More urban LA, SF, DC, Philly, and Boston? (crime, live, Los Angeles)

[Garfieldian]

Originally Posted by btownboss4

and you posted this why?? did you look at the poll, no Chicago.

Somebody asked about it. Yes I see the poll Sherlock.

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by Garfieldian

Somebody asked about it. Yes I see the poll Sherlock.

Thx - I would think there may be even some higher ones just north of the Mag Mile or at least comparable but maybe these are included.

Also the area to Damon is that bascially the area along the Blue line - like that area feels more East Coast than some other areas of Chicago - It reminds me of larger version of No Libs in Philly (like say around Damon and Western)

[Garfieldian]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

Thx - I would think there may be even some higher ones just north of the Mag Mile or at least comparable but maybe these are included.

Also the area to Damon is that bascially the area along the Blue line - like that area feels more East Coast than some other areas of Chicago - It reminds me of larger version of No Libs in Philly (like say around Damon and Western)

Definitely by neighborhood areas, but as you see most of those zip codes are 2+ miles, some over 3-4. While SF as posted by rah are all under 2, except 2, with many under 1 and .5 . It's certainly easier to build a denser case for Chicago esp if you follow the red/brown lines and go down to adding in .5, .3 sq mile areas, I just grabbed a vague area real fast for sampling size. You can do this by sampling neighborhood boundaries instead, I just don't feel like doing it as I already know Chicago can easily compete in density. SF is more compact and has a tighter knit more walkable fabric. Chicago has peaks and valleys of density and more chaotic development.

[rah]

Originally Posted by Garfieldian

Chicago North side Neighborhoods going up the lake north of the loop and west to around Damen 2000W.

60622 4.3 76015
60614 3.1 65474
60657 2.1 66789
60613 2 50548
60640 2.3 74030
60660 1.4 47726
60626 1.7 59251

16.9 439833

16.9 sq miles, 439833, 26,025 density.

Chicago looks to have wider zips than SF, I think it is slightly denser if you do community areas/neighborhoods using more easily definable dense blocks instead of grabbing up a lot of warehouses and stuff which Chicago definitely still has, this is also off city-data. I've spent a lot of time in both, they are pretty comparable esp when you get into the neighborhoods. SF's immediate DT as well as Philadelphia are more populated with narrower streets. Chicago will keep up that 20k+ density quite a bit further if you keep expanding though.

Those stats i posted for SF includes an area of warehouses too, as well as unpopulated port areas, a stadium, some parks, etc. All cities have those things that will detract from density stats. I guess that settles it then, SF's core 17 miles is more dense than Chicago's...and for the record, SF still has 29,000+ people per square mile when I extend that area to 22 square miles by adding two additional zip codes. The entire city itself minus all parkland and industrial areas (which comes to 31 square miles without that stuff) is at 26,000+ people per square mile.

It goes without saying that Chicago is more dense on a wider scale though, as SF is smaller physically and in population. LA's more dense on a wider scale too, for the same reasons, and to a much lesser extent so is Philly, which is only marginally more dense/populated than the similar sized chunk of the Bay that includes SF, Oakland, Berkeley, Emeryville, San Leandro, and Daly City.

But then once again, if you go to an even wider scale, so that it's on the urban area or metro levels, then LA jumps to the top of most dense metros/UAs in the US, and SF jumps right up there to #2.

[BajanYankee]

Los Angeles has the most annoying type of density. It's not dense enough to walk and not sparse enough to reap the true benefits of suburban living.

[Garfieldian]

Originally Posted by rah

Those stats i posted for SF includes an area of warehouses too, as well as unpopulated port areas, a stadium, some parks, etc. All cities have those things that will detract from density stats. I guess that settles it then, SF's core 17 miles is more dense than Chicago's...and for the record, SF still has 29,000+ people per square mile when I extend that area to 22 square miles by adding two additional zip codes. The entire city itself minus all parkland and industrial areas (which comes to 31 square miles without that stuff) is at 26,000+ people per square mile.

