the same physical advantages that NY had and how much "better" NY would be if it was moved to the Midwest.

[alonzo-ny]

alonzo, it is pointless discussing with you on the new Chicago towers because you are a biased booster, no different than a JCMan. Nothing in JC is bad and nobody is better than what they've got in JC except in your case, just replace JC with NY.

.

I am not biased and im sick of you saying it. I said repeatedly my opinion is that people focus on the bad of NY and the good of Chicago and not the other end of the spectrums of each. I also said that i accept NY builds comparitively more crap. I then mentioned a list of good projects in ny that failed to be mentioned, so to give a balanced view of NY developement as McSam etc had been mentioned much more, I listed them.

Those towers are bland bland bland and i dont care what you say wont change my opinion. If i am biased toward new york based on what ive said then you are biased just as much against new york and for chicago. Dont dare compare me to the drivel JCMan pours out about jersey again as it is a completely overblown statement and shows you to be a fool if you genuinely think that.

[antinimby]

No one ever thinks they're biased but I'll let others form their opinion of you. No point in arguing with you on that, really.

If you ask JCMan, he'll tell you he is perfectly objective also and that he is right, too. LOL.

[alonzo-ny]

No one ever thinks their stupid either.

[antinimby]

At least you know that much.

No one ever thinks their stupid either.Proved your own point. LOL!

[alonzo-ny]

Duuuuuh you're so smart you were write about everything!

[Scraperfannyc]

I'm not understanding the argument, cities aren't people, they don't think, they just are. If you replaced New York with Chicago and Chicago with New York you'd still have Chicago and New York. :rolleyes:

But it is the people that develop cities. Think, if NYC was in the 1920's development frame of mind, things might be more exciting.

[NYguy]

Are you kidding me? This thread must be for the entertainment value. Chicago is not even on New York's level. I know it seems that way because there's really no closer comparison in the US (though some would argue LA). But let's be real.

Now, that's not to say Chicago isn't a great town in its own right, but New York it is not.

[TREPYE]

I think that the thread conveys the fact that Chicago is kicking our ass when it comes to new developements.

[investordude]

Seems pretty obvious -
Chicago is building more impressive architecture today, as the pro-Chicago crowd is pointing out.
New York at street level has more of an international feel, and remains America's premier financial and commercial capital.

Is there anything mutually exclusive about this? Does anyone disagree with either point?

[alonzo-ny]

My point was that chicago is building more impressively and ambitiously but new york is still building some beautiful stuff.

[BVictor1]

Chicago Spire is not u/c. It hasn't even received financing. They are doing some excavation, and something will be built at some time, but nothing resembling the Chicago Spire. I would guess the current owner will sell the land at some point, just like Fordham Companies sold the land. It's all for publicity.

It will never be built because you cannot receive conventional financing for such a project. You couldn't even finance this project back when credit was easy, not even in a more lucrative market like NYC or London.

Now it's completely impossible. A 2,000 foot residential building could not be built anywhere in the world outside of Dubai, because it is guaranteed to be a gigantic money loser. Buildings rarely make economic sense above around 1,000 feet. A 2,000 foot residential building will be mostly elevator space in the upper levels.

Are you blind or just a total blowhard? The Spire has been underconstruction for several months. They have been working on caissons, slurry wall and exit ramps from Lake Shore Drive. I could say the exact same thing about the WTC, oh uhn they just have a few pieces of steel in place. Please remove your head from your behind.


All true but Chicago as a city doesn't even come close to the city that New York is. I love architecture, but really what's more important?


Depends on who you ask. We do not want to be nor do we try to be like NY. Every city is different and has its own character and charm. Even "twins" aren't the same, so...

[alonzo-ny]

And the little financing issue?

[BVictor1]

And the little financing issue?

Yeah, what about it? Just because he hasn't told me or you about it personally doesn't me it's not there...

[Stern]

Seems pretty obvious -
Chicago is building more impressive architecture today, as the pro-Chicago crowd is pointing out.
New York at street level has more of an international feel, and remains America's premier financial and commercial capital.

Is there anything mutually exclusive about this? Does anyone disagree with either point?

Nicely put.

[BVictor1]

Chicago is a cowtown, and its residents, by and large, are unsophisticated hicks who moved to the "big city" after leaving Oh, In, Wi, Mich, etc. I'd much rather live in Philly, Boston or DC, let alone NY, than in Chicago and that's notwithstanding the fact that Chicago is dirt cheap.

Please stop talking out of your ass and making ignoragt statements like this:confused: What you just said was "unsophisticated".

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
Tone down your posts.

[alonzo-ny]

Yeah, what about it? Just because he hasn't told me or you about it personally doesn't me it's not there...

just because i havent seen santa claus doesnt mean he isnt there either...

[Stern]

Why did I get the impression that when this thread was made it would quickly become about nothing?

[investordude]

I personally think the Chicago Spire will get financed, but probably with the demand for some rentals or hotel space on the lower floors. Chicago has less NIMBY pressure than Manhattan, but its still hard enough to get a building like this approved that supply is pretty contained relative to demand is my guess. Trophy properties like this seem like they may bypass the subprime issue, because there is foreign demand for them and the dollar is weak. Chicago has the special advantage of being near the Canadian oil boom in Alberta for Canadians who want a place to have fun in the US.

[Scraperfannyc]

If there is any place have fun, it would be in NYC.
If developers could go ahead and build their biggest and best building in NYC, I think they would do that.

Chicago is probably the closest city to NYC in the US, and it considers itself as the NYC of the midwest. The fact that Chicago is building amazing projects right now does not make NYC any worse. In fact, it is good because at some point NYC may look at this and think, why can't we do that too? And then they will build.

[BVictor1]

just because i havent seen santa claus doesnt mean he isnt there either...

Exactly, I'm glad that we understand one another ;)

[alonzo-ny]

Me too

[londonlawyer]

When it comes to office buildings, Chicago fares no better than NY. (In fact, I think it fares worse.) Consider the following office towers that were built there within the past few years:

111 S. Wacker
Banc One Center
One South Dearborn
191 N. Wacker

They're all boxes and short ones at that.

