CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[10023]

^ However, I have in the past described all of the gentrified part of the city west of the Kennedy (so Wicker Park, Bucktown, Ukrainian Village, Logan Square, etc) as “Chicago’s Brooklyn”.

That was like 10-15 years ago when all of that was gentrifying, and gentrification was spreading out along the Blue line like it followed the subways in Brooklyn. It did feel like a pretty distinct area from the less trendy, but traditionally affluent, stretch of the city along the lake (which would of course be the equivalent to Manhattan).

Obviously it’s much smaller, but Chicago is much smaller.

[Skyguy_7]

Originally Posted by emathias

Chicago's Brooklyn? Don't be absurd.

I often hear Bucktown/Wicker Park being compared to Brooklyn. I think it's spot-on. North and Damen is about as Brooklyn as you're gonna get outside of Brooklyn.

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by emathias

Chicago's Brooklyn? Don't be absurd.

Brooklyn was an independent city, has a population, by itself, approximately equal to all of Chicago's current population, and is 70 square miles.

NYC and Chicago have a very similar annexation history and timeline so that comparison holds.

http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohisto...ages/3716.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Greater_New_York

[the urban politician]

I actually think that West Town is Chicago's Brooklyn and Pilsen/LV/Back of the Yards, etc is Chicago's Bronx.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7

I often hear Bucktown/Wicker Park being compared to Brooklyn. I think it's spot-on. North and Damen is about as Brooklyn as you're gonna get outside of Brooklyn.

Yeah and I think you include that whole part of the city, including Logan Square of even Humboldt Park, etc. It’s still kind of sketchy, like Bushwick.

[Kumdogmillionaire]

Originally Posted by emathias

Chicago's Brooklyn? Don't be absurd.

Brooklyn was an independent city, has a population, by itself, approximately equal to all of Chicago's current population, and is 70 square miles.

The West Loop is about 2.5 square miles, has never been an independent city or even really much of an independent neighborhood until recently, and has a population a bit hard to calculate with all the recent changes (loss of some old inventory, addition of much new inventory) but is probably between 75,000 and 100,000.

Talk about being overly literal much? It's a lighthearted comparison in a non-scientific manner to explain something to someone in layman's terminology. C H I L L A X

[marothisu]

I've actually told people that the areas like West Loop + West Town (Ukranian Village, East Humboldt Park, Wicker Park), Logan Square, Avondale, etc remind me of parts of Brooklyn which I totally believe. Obviously a lot smaller but some similarities. I met someone at a party a few years ago who lived in Avondale but who grew up in Brooklyn who said this too - he stated that Avondale reminded him of "old Brooklyn - real Brooklyn" from the 1980s and that's why he lived there.

[LouisVanDerWright]

None of these areas remind me of Brooklyn. The neighborhoods of Chicago are unlike just about anywhere else on Earth and in a good way. You can't beat the original venacular character of Chicago. We don't have the soul crushing density of most of New York and that's not a bad thing, not all metrics are measured by size. Quality of life in the average Chicago neighborhood is closer to something you would see in Europe than most NA cities.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

None of these areas remind me of Brooklyn. The neighborhoods of Chicago are unlike just about anywhere else on Earth and in a good way. You can't beat the original venacular character of Chicago. We don't have the soul crushing density of most of New York and that's not a bad thing, not all metrics are measured by size. Quality of life in the average Chicago neighborhood is closer to something you would see in Europe than most NA cities.

The closest approximation you'll find to these Chicago neighborhoods are in Milwaukee, as Chicago is effectively just a larger version of Milwaukee. Similar building styles, density and demographics.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

The neighborhoods of Chicago are unlike just about anywhere else on Earth and in a good way. You can't beat the original venacular character of Chicago.

AMEN!

I call it "goldilocks urbanism" (not too oppressively soul-crushing, not too depressively soul-sucking, it's just right).

And I fucking love it!

So much functional urbansim AND so much greenery all at the same time!

What kind of magnificent cosmic lottery did I win to get to live here?

[marothisu]

Brooklyn is nearly 100 sq miles (i.e. not much less than half the size of all of Chicago) and only 100,000 people less than the entire city of Chicago. Saying "Brooklyn" means a hell of a lot more than just DUMBO, Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick, etc. For me personally, saying it reminds me of Brooklyn has more to do with the almost industrial-ish, but walkable feeling of the areas but at the same time having leafy green side streets with houses in parts (no, the houses in Brooklyn aren't comparable to anything in Chicago). These two places aren't swappable, but they do have similar type of feeling in some areas. This has nothing to do with entire areas looking like something. It's a feeling thing - which is why the guy that I met at the party who grew up in Brooklyn commented the way he did about Avondale. This is why my former coworker who has lived in Brooklyn since age 3 stated "Seems a little Brooklyn-ish" when I showed him a streetview of Milwaukee Avenue in various areas of Wicker Park and River West. As a whole, no it doesn't look unmistakable, but the same type of feeling in real Brooklyn (I'm not talking about the hipster areas) is similar in some areas of Chicago.

And yes, there are buildings that individually could be in either Chicago or Brooklyn - but individually - and this is talking about main commercial streets, not side streets. That's another story though. Then again, areas like Albany Park and Little Village might actually be better comparisons to other parts of NYC outside of Manhattan. And to be perfectly honest, I'll take a place like Wicker Park - how it actually looks - pretty much any day over most of Brooklyn (although areas like Cobble Hill are really nice).

[Randomguy34]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

None of these areas remind me of Brooklyn. The neighborhoods of Chicago are unlike just about anywhere else on Earth and in a good way. You can't beat the original venacular character of Chicago. We don't have the soul crushing density of most of New York and that's not a bad thing, not all metrics are measured by size. Quality of life in the average Chicago neighborhood is closer to something you would see in Europe than most NA cities.