It goes without saying that Chicago is more dense on a wider scale though, as SF is smaller physically and in population. LA's more dense on a wider scale too, for the same reasons, and to a much lesser extent so is Philly, which is only marginally more dense/populated than the similar sized chunk of the Bay that includes SF, Oakland, Berkeley, Emeryville, San Leandro, and Daly City.

But then once again, if you go to an even wider scale, so that it's on the urban area or metro levels, then LA jumps to the top of most dense metros/UAs in the US, and SF jumps right up there to #2.

No doubt, same with Chicago. See my additional comments above. If you have seen Chicago however, you'll know the industrial areas are much more profound than what is in SF, it isn't really close. Which is why SF has a denser more walkable core. Where SF has entire neighborhoods Chicago still has major industrial zones going in and around Clybourn/Roosevelt/UP-N and NW lines, Ravenswood corridor, Lake Street, some of the largest rail yards in the U.S., etc. It would be nice if Chicago had a more walkable core, but don't think it's happening anytime soon, you'll need to utilize public transit much more in Chicago than SF.

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by Garfieldian

No doubt, same with Chicago. See my additional comments above. If you have seen Chicago however, you'll know the industrial areas are much more profound than what is in SF, it isn't really close. Which is why SF has a denser more walkable core. Where SF has entire neighborhoods Chicago still has major industrial zones going in and around Clybourn/Roosevelt/UP-N and NW lines, Ravenswood corridor, Lake Street, some of the largest rail yards in the U.S., etc. It would be nice if Chicago had a more walkable core, but don't think it's happening anytime soon, you'll need to utilize public transit much more in Chicago than SF.

Agree and pure population does not equate to pure urbanity. SF does have industrial but no where near the level of a Chicago or Philly nor how it is more integrated into much more of the space.

One of the biggest ditractions on Chicagos walkability is the street width, but to say Chicago is not walkable is also incorrect in totality.

Was in Chicago last weekend and found the North end of the loop to be much less sleepy than in the past but yet just North the river North area seems to continue to add a ton of high/mid rise residential yet feels less walkable than some less dense areas in other cities.

This is the odd part when comparing Chicago to a SF or Philly core while Chicago has more and feels larger it also has less connectivity and very wide streets (pedestrain feel). On the whole though Chicago has a ton of positive attributes, it makes it to me a very pleasant diversion to the compact area I reside and always very much enjoy my time in the windy city. Regardless Chicago is extremely urban (and dense) no matter what criteria are applied.

[slo1318]

Its all relative. SF has always been land locked, so much of its industrial base moved out of or developed out of the city.
Chicago is a great city and kidphilly I tend to agree that it has more and bigger than SF or Philly, but its a different kind of more and bigger.

[slo1318]

Originally Posted by Garfieldian

No doubt, same with Chicago. See my additional comments above. If you have seen Chicago however, you'll know the industrial areas are much more profound than what is in SF, it isn't really close. Which is why SF has a denser more walkable core. Where SF has entire neighborhoods Chicago still has major industrial zones going in and around Clybourn/Roosevelt/UP-N and NW lines, Ravenswood corridor, Lake Street, some of the largest rail yards in the U.S., etc. It would be nice if Chicago had a more walkable core, but don't think it's happening anytime soon, you'll need to utilize public transit much more in Chicago than SF.

I agree, but then again the industrial component wouldnt be close. Its relative to size. Chicago is the ultimate east/west crossroads too. They are just totally different animals. Even SF's major industries of the past may or may not have developed in the city limits. The east side and port areas gave way fairly quickly, but were also isolated.

Chicago has a great core and physical location, but doesnt quite have the density of just a few other cities in the US....

[RaymondChandlerLives]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

Los Angeles has the most annoying type of density. It's not dense enough to walk and not sparse enough to reap the true benefits of suburban living.

Um, LA's core density is right up there with all these cities. Another swing and a miss for you.