The "nice" recent office buildings there (e.g., UBS and Hyatt) are hardly spectacular.

Another lame new, Chicago box: Block 37
http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/7030/b373uj8.jpg

[bigjersey]

This thread is so fun. I have to admit that I grew up in New Jersey and my parents always kept a city apartment for our fun and enjoyment. I love New York. BUT...lol... I chose to live in Chicago. Most New Yorkers live a very east coast focused life, which is fine, but they really shouldn't comment on something they don't know about. I've LIVED in both cities. The truth is that Chicago is far more enjoyable place to live. New York is far more exciting. Chicago is going through an incredible evolution both culturally and physically right now. Manhattan really filled out as urban center in the 20th century, but in Chicago you get the feeling you're living in America's 21st century city. Considering we're only 8 years into the century, I can't wait to see how Chicago evolves. I live Streeterville, which is the epicenter of the super-highrise movement. I live on the 46th floor of a building with, gasp, underground parking. The street life here ranges from extremely vibrant on summer weekends to completely barren Monday-Wednesday in the winter. Like New York though, I can always get a cab at any hour of the day. Metaphorically speaking, Chicago is like a little book that you read over and over again, and each time you read it you discover new things that you didn't appreciate about the first time around. The things that you once thought we're stale about Chicago now seems a fresher. New York is about the payout and immediacy, and Chicago is more about change and evolution. New Yorkers are proud martyrs that live life with desperate exuberance and in-your-face sophistication. Chicagoans are heroic savages that live relaxed lives of subtle sophistication. I think the urban space reflects this. I wonder whether the urban space creates the vibe or whether vibe creates the urban space?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2011/2075460250_cfcc513e66.jpg?v=0

[londonlawyer]

Chicago is a very unsophisticated city that is chock full of yokels.

[ZippyTheChimp]

New York is like a big book that you've never finished but you know is great. But things that you thought were fresh about New York all begin to seem a little stale the second go around.I thought the book is never finished, so when do we get to the 'second go around.'

Your post is muddled; happens when you overuse metaphors.

[bigjersey]

I thought the book is never finished, so when do we get to the 'second go around.'

Your post is muddled; happens when you overuse metaphors.

True, I tried to take the muddle out. londonlawyer is afraid of the truth. Here are some a picture of downtown highrise construction in a thunderstorm.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2337/2074669641_341ce4b380.jpg?v=0

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2195/2075460896_7a5eec7806.jpg?v=0

[spyguy999]

Another lame new, Chicago box: Block 37


First, that's not an office building. Second, designs for Block 37 have changed a number of times so that is likely not the final product.

[liberal84]

Chicago is a very unsophisticated city that is chock full of yokels.

I've yet to see anything in remotely interesting, let alone sophisticated in London. Sure, you have your centuries old buildings but anything modern just plain sucks. Atleast Chicago has a skyline to be proud of. Los Angeles has more of a skyline and interestring things to see rather than London. Is it the depressing weather over there or is it skyscraper envy that's getting the best of you?

[londonlawyer]

Your comments about London are absurd.

[bigjersey]

Not that you care London, but the Tribune reports that Gensler is redesigning the exterior of Block 37. The Tribune architecture critics, who still have influence in this "unsophisticated" city, strongly opposed the latest renderings. This article presents an interesting discussion of the history and importance of Block 37 as an entertainment hub in the Loop.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/arts/chi-1111_movies_kaminnov11,1,3549650.story

This is the latest rendering.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2004-09/14149874.jpg

[liberal84]

My comments are no more absurd than anyone elses. I highly doubt you've ever been to Chicago yet you feel the need to pass judgement. I can atleast say that I've been to your neck of the woods. Wasn't impressed to be honest. And even if I've never been to your city how would my opinions be absurd? I don't know how you could call anyone's opinions "absurd" when everyone's entitled to their opinions. Opinions are like assholes buddy, everyone has one and they all stink!

[pianoman11686]

^Read his location. (He's not from London.)

[alonzo-ny]

Most New Yorkers live a very east coast focused life, which is fine, but they really shouldn't comment on something they don't know about. I've LIVED in both cities.

Ok you are the be all and end all of this matter. Stupid.

I've yet to see anything in remotely interesting, let alone sophisticated in London. Sure, you have your centuries old buildings but anything modern just plain sucks. Atleast Chicago has a skyline to be proud of. Los Angeles has more of a skyline and interestring things to see rather than London. Is it the depressing weather over there or is it skyscraper envy that's getting the best of you?

Ridiculous, if you knew anything about London you would embarrass yourself saying something so dumb.



http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/arts/chi-1111_movies_kaminnov11,1,3549650.story

This is the latest rendering.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2004-09/14149874.jpg

That is the latest rendering of a POS.

[bigjersey]

Ok you are the be all and end all of this matter. Stupid.



Ridiculous, if you knew anything about London you would embarrass yourself saying something so dumb.



That is the latest rendering of a POS.

This is the typical arrogant response of a hyper-active and confrontational New Yorker. Your attitude is exactly what pisses people off about the east coast. Before I moved the Chicago, I was accustomed to people just like you. Jumping on every word. There's something about New York that makes people just a little on edge, a little fiesty. Queens, Jersey, Manhattan... the attitude doesn't change no matter which side of the bridge or tunnnel you live on. Here's the point, when you've LIVED within a 60 mile radius of Astoria your whole life you need to acknowledge that you lack perspective. The reason I'm "the be all and end all" is because I have this perspective. If you had any sense you would see how silly your response was because you'd realize that the rendering was from the latest design that was REJECTED!!.

[londonlawyer]

....That is the latest rendering of a POS.

I agree. (By the way, that's very funny.)

