Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which city is more urban at street level?
Philadelphia 221 41.00%
Chicago 318 59.00%
Voters: 539. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-22-2010, 12:28 AM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,384 posts, read 28,515,553 times
Reputation: 5884

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThroatGuzzler View Post
Toronto has 1800+ building's over 12 floors but Chicago's MUCH more imposing than Toronto is, maybe 2 or 3 times as much. You can't really judge from that statistic.
this is true, that is why I don't like the "12 floor" stat...

I just posted this in another thread, it is a better gauge...

50m = high rise 100m = skyscraper 300m = super tall
newyork 50m 1748 100m 563 150m 221 200m 52 300m 4 400m 0
chicago 50m 607 100m 272 150m 109 200m 27 300m 6 400m 2
toronto 50m 357 100m 128 150m 21 200m 8 300m 0 400m 0
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-22-2010, 12:31 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,049,308 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
this is true, that is why I don't like the "12 floor" stat...

I just posted this in another thread, it is a better gauge...

50m = high rise 100m = skyscraper 300m = super tall
newyork 50m 1748 100m 563 150m 221 200m 52 300m 4 400m 0
chicago 50m 607 100m 272 150m 109 200m 27 300m 6 400m 2
toronto 50m 357 100m 128 150m 21 200m 8 300m 0 400m 0
I have always gone off meters myself. When people normally say X feet I always convert it to meters. Its really my favorite way to rank skyline height.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2010, 01:36 AM
 
Location: Toronto
1,654 posts, read 5,855,640 times
Reputation: 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by DANNYY View Post
I have always gone off meters myself. When people normally say X feet I always convert it to meters. Its really my favorite way to rank skyline height.
Will you guys ever get off imperial? I think you're the only country still on it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2010, 01:44 AM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,384 posts, read 28,515,553 times
Reputation: 5884
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThroatGuzzler View Post
Will you guys ever get off imperial? I think you're the only country still on it.
I am in the minority opinion on most things in the U.S. Don't hate
Our science classes generally use metric...it is just the mainstream standards that doesn't. It might be too much of a shock to go from gallons to liters. But we have 2Liters of soda which people love to drink and fatten up. And monster 3 liters as well... I think if it ever went over the number 3 it might blow some peoples minds. I can't imagine the outrage of getting used to km instead of miles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2010, 01:47 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,049,308 times
Reputation: 4047
To me 1 mile means 1 minute. The hell no am I ever giving that up, and thats yet another reason why I love USA. Where time and distance make sense. 1.4 Kilometers means one minute, how ugly of a thought that is. No offense to anyone though. Just thinking about that scenario gives me the chills. Absolutely hideous thought!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2010, 01:54 AM
 
Location: Toronto
1,654 posts, read 5,855,640 times
Reputation: 861
Come to think of it.. Canada's still a mixed bag. We made the switch in the early 70's but we still use pounds to measure our weight and feet to measure our height, so I can't say we're fully off it. Metrics just so much easier when it comes to converting units in physics. 100 cm = 1 meter, 1000 meters = 1 kilometer. You guys must go through hell and back!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2010, 08:06 AM
 
Location: Earth
2,549 posts, read 3,980,930 times
Reputation: 1218
Now if we want go smaller down to the block for higher vertical density Chicago's Sears Tower has around 20-30,000 day peak population. This is due to just one block with far more floor space than any building in Philly. As for larger hardcore urban highrise residents Chicago has way more than Philly. Only NYC would have more urban highrise residential and office population.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2010, 08:24 AM
 
Location: The City
22,378 posts, read 38,925,770 times
Reputation: 7976
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanologist View Post
Now if we want go smaller down to the block for higher vertical density Chicago's Sears Tower has around 20-30,000 day peak population. This is due to just one block with far more floor space than any building in Philly. As for larger hardcore urban highrise residents Chicago has way more than Philly. Only NYC would have more urban highrise residential and office population.

well the population of the cores stack up this way on residents on a two mile radius in the core (For Philly most of Center City and directly adjoining neighborhoods - for Chciago it is the Loop, Mag Mile, South of loop and parts west of the loop - so areas like River North or Near North are included. And the point of calculation excludes the lake in Chicago - now daytime population for Chicago is higher and the larger CBD

Philly 240K
Chicago 160K

at a 1 mile radius (~3.14 sq miles)

Philly 87K
Chicago 42K

But the core loop area is mostly business and the neightborhoods in Chicago spread away from the core - less central in population overall and more North and West whereas Philly is high in the core and then then radiates and drops density outward.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2010, 08:27 AM
 
Location: New Jersey
908 posts, read 1,829,586 times
Reputation: 476
Philadelphia, the amount of row houses alone make it more urban than Chicago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2010, 08:40 AM
 
Location: The City
22,378 posts, read 38,925,770 times
Reputation: 7976
Quote:
Originally Posted by urza216 View Post
Chicago has the tallest skyscraper in the country.

Not for long and in a few years even Philly will have a taller one - though that wont even make the skylines remotely close
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top