There are many areas of East Brooklyn that are very similar to the venacular two-flats of Chicago. Not all of NYC has "soul crush density" as one might think

[10023]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

AMEN!

I call it "goldilocks urbanism" (not too oppressively soul-crushing, not too depressively soul-sucking, it's just right).

And I fucking love it!

So much functional urbansim AND so much greenery all at the same time!

What kind of magnificent cosmic lottery did I win to get to live here?

Most of Brooklyn is “Goldilocks urbanism” too. Same with London, or any old cities that developed before the automobile. Manhattan and now the central area of Chicago are really unique in the West in that they’re not.

[Halsted & Villagio]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

None of these areas remind me of Brooklyn. The neighborhoods of Chicago are unlike just about anywhere else on Earth and in a good way. You can't beat the original venacular character of Chicago. We don't have the soul crushing density of most of New York and that's not a bad thing, not all metrics are measured by size. Quality of life in the average Chicago neighborhood is closer to something you would see in Europe than most NA cities.

I LOVE THIS POST Those who want to keep comparing anything Chicago to Brooklyn or New York, whether they know it or not, are baking into the cake a kind of inferiority mentality that has killed the self esteem of Chicago for the past few decades.

WE. ARE. CHICAGO. We are the only one - the original. Screw a NY or a Brooklyn or wherever else for that matter. Its good to occasionally compare for educational purposes but some on here are clearly, in their posts, making NY the standard... in a snobbish kind of way... you can almost hear the snob in their voices as they write. Why write things like, "Chicago really does not compare".... "is too small"... etc.,...and keep circling back to Brooklyn as if we are trying to get there... that Brooklyn is the level that we must reach but just can't get there. Ridiculous! That kind of talk is a killer for civic pride.

Chicago is special in its own unique way, and can rightfully lay claim to an argument that it is the best city in the world!... especially since that argument is a matter of opinion/subjective... so why talk of it being second to anything? I have traveled to just about every major city in the US save Seattle - next on my list btw - and no city felt like Chicago. And no city has just the right mix of urbanism and space to breathe quite like Chicago.

Imo, Brooklyn would be doing itself a favor if it somehow managed to be more like Chicago.

.

[left of center]

Back when Chicago was growing by leaps and bounds, the east coast elite were horrified by what they saw as the sprawl and suburban development of Chicago... residential buildings set back several feet from the sidewalk, a parkway of grass and trees between the sidewalk and the street... a small grassy front yard... these all went against the development patterns of cities like Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, etc. at the time. (Ironically today this would be considered dense and vibrant neighborhood development in much of the country.) I don't recall where I read this tidbit exactly, I assume it was Nature's Metropolis, or City of the Century; both excellent books that I highly recommend.

Quite frankly this development style, which blends greenery with attractive urbanism, strikes a great balance that provides for a great quality of life to residents. That, and alleys. God bless alleys.

[the urban politician]

I think we are stuck in generation of urbanists that views the New York vernacular as the "textbook standard" of urbanism that everything else needs to be compared against. In other words, if New York has it, then all others must do it the same way or else they are lacking in some fashion. That frame of mind even predominates this forum.

I don't know if that will ever change, but I would say Chicago's less intense brand of urbanism and its alleys kind of get little appreciation for this reason.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by left of center

Back when Chicago was growing by leaps and bounds, the east coast elite were horrified by what they saw as the sprawl and suburban development of Chicago... residential buildings set back several feet from the sidewalk, a parkway of grass and trees between the sidewalk and the street... a small grassy front yard... these all went against the development patterns of cities like Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, etc. at the time. (Ironically today this would be considered dense and vibrant neighborhood development in much of the country.) I don't recall where I read this tidbit exactly, I assume it was Nature's Metropolis, or City of the Century; both excellent books that I highly recommend.

Quite frankly this development style, which blends greenery with attractive urbanism, strikes a great balance that provides for a great quality of life to residents. That, and alleys. God bless alleys.

Quite true, in fact European elite even looked down at New York when it was still developing.

[Halsted & Villagio]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I think we are stuck in generation of urbanists that views the New York vernacular as the "textbook standard" of urbanism that everything else needs to be compared against. In other words, if New York has it, then all others must do it the same way or else they are lacking in some fashion. That frame of mind even predominates this forum.

I don't know if that will ever change, but I would say Chicago's less intense brand of urbanism and its alleys kind of get little appreciation for this reason.

I think the NY media machine has a lot to do with it too

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Halsted & Villagio

I think the NY media machine has a lot to do with it too

Perhaps a tad bit, but that wasn't meant to be a "complain about the NY media" kind of post.

I think it comes down to Jane Jacobs. She is considered the Godmother of modern urbanism thinking. If Jane says it, that is law--at least according to the current generation of urbanists.

And she developed her philosophy while living in Greenwich Village.

[Halsted & Villagio]

^ I get it. But in many ways Jane Jacobs is just another incarnation of NY media... in short, it is someone telling us how we should feel... someone telling us that NY is the standard to shoot for.

Who made NY the standard? I guess Jane Jacobs who lives in NY. More importantly, why is NY the standard? Why is that way of life superior to others?

I think that it is not. I think that urbanism mixed with a proper dose of breathable space should be the standard. There was a time when Chicagoans thought so too... and did not let others tell us how we should feel. We need to get back to that because that is when we started to view this place differently. That is when a started to pickup the second class mentality that we now see from many.

I am not saying be myopic and parochial. But we must to be careful about who is telling us what and why. Because if we are not careful, it starts a subtle erosion of civic pride and self belief.

.