[liberal84]

This is the typical arrogant response of a hyper-active and confrontational New Yorker. Your attitude is exactly what pisses people off about the east coast. Before I moved the Chicago, I was accustomed to people just like you. Jumping on every word. There's something about New York that makes people just a little on edge, a little fiesty. Queens, Jersey, Manhattan... the attitude doesn't change no matter which side of the bridge or tunnnel you live on. Here's the point, when you've LIVED within a 60 mile radius of Astoria your whole life you need to acknowledge that you lack perspective. The reason I'm "the be all and end all" is because I have this perspective. If you had any sense you would see how silly your response was because you'd realize that the rendering was from the latest design that was REJECTED!!.

Hahah so true. And I do KNOW about London, I've been plenty of times. You don't know me, but yet you have the adacity to say I don't know anything and insult my intelligence? Please, when you can think of better adjectives come back to me. You think you're high and mighty because you're from New York? Hahaha. I'm not here to start fights with anyone, but atleast Chicagoans aren't constantly looking for a confrontation, nor do we have a self-assured sense of entitlement. I've been to New York, I still don't get what all the hype is about. Ignorant people who think the world revolves around their overrated city, which smells like garbage, not to mention I've never seen an alley in New York. The sewer smells worse than anything but this is THE city to live in? Riight. And please excuse the f-ck out of me. You'd think someone with "London Lawyer" as their username was a London lawyer. Excuse me for being so naive.

"Ridiculous, if you knew anything about London you would embarrass yourself saying something so dumb."

It's "wouldn't" and you forgot "by". Yet, I'm dumb? Quit embarrassing yourself, child.

[ZippyTheChimp]

This is the typical arrogant response of a hyper-active and confrontational New Yorker. Your attitude is exactly what pisses people off about the east coast.He's not from New York.

[alonzo-ny]

Here's the point, when you've LIVED within a 60 mile radius of Astoria your whole life

You should really stop making assumptions. LondonLawyer isnt from London and for the past twenty one years since I was spawned onto the earth I lived in Scotland.

[Scraperfannyc]

I've only been to london for one weekend and my take is that if you are looking for tall skyskscrapers, London is lacking. If you are looking for wonderful architecture,a lot of history and well planned out streets and squares, london is plentiful.

If you are looking for the most exciting and tallest skyscraper development, London will not excite. For the USA, Chicago and NYC are the two tops, although Miami is very interesting as it is behaving a little like Dubai's younger brother.

Much potential for great new development in NYC, outside of replacing the WTC, is getting screwed for several reasons. The need and desire to build the best and greatest in NYC is there.

Chicago does not seem to have as many problems that NYC is now encountering, and in fact, the city quicky accepts very tall buildings in prime spots, such as the Chicago Spire and Trump. Chicago seems to be behaving a little like NYC did during its prime time of growth.

However, there is potential for great new development for NYC's west side where NYC nimby's and restrictions do not exist to such a high degree.

[OmegaNYC]

NY. Chicago. NY. Chicago. I know a better city than both of them. Ladies and Gents: Moblie, Alabama.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Mobile_Skyline.jpg

Now THATS a skyline!

[ablarc]

^ Can't hold a candle to Charlotte.

[NewYorkDoc]

^ True, Charlotte is the south's second city.

[ASchwarz]

IMO for the U.S. only:

NYC > SF/LA/BOS/DC/PHL > Chicago > Everyone else

[ASchwarz]

I've only been to london for one weekend and my take is that if you are looking for tall skyskscrapers, London is lacking. .

Nobody cares about this. This isn't skyscrapercity.

Though if this is really how you judge cities, you might be interested to know that London has more highrises (according to Emporis) than Chicago. The only Chicago advantage is among the tallest, where Chicago is of course much, much taller.


Much potential for great new development in NYC, outside of replacing the WTC, is getting screwed for several reasons. The need and desire to build the best and greatest in NYC is there.

NYC has about 3X the construction of Chicago (according to U.S. Census monthly New Construction Starts data), so if development in NYC is getting screwed, I can't imagine what you thnk about Chicago development.


Chicago seems to be behaving a little like NYC did during its prime time of growth.


Chicago's population is declining.

Both cities had their "prime time of growth" in the 1920's and thereabouts.

[ASchwarz]

Chicago is a very unsophisticated city that is chock full of yokels.

I wouldn't go that far, but it is relatively unsophisticated compared to NYC and London especially, but also, SF, LA, DC, Bos, and every major city in Western Europe.

[NYatKNIGHT]

atleast Chicagoans aren't constantly looking for a confrontation, nor do we have a self-assured sense of entitlement. We're talking about Chicagoans here, right? That was my laugh out loud moment of the day. Thanks!

[Chiboy]

Chicago is probably the closest city to NYC in the US, and it considers itself as the NYC of the midwest.


Ummm...no.

We like to think of ourselves as the Chicago of the World.

Honestly, NY'ers can be so charmingly provincial in their uber-sophisticated way.

And a little note regarding the cost of living in Chicago, remember, a lot of that has to do with a more or less unlimited palette on which to build. There is really no outer limit theoretically to the area on which to build as their is in Manhattan.

Regarding the parking garages, it is a lot easier to escape out of Chicago for a weekend drive than it is to get off of Manhattan. Many people I know who have a car downtown rarely use it and simply enjoy having a car stored in their building. My guess is many in Manhattan, if there was enough space and $$ to pay for it, wouldn't mind having a car stored somewhere nearby. I also know of a lot of people who plan to live halftime downtown and half the time in their 2nd or 3rd homes, so they like to have a car when they are in town.

And earlier in the thread, someone mentioned the Ivy League. Well, last time I checked University of Chicago had more Nobels than any university in the world and Northwestern is easily in the same leagues as well. Chicago is hardly lacking in education or culture.

BTW, I love NYC, amazing place to visit ;) for a simpleton Chicago yokel....it's just so big and all. Just wow....

[Scraperfannyc]

Ummm...no.

We like to think of ourselves as the Chicago of the World.

Many people I know who have a car downtown rarely use it and simply enjoy having a car stored in their building. I also know of a lot of people who plan to live halftime downtown and half the time in their 2nd or 3rd homes.
....

