Philadelphia vs Chicago - Which is more urban? (state, comparison, people)

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by grapico

eh... not so sure about that. Think they are both still denser probably through the 10-250square mile range. Chicago is denser than LA all the way to LA city limit (~500 square miles)

If you take the dense census tracts of Los Angeles (many of them contiguous), you'll find a good swath of dense tracts (going up to 90K per square mile) comparable to the large swaths of dense tracts of other major cities. Many of these feature a good lot of apartment complexes and housing with very small lots and little space in between along with close, available commercial strips. The problem is, LA is huge and has a lot of hard to develop land. Also, a good deal of the rest of the city and metro is not like that. And sucks.

However, the parts of LA that are good, dense, and vibrant are pretty sizable and fun.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by MassVt

Good post; Philly's rowhouse neighborhoods give it a density almost umatched in America, with the possible exceptions of NYC and Baltimore ( another rowhouse city). Chicago just feels a bit more "airy" to me..

Comparing these two cities is a case study in how the built environment can form perceptions of density. Low, long rows of rowhouses on narrow streets with no lot setback may look more dense than rows of detached 2- and 3-flats set back 10 feet from the sidewalk on wider, tree-lined streets, but it's not necessarily so. Case in point, we've discussed the fact that you walked through my neighborhood before and you seemed incredulous that it's 18,000 people per square mile, probably because it doesn't match your perception of what density "looks" like. Bottom line is Chicago's density is more vertical than Philadelphia and other rowhouse-intensive cities. That makes it "look" less dense because we don't have so many zero-lot-line residences, but looks can be deceiving. What may look like a "house" to an East Coaster often will have 2 and sometimes 3 units in it.

[ronaldojernkins]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

Wow. This looks like the scene from Matrix Revolutions where the sentinel machines breached the perimeter and overtook Zion.

Strictly in terms of urbanity, Japanese cities blow US cities out of the water. Places like Osaka, Nagoya, and Fukuoka all feel waaay more urban to me than any US city, save NYC.

[MrRedd]

Originally Posted by Drover

Comparing these two cities is a case study in how the built environment can form perceptions of density. Low, long rows of rowhouses on narrow streets with no lot setback may look more dense than rows of detached 2- and 3-flats set back 10 feet from the sidewalk on wider, tree-lined streets, but it's not necessarily so. Case in point, we've discussed the fact that you walked through my neighborhood before and you seemed incredulous that it's 18,000 people per square mile, probably because it doesn't match your perception of what density "looks" like. Bottom line is Chicago's density is more vertical than Philadelphia and other rowhouse-intensive cities. That makes it "look" less dense because we don't have so many zero-lot-line residences, but looks can be deceiving. What may look like a "house" to an East Coaster often will have 2 and sometimes 3 units in it.

The same holds true for houses on rowhouses on the east coast. Many rowhouses have 3 units in them; atleast in Baltimore.

[NowInWI]

I apologize if this has been addressed already - I started to go through the posts, but there were waaaaaaaay too many pictures. Population density in Chicago is 12,553, and 11,454 in Philadelphia. Chicago's is considered "very high", and Philadelphia's is considered "high."

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by NowInWI

I apologize if this has been addressed already - I started to go through the posts, but there were waaaaaaaay too many pictures. Population density in Chicago is 12,553, and 11,454 in Philadelphia. Chicago's is considered "very high", and Philadelphia's is considered "high."

I'm sorry but this statement is stupid, so the 1,000 people per sq mile avg density is the difference between "very high" and "high"? Boston should technically pass Chicago in density in the latest census, but I wouldn't consider it any denser than Philly......if you think there is much of a difference in the 1000k per sq mile in chi and Philly, what would you say about the 15,000 difference in density between chi and NYC?

[rainrock]

Originally Posted by NowInWI

I apologize if this has been addressed already - I started to go through the posts, but there were waaaaaaaay too many pictures. Population density in Chicago is 12,553, and 11,454 in Philadelphia. Chicago's is considered "very high", and Philadelphia's is considered "high."

I tried explaining earlier that Philadelphias density number per sq.mi.'s are skewed due to geography and other factors. Fairmount Park consumes about 13 sq mi of Philadelphia. Philly also has 30 miles of riverfront that is off limits to residents due to industry and recreation.

Other than NYC there is probably no other city in the USA that can match Philadelphia's continuous urban core.

Chicago overall technically is denser than Philadelphia but most urban experts would agree that Philadelphia overall is more urban than Chicago.

[rainrock]

Originally Posted by Drover

Comparing these two cities is a case study in how the built environment can form perceptions of density. Low, long rows of rowhouses on narrow streets with no lot setback may look more dense than rows of detached 2- and 3-flats set back 10 feet from the sidewalk on wider, tree-lined streets, but it's not necessarily so.

Keep in mind that this thread concerns urbanness not necessarily which city is more dense. Imo The endless rowhomes and narrow streets represent an urban setting much moreso than blocks of tree lined, detached, 3 story duplexes.

If you visit both cities you just know which one is more urban.Not that urban necessiates superiority, in many cases Philly urbanity has become its own downfall.

When Phillys overbearingly tight grid was designed they had no way of knowing the calamity which would eventually occur, e.g. cities eventually becoming repositories of the poor,mass production of handguns,rampant drug use,section 8 etc etc..

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by rainrock

I tried explaining earlier that Philadelphias density number per sq.mi.'s are skewed due to geography and other factors. Fairmount Park consumes about 13 sq mi of Philadelphia. Philly also has 30 miles of riverfront that is off limits to residents due to industry and recreation.

I agree that this thread amounts to counting angels on pinheads, but as a simple point of fact, Chicago also has miles and miles of waterfront parkland and industrial area as well two airports, one of which (ORD) is considerably larger than PHL.

[rainrock]

Originally Posted by oakparkdude

I agree that this thread amounts to counting angels on pinheads, but as a simple point of fact, Chicago also has miles and miles of waterfront parkland and industrial area as well two airports, one of which (ORD) is considerably larger than PHL.

Dude I'll keep an open mind. If you can find me an aerial of Chicago that can top the tight urban core of Philly then I'll be the first to say I was dead wrong, but I dont think you will be able to find that aerial.

The core grid of Philly goes nearly 10 miles from N to S and 8 miles from the Delaware River to West Philly + Upper Darby. Thats 80 sq mi of uninterrupted mass.