This is very much like NYC, plenty of people own cars and don't use it until they decide to take a trip outside of NYC or go to their second home or family outside NYC.

My friend from chicago says walking through NYC feels just like walking in Chicago. So what U.S. city do you think is more similar to NYC than Chicago?

[lesterp4]

I would like to know where that person walked. There is no place in Chucago that is like walking in Manhattan, because people are generally not out on the streets in Chicago, especially in the winter. They drive. I lived there for a while and always wondered why the streets were so dead.

[Scraperfannyc]

I would like to know where that person walked. There is no place in Chucago that is like walking in Manhattan, because people are generally not out on the streets in Chicago, especially in the winter. They drive. I lived there for a while and always wondered why the streets were so dead.

Park Avenue and Fifth Avenue. I see both yours and his points.

[Ebryan]

Regarding the parking garages, it is a lot easier to escape out of Chicago for a weekend drive than it is to get off of Manhattan. Many people I know who have a car downtown rarely use it and simply enjoy having a car stored in their building. My guess is many in Manhattan, if there was enough space and $$ to pay for it, wouldn't mind having a car stored somewhere nearby. I also know of a lot of people who plan to live halftime downtown and half the time in their 2nd or 3rd homes, so they like to have a car when they are in town.


Aside from traffic, how is it difficult to leave Manhattan? It is within a stone's throw of Upstate, New Jersey, New England, the Tri-State. I'm confused. Isn't Manhattan's accessibility historically the reason why it grew to such prominence?

[pianoman11686]

^Not accessibility by land, but by water. The Erie Canal and the natural harbor were the biggest reasons for growth.

[londonlawyer]

Philadelphia and Boston are a lot more like NY than Chicago is.

For that matter, NY and SF have more in common than do NY and Chi.

[Scraperfannyc]

Philadelphia and Boston are a lot more like NY than Chicago is.

For that matter, NY and SF have more in common than do NY and Chi.

From an architectural and skyscraper standpoint, I don't agree. I'm not comparing pizza here. I'm talking about skyscrapers.

I agree San Francisco may be like Manhattan in that is its very compact and has many neighborhoods like NYC has, but the funky architecture in SF with most buildings on various streets within certain neighborhoods looking very different is a far cry from the brownstones, walkups and skyscrapers of NYC.

[alonzo-ny]

I dont think we are refering to simply the architecture.

[Chiboy]

In some ways Philly seems more like NY, but only Chicago gives anywhere near the sense of scale and vibrancy of NY.

Believe it or not, at least during the weekday hours, the Loop in Chicago is every bit as crowded and dense as anywhere in NY.

Downtown Chicago has almost 750,000 workers and the residential population is approaching 200,000 very quickly. Add to that the tens of thousands of visitors in hotel rooms and tens of thousands of downtown students and downtown Chicago is easily the most crowded place in the country outside of Manhattan.

Believe it or not London, you are looking at more than a million people here...and growing by the day

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f21/cbotnyse/my%20photos/DSC_0014copy-1.jpg
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/Candrson/lake3.jpg

[Jeffreyny]

Believe it or not London, you are looking at more than a million people here...and growing by the day


Chicago's population is indecline.

[Jeffreyny]

Chicago and New York are very different cities and not even similar in population. Aside from the commonality in the concentration of skyscapers I don't see much to compare.

[Chiboy]

Chicago's population is indecline.

Most in Chicago think the Census is wrong on this. However, unlike many (St. Louis, Cincy, NYC) Chicago hasn't officially challenged the estimates. If it is declining it is only because less and less Mexicans and others are doubling up. In fact, many Mexicans have moved to the suburbs and whole ex-Mexican neighborhoods have been "gentrified" with less kids and grandparents.

Any decline in population (if there is such a thing) is not because the city is stagnating. The metro is growing at twice the rate as NYC. And the central city population continues to expand rapidly. The city is very much on the upswing.

And remember, Chicago, unlike NY, is not limited as much by geography. Many of the older suburban areas have plateaued or even began to show a slgiht population decline even as the metro expands. This does not imply that these areas are in decline, simply that there are less people per unit of housing.

[Chiboy]

And Chicago has been consistently rising as a destination for well-heeled international tourists.

Coming in ahead of the likes of Paris, Hong Kong, and Honolulu in a recent Conde Nast survey.

Rankings of top cities according to the Conde Nast Traveler Reader's Choice Awards:
Sydney 87.7
Florence 86.8
San Francisco 85.9
Bangkok 85.8
Rome 85.0
Santa Fe 84.1
New York City 82.9
Venice 82.9
Cape Town 82.8
Chicago 82.2

[lesterp4]

I have never seen those statistics anywhere. I think you need to back these claims up with figures. NYC added over 200,000 according to last census while Chicago is still losing people.

[Chiboy]

NYC successfully challenged the census and the census agreed to change their estimates. Chicago hasn't done that, not sure why. Maybe the city population has plateaued, many lower class people are being priced out by rising real estate prices. In other words, if the city is losing a small percentage of population, IF, it's because the place is getting too expensive.

And in terms of the metros,

in the period from 200-2006
New York's metro grew 2.9% (614,000) 21,976,000
Chicago's grew 4.4% (412,000) to 9,725,000

Okay, it's not 2 times as fast, but it is growing faster than (metro) New York,

[Jeffreyny]

And Chicago has been consistently rising as a destination for well-heeled international tourists.

Coming in ahead of the likes of Paris, Hong Kong, and Honolulu in a recent Conde Nast survey.

Rankings of top cities according to the Conde Nast Traveler Reader's Choice Awards:
Sydney 87.7
Florence 86.8
San Francisco 85.9
Bangkok 85.8
Rome 85.0
Santa Fe 84.1
New York City 82.9
Venice 82.9
Cape Town 82.8
Chicago 82.2





Here are the top rated cities for 2007.
Where does your survey come from?
http://www.cntraveller.com/ReadersAwards/2007/Cities/

[Jeffreyny]

NYC successfully challenged the census and the census agreed to change their estimates. Chicago hasn't done that, not sure why. Maybe the city population has plateaued, many lower class people are being priced out by rising real estate prices. In other words, if the city is losing a small percentage of population, IF, it's because the place is getting too expensive.

And in terms of the metros,

in the period from 200-2006
New York's metro grew 2.9% (614,000) 21,976,000
Chicago's grew 4.4% (412,000) to 9,725,000

Okay, it's not 2 times as fast, but it is growing faster than (metro) New York,


I'm not arguing Chicago. I just don't think it compares with New York which is the point of the post. All large cities that are gentrifying have issues with immigrants being priced out of cities. In New York many immigrants find themselves commuting from Pennsylvania in order to find affordable housing.
Also for the most part most metro areas are increasing in population. The country's population IS increasing..Even Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area had a population increase of over 16% in the last 10 years but the city itself is shrinking.

Here are some other interesting statistics from the last US.census showing population change from 1990 to 2000. While Chicago's metro had a higher percentage increase at 11.1% compared with New York's metro at only 8.4%, the actual numbers were vastly different with Chicago's metro at an increase of 917,720 compared to NY's at 1,650.216.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/phc-t3.html
(look at table 2)
I will hand it to Chicago though...the city has some incredibly innovative modern architecture, clean streets, friendly people and a population that's very proud of their city as you well prove.

[Chiboy]

From an architectural and skyscraper standpoint, I don't agree. I'm not comparing pizza here. I'm talking about skyscrapers.

I agree San Francisco may be like Manhattan in that is its very compact and has many neighborhoods like NYC has, but the funky architecture in SF with most buildings on various streets within certain neighborhoods looking very different is a far cry from the brownstones, walkups and skyscrapers of NYC.

Sometimes I get the impression that many NYers think Chicago is just a bunch of skyscrapers with tract housing surrounding it. Chicago was the third largest city in the world in 1900, before the auto affected urban development. There are mile upon mile of compact dense neighborhoods.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=143439

[lesterp4]

Where did you get that info from. What were 1 and 2 in 1900. I find it hard to believe that London, paris and then Chicago. I don't think so. Chicago has never been larger than NYC.

[slapter]

I've yet to see anything in remotely interesting, let alone sophisticated in London. Sure, you have your centuries old buildings but anything modern just plain sucks. Atleast Chicago has a skyline to be proud of. Los Angeles has more of a skyline and interestring things to see rather than London. Is it the depressing weather over there or is it skyscraper envy that's getting the best of you?

umm London England we are talking about right?

Those boring century old buildings. What?

[PIZ]

Hear is a Quote from the developer of the Chicago Spire:


QUOTE OF THE DAY: Kelleher says New York's got nothing on Chicago
"I think Chicagoans should be very, very proud, and they don't realize the treasure they have here. New York is congested; it's unsafe. The quality of life is way better here."


I would have to agree with Kelleher's statement. There are way to many people in New York using the sewage system, the smell from all that human waist New Yorkers flush down millions of toilets seeps into the mold of that city, creeping it's way into the air and then up your nose. I much prefer Chicago with it's cleaner air and less people using the sewage system.


'PIZ'

[ZippyTheChimp]

New York is congested; it's unsafe. The quality of life is way better here."

I would have to agree with Kelleher's statement.Don't put too much stock in what developers say, kid.

http://newyork.areaconnect.com/crime/makechart.asp?c1=New%20York&c2=Chicago&s1=NY&s2=IL

I much prefer Chicago with it's cleaner air and less people using the sewage system.Isn't Chicago drinking water drawn from the lake, and heavily treated?

[slapter]

Hear is a Quote from the developer of the Chicago Spire:


QUOTE OF THE DAY: Kelleher says New York's got nothing on Chicago
"I think Chicagoans should be very, very proud, and they don't realize the treasure they have here. New York is congested; it's unsafe. The quality of life is way better here."


I would have to agree with Kelleher's statement. There are way to many people in New York using the sewage system, the smell from all that human waist New Yorkers flush down millions of toilets seeps into the mold of that city, creeping it's way into the air and then up your nose. I much prefer Chicago with it's cleaner air and less people using the sewage system.


'PIZ'

Did you really just post that?

Chicago forumers here are some of the most clueless forumers around.

Amazing how posts are made by Chicagoans with claims that can be so easily refuted it should be embarassing. This is coming from a Chicagoan.

[lofter1]

... all that human waist New Yorkers flush down millions of toilets ...

How NYers ^ stay so slim and trim?

Y'know what they say ...

"Waist Not, Want Knot"

:cool:

[Chiboy]

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=143439

both cities are charming. one just a bit more than the other.......

[Chiboy]

[quote=slapter;207314

Amazing how posts are made by Chicagoans with claims that can be so easily refuted it should be embarassing. This is coming from a Chicagoan.[/quote]

Why not give an example???? As a Chicagoan, you are more than a little sucky.....

[PIZ]

Did you really just post that?

Chicago forumers here are some of the most clueless forumers around.

Amazing how posts are made by Chicagoans with claims that can be so easily refuted it should be embarassing. This is coming from a Chicagoan.

ok if you took that second toilet comment seriously then something is obviously wrong with your humor. My room mate is from new York and has told me many times that new york cannot match the beauty that Chicago brings. I myself have never been to new York, but look forward to going one day. On my iPod touch, not the greatest to type on. And for mr. Moderator with the ape pic, I see no fact in your little diagram, it looks like a 5 year old put that thing together, show me some stats brother?

[OmegaNYC]

^^^ what Zippy saying is, you're more likely to get your brains blown away, robbed at gun point, get knocked in the face, have your house broken into, have your pocket book stolen, and have your Toyota end up in a chop-shop in the Second City, than in the Apple. or new York as you like to say. ;)

[OmegaNYC]

How NYers ^ stay so slim and trim?

Y'know what they say ...

"Waist Not, Want Knot"

:cool:

lmao! Happy New Year to you too, Lofter!

[ZippyTheChimp]

Why not give an example
Allrighty

Chicago was the third largest city in the world in 1900, Actually, it was number 5.
http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa011201f.htm

ok if you took that second toilet comment seriously then something is obviously wrong with your humor.The first one wasn't taken seriously either.

And for mr. Moderator with the ape pic, I see no fact in your little diagram, it looks like a 5 year old put that thing together, show me some stats brother?First of all, I think you need to relax a bit.

The chart is taken from FBI stats for 2006
http://newyork.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=New+York&s1=NY&c2=Chicago&s2=IL


I think all of these "versus" threads, no matter what good intentions, degenerate into stereotypical silliness.

I will make one observation, that seems to be born out in this thread, from my experiences with Chicago and its people.

The level of preoccupation of one for the other is much more in the direction of Chicago toward New York City. I was surprised by it during my college days in the area, when to me, a Chicagoan meant a Bears fan, not a philosophy of life.

I can understand the New York-Boston preoccupation: proximity, colonial roots, size disparity. But Chicago is a big city; it just doesn't always act like it.

[Jasonik]

Leave The Hub of the Universe (http://www.boston-online.com/glossary/hub.html) out of this. :cool:

[OmegaNYC]

. I was surprised by it during my college days in the area, when to me, a Chicagoan meant a Bears fan, not a philosophy of life.



http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/graphics/bearfan.jpg

Geez, Piz. This doesn't looks good... ;)

[PIZ]

Ape man (not tring to be an ass, I hit "Post Reply" and forgot your name): I see where you got your stats...


Latest 2006 Crimes per 100,000 People:
Chicago, ILNew York, NYNationalMurder:16.47.37Forcible Rape:13.1232.2Robbery:555.1287.9205.8Aggravated Assault:610.4329.6336.5Burglary:845.2271.1813.2Lar ceny Theft:2930.11412.92601.7Vehicle Theft:763.8195.2501.5
Actual Reported Population and Crimes:
Chicago, ILNew York, NYPopulation:2,857,7968,165,001 Murder:468596Forcible Rape:1071Robbery:1586323511Aggravated Assault:1744526908Burglary:2415322137Larceny Theft:83737115363Vehicle Theft:2182815936

Chi-Town WON!!

[PIZ]

Doubled, sorry.

[Fahzee]

^ your post is unreadable

perhaps only readable if I'm in a Chicago state of mind...

[slapter]

^it was on purpose probably

in 2006 Chicago had

over double the murder rate, almost double the robbery rate, almost double the aggrevated assault rate, almost triple the burglary rate, over double the larceny theft rate, and almost four times the vehicle theft rate.

http://www.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm


That being said, NYC is clearly the safest city in the country. Chicago's crime rate is more in line with Boston's and certainly safer than most major American cities.


I can understand the New York-Boston preoccupation: proximity, colonial roots, size disparity. But Chicago is a big city; it just doesn't always act like it.

Its the nature of the Internet not the nature of a city.

Not sure which side started the mudslinging first but the observation I make is that this is a NYC website and a bunch of Chicagoans hang out here never shutting up. And btw, I have mentioned before, I am a Chicagoan.

[slapter]

Clearly, Chicago has a larger US born population than the east coast cities, but again, I think that's because people see value for their money and a great lifestyle there. The east coast cities get a huge bonus, because Boston and Philly are basically great Ivy league college towns, and all the college graduates then move to New York and DC when they graduate so you get cool twenty somethings with money in those places.

But I'd argue that once you get beyond this "best and the brightest crowd" - admittedly a cool feature of the east coast cities and their main west coast counterpart in SF, it's still advantageous that Chicago is cheaper.

I'm not arguing the east coast isn't a better place to be given the college and post-college scene and the international scene, but why can't we have those things and also support enough development so that price rises lead to supply increases as well and a rational housing market.

The people here are good, but the NIMBY politics makes it more expensive to enjoy the lifestyle here than it should be.

according to the last census:

the largest North east coast cities aside from NYC:

Philadelphia.........9.0% foreigh born or.......133,141 persons

Baltimore............4.6% foreign born or........28,919 persons

Boston...............25.7% foreign born or......150,057 persons

Washington DC....12.9% foreign born or......75,017 persons


Chicago..............21.7% foreign born or......622,599 persons

[ZippyTheChimp]

Its the nature of the Internet not the nature of a city.No internet when I was in school.

And btw, I have mentioned before, I am a Chicagoan.Seems you've been called out on this. Is there a loyalty oath?

[slapter]

No internet when I was in school.

Seems you've been called out on this. Is there a loyalty oath?
Were you looking for this preoccupation with NYC or overly hypersensitive to any NYC comments? Because I refute that claim you made. You are free to think what you want and I am too.

I was called out on being a Chicagoan? Well you are a moderator, you I imagine have access to my IP.

[Stern]

I was refraining from this rather ridiculous thread until now, I can’t help but notice that in addition to Chicago being an inferior city, it appears, troublingly, that a certain number of its population can’t do simple math.

NYC successfully challenged the census and the census agreed to change their estimates. Chicago hasn't done that, not sure why. Maybe the city population has plateaued, many lower class people are being priced out by rising real estate prices. In other words, if the city is losing a small percentage of population, IF, it's because the place is getting too expensive.

And in terms of the metros,

in the period from 200-2006
New York's metro grew 2.9% (614,000) 21,976,000
Chicago's grew 4.4% (412,000) to 9,725,000

Okay, it's not 2 times as fast, but it is growing faster than (metro) New York,

The rate is higher, in large part due to the smaller population and subsequent higher amount of undeveloped land, but it is not growing faster, 614,000 is more than 412,000, hypothetically if time were to go on for infinity NY would continue to have the higher population.

Ape man (not tring to be an ass, I hit "Post Reply" and forgot your name): I see where you got your stats...


Latest 2006 Crimes per 100,000 People:
Chicago, ILNew York, NYNationalMurder:16.47.37Forcible Rape:13.1232.2Robbery:555.1287.9205.8Aggravated Assault:610.4329.6336.5Burglary:845.2271.1813.2Lar ceny Theft:2930.11412.92601.7Vehicle Theft:763.8195.2501.5
Actual Reported Population and Crimes:
Chicago, ILNew York, NYPopulation:2,857,7968,165,001 Murder:468596Forcible Rape:1071Robbery:1586323511Aggravated Assault:1744526908Burglary:2415322137Larceny Theft:83737115363Vehicle Theft:2182815936

Chi-Town WON!!

Actually Chi-town lost, another case of taking numbers and entirely forgetting that NY has close to 4X the population. Using your numbers Chicago's murder rate is more than twice that of NY. Chicago's Robbery rate is almost twice that than NY. Chicago's Aggravated Assault rate is almost twice that than NY. Chicago's Burglary rate is more than three times that than NY. Chicago's Larceny Theft rate is more than rwice that than NY. And Chicago's Vehicle Theft rate is almost 4 times than than NY (although it must be noted that percentage wise more Chicagoans drive than NY's as there public transportation system is vastly inferior).

Perhaps Chicago needs to invest more in its education, specifically the math department.

[PIZ]

I was refraining from this rather ridiculous thread until now, I can’t help but notice that in addition to Chicago being an inferior city, it appears, troublingly, that a certain number of its population can’t do simple math.



The rate is higher, in large part due to the smaller population and subsequent higher amount of undeveloped land, but it is not growing faster, 614,000 is more than 412,000, hypothetically if time were to go on for infinity NY would continue to have the higher population.



Actually Chi-town lost, another case of taking numbers and entirely forgetting that NY has close to 4X the population. Using your numbers Chicago's murder rate is more than twice that of NY. Chicago's Robbery rate is almost twice that than NY. Chicago's Aggravated Assault rate is almost twice that than NY. Chicago's Burglary rate is more than three times that than NY. Chicago's Larceny Theft rate is more than rwice that than NY. And Chicago's Vehicle Theft rate is almost 4 times than than NY (although it must be noted that percentage wise more Chicagoans drive than NY's as there public transportation system is vastly inferior).

Perhaps Chicago needs to invest more in its education, specifically the math department.

Umm, no! Chicago won! We killed more per person, we committed more robberies, are crime rate just simply beat out yours! WE WON!! You people can't touch our crime stats. Better hope New York never wants a war with the Chi, I would seriously feel sorry for you guys!:D

[investordude]

Basically, Chicago has a smaller foreign born population, and a smaller group of extremely wealthy residents. This means less exotic restaurants, retail, nightlife, etc. On the other hand, Chicago is cheaper than New York by quite a bit, which means its surprisingly kid friendly. People in turn, are much more courteous in Chicago and the city is cleaner. In other words, Chicago pays more attention to the every day person, whereas the other cities you mention like Boston and San Francisco are more like New York in that they serve as playgrounds and international markets.

It's probably useful for the US to have both options - people can then choose to live in the environment that makes more sense for them.

By the way, despite the stereotype, I actually think there is a New York like international city in the midwest - its just that its in midwestern Canada. Toronto actually seems closer to New York in terms of style and mix than other north American cities, even though its not as wealthy as some cities like Boston or SF.

[liberal84]

Let's forget the fact that New York is dirty, there's too much pollution, the sewer smells, no backyards, and etc. Here's the kicker.

It is an inconvenience, being located in a city where taxes are ludicrously high, where you pay twice your annual income to rent an apartment that could easily be carried on a commercial airline flight, where you spend two-thirds of your work day trying to get to and from work

If for some reason you are unsure where to go, all you have to do is stand there looking lost, and within seconds a helpful New Yorker will approach to see if you have any 'spare' change

and here's something from one of your own.


It's a hell of a town. The Bronx is up, The Battery's - ah, who gives a shit where The Battery is. Who gives a shit about New York, really? It's as if some group of evil masterminds got together and said, Let's create a place that we can fill full of douchebags who aren't pretty enough to make it in Hollywood or charismatic enough to wind up in D.C. Furthermore, let's tell them how "creative" and "bohemian" they are, and let's make them think that they're the final arbiters of what the rest of the country sees, hears, and reads. But let's make sure that these are the most insecure people in the world, so that telling them that they make those decisions serves to fuel the rampant egomania and self-importance so commonly masked by insecurity.
And that's just the media industry.

New York City is over. It's a city with nowhere to go but up, and each up it goes it only gets uglier. (http://www.newyorker.com/critics/skyline/articles/050502crsk_skyline) (When we speak of New York City here, we are speaking of Manhattan, which is the only real New York. When you mail a letter to another borough you're mailing it to Brookyln, New York, or Forest Hills, New York, aren't you? Bitch and moan all you want about the vibrant culture of Williamsburg or the ethnic mosaic of Astoria, but let's face it: Unless you're on the big island, you don't count for shit. This kind of charming snobbery is another reason New York is finished, but we digress.) We've got a billionaire mayor but too many people squeaking by on the meager wages they earn folding your laundry or scraping the remains of your hundred dollar foie gras burger from its gilt-edged plate. Our infrastructure is a joke. Five years after terrorist attacks, the hole in the ground downtown is still so gaping that even this country's living embodiment of municipal incompetence (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/24/60minutes/main1933092.shtml) feels free to make fun of us. Thirty years after the debut of The Ramones, those ridiculous haircuts are still the height of fashion. And don't get us started on the Meatpacking District.
Right now, as you read this, millions of kids around the world are thinking, I'm going to grow up and move to New York, where people will understand me. Those kids are douchebags, but, more importantly, they're right: They will be understood by the douchebags already here. They will also be resented, backstabbed, and made fun of for their unfamiliarity with the ways of the city by people who have conveniently forgotten their own, slightly less recent, unfamiliarity. New York is, at this point, a giant recycling factory, unable to contribute anything new to the culture while proclaiming that the latest remix is actually a bold step in a new direction. Our music is a joke. Our museums cost too much and challenge too little. Our theater, the great white way that supposedly marks another notch in the superiority bracelet we all wear around our wrists, offers either appalling fringe material that wouldn't pass muster in Muskogee, or melodies so nondescript they make one long for the coma-inducing saccharinity of mid-period Lloyd Webber. Broadway as currently composed is primarily an occasional employment plan for B-list celebrities who are between failed sitcom pilots. Our great opera house is a mess; our most famous concert hall is built on top of the subway. Which is not terrible in and of itself, in that when you're at Carnegie Hall, at least you're not in the subway, that overheated mass of teeming humanity which seems to exist primarily to educate us in the ways of hating of all races, not just the ones our parents carefully taught us to despise.
We could go on, but what's the point? You know it as well as we do; New York is broken, and it's not going to get better. Sure, you may deny it. Your ire may be up. "The greatest city in the world," you may be yelling. (Also, the last city to get any sort of public restroom system; apparently the stench of hobo excrement is just too appealing for us to do anything about.) "If you hate it so much," you say, "why not move somewhere else?"
Read our screed over again. Then remember: We write Gawker. Where else in the world would we live but somewhere so utterly already over?



http://gawker.com/news/already-over/already-over-new-york-196457.php

[investordude]

liberal84, if you're cost conscious and need a large apartment with a backyard, Chicago is a better choice than New York. Chicago is America's practical city for people who want urban living but also some space and suburban style amenities (like clean streets).

On the other hand, if you're single, wealthy, and have an international mindset, the "dirty" New York hussle and bussle may appeal to you more.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I was called out on being a Chicagoan?Read it again. Your behavior as a Chicagoan, hence the loyalty oath question.

Were you looking for this preoccupation with NYC or overly hypersensitive to any NYC comments?[quote]Nope. I was indifferent , and that seemed to annoy people all the more.

Seems things haven't changed much, given the preoccupation of some people here with things New York, when they should be spending more time in the classroom.

Ponder this absurdity:[QUOTE]Umm, no! Chicago won! We killed more per person, we committed more robberies, are crime rate just simply beat out yours! WE WON!!We, we, we. So even with crime, it's a group effort by a completely dedicated population?



It's a school night, kids.

[slapter]

Read it again. Your behavior as a Chicagoan, hence the loyalty oath question.

huh?

[ZippyTheChimp]

What's to "huh" about?

Here's the remark:

As a Chicagoan, you are more than a little sucky.....

[Fahzee]

Not to wade in here again - but what is up with the stereotype of New York as a "smelly" city - and this coming people living in a city built to cater to slaughterhouses?

I've never heard anyone refer to New York as "smelly" - is this a common misconception?

[lofter1]

I've lived in NYC for a long time -- sometimes the smells on city streets in August is about as nasty as can be.

Maybe I need to move uptown ;)

[Stern]

Very true, NY is not perfect, but having visited Chicago I can attest that the air in Chicago isn't exactly New-Hampshire clean. This is a ridiculous thread and I refuse to further waste my time posting in it.

[pianoman11686]

For anyone here who remembers the absurdity of the "Sydney vs. Toronto" pissing match, this thread is starting to bear a striking resemblance.

[NYguy]

I was refraining from this rather ridiculous thread until now, I can’t help but notice that in addition to Chicago being an inferior city, it appears, troublingly, that a certain number of its population can’t do simple math.

It's ironic, I had seen this thread before, but didn't know it was still active until today. I guess its entertaining.

Chicago is a great American city, but this preoccupation with comparing itself or trying to "live up" to New York doesn't do it any service. It's not New York, and it never will be. But it doesn't have to be. There are other great American cities: San Francisco, Los Angelos, even Boston. They remain unique for what they are, there's no reason Chicago can't do the same. That's for you Chicago folks.

On the other hand, you New Yorkers should know better. As we have seen already, you don't have to be a "great" city to build a 2,000-3,000 ft tower. As it is now, that's left to cities with inferiority complexes or the need to prove something. (Of course, I wouldn't turn it down.) New York knows it has a permanent seat at the world table, which is why it sometimes needs a swift kick in the butt to get things done. And seeing how something as simple as a recladding of a minor, aged office building is enough to send some of you to tears, its no wonder things take forever to get done. That being said, New York is New York. It will always be New York, even when none of us are around to see it. So you either love it or you don't. Enough with the whining.

[Fahzee]

Maybe I need to move uptown ;)

ha!

[Chiboy]

I
Chicago is a great American city, but this preoccupation with comparing itself or trying to "live up" to New York doesn't do it any service. It's not New York, and it never will be. But it doesn't have to be. There are other great American cities: San Francisco, Los Angelos, even Boston. They remain unique for what they are, there's no reason Chicago can't do the same. That's for you Chicago folks.

On the other hand, you New Yorkers should know better. As we have seen already, you don't have to be a "great" city to build a 2,000-3,000 ft tower. As it is now, that's left to cities with inferiority complexes or the need to prove something. (Of course, I wouldn't turn it down.)


What a load o' crap. You first claim Chicagoans compare themselves to New York and then you turn around and counsel New Yorkers not to compare themselves to Chicago.

The only people claiming that Chicagoans are preoccupied with New York are.....surprise surprise.....New Yorkers!

Chicago invented the skyscraper and it is very much a part of the city's self-image, with or without New York. I invite you to visit Chicago and spend a lunchtime at one of the many construction sites where daily there are hundreds of folks watching skyscrapers be built. It's a spectator sport in Chicago.

And NONE of that has ANYTHING to do with New York.

[Citytect]

Hmm... I like Chicago a lot. It's no New York, but I don't consider that a bad thing. Chicago's star is still rising, while New York's seems to have stalled. That's my general feeling about the two places.

I can't believe how nasty some of this debate has become.

[PIZ]

It's ironic, I had seen this thread before, but didn't know it was still active until today. I guess its entertaining.

Chicago is a great American city, but this preoccupation with comparing itself or trying to &q