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.
Many of the people on this board seem to be from "Chicagoland" or "Subruban Chicago" or something which is much more sprawling than the LA area and its suburbs. Chicago's suburbs spread so much that it draws the entire density of the Chicago Urban Area to being lower than the Los Angeles Urban Area. While Chicago's city limits itself are much more dense than LA, outside of the city limits, Chicago spreads even worse than the LA area. Many of the people on this board live in those sprawling suburbs. We don't have acre lots here in So Cal.
Here is why Chicagoland has sprawled through more of mother earth:
Density
Los Angeles Urban Area- 7,068
Chicago Urban Area- 3,913
So yes, the city limits of Los Angeles are more sprawling than Chicago's city limits, no doubt about it. Chicago also has a more definite center. However, the Los Angeles area is the densest urban area in the USA and has suprisingly consumed less land per capita than Chicago. Don't act like Chicago doesn't have problems with sprawl. Its suburbs are some of the worst in the USA for it.
So why is the first advice everyone gives me for moving to LA going to be "to get a car"???
LA's sprawl is certainly worse than Chicago's including the suburbs, mainly because of the mountains and the fact that it's a newer developed city. However, many of the so called "suburbs" that are included in it's areas are pretty much cities in and of themselves, with office buildings, etc. making the sprawl much less intense because many people don't travel to LA to begin with everyday.
What about San Bernadino County and Riverside County? Those are part of LA's area and are two hours away. That's not bad sprawl to you??
I don't know what makes Chicago's location a bad one, it is in the Center of North America. Located on Lake Michigan, a very major airport, large populations of people from Europe, Asia, Mexico and more.
That's exactly it though. It's central for North America...inernationally people usually find Chicago after they've found the coastal cities.
So why is the first advice everyone gives me for moving to LA going to be "to get a car"???
LA's sprawl is certainly worse than Chicago's including the suburbs, mainly because of the mountains and the fact that it's a newer developed city. However, many of the so called "suburbs" that are included in it's areas are pretty much cities in and of themselves, with office buildings, etc. making the sprawl much less intense because many people don't travel to LA to begin with everyday.
What about San Bernadino County and Riverside County? Those are part of LA's area and are two hours away. That's not bad sprawl to you??
I never denied that Los Angeles suffers from sprawl. It does! I live here and see it. If you read my post, I also admit that Chicago is much more centralized with its city center and yes, most people will tell you to get a car in LA. It is the easiest way to get around because the roads have been set up to make it the best way. Only 12% of the Los Angeles work force uses public transportation to get to work, while 27% of Chicago does. However, you must admit that Chicagoland does have elements of sprawl in it. Look at the homes of the 6,952,426 residents living in the Chicago metro, but outside the city limits. The vast majority of those outer-city limit residents are living in sprawl. People have large 10,000 square foot lots in Chicagoland, while in greater LA, lots like 4,000 square feet are more typical.
Also, I see you would like to include San Bernardino and Riverside in the LA area. That's fine. When you include those, greater LA has almost 18 million residents. Chicagoland has just under 10 million. The usual distance from center Chicago to the end of development is 45 miles. LA is about 60 miles from its center to the end of development, and in some areas, shorter. In those extra 15 miles, the LA area has fit 8 million more people than Chicago (almost the size of the whole Chicago metro), so I would assume LA is going to be a little wider than Chicago.
The stats say it all in my opinion. The stats only include areas with a density greater than 500 so all the farms and stuff that lower cities are thrown out. The development is all that is included, and the Chicagoland's development spreads farther out into Illinois, Indiana, etc... per capita than Los Angeles spreads out into So Cal. Facts are facts. Chicago city limits form one of the densest cities in the nation. Los Angeles city limits are middle of the pack. As an entire urban area, Los Angeles is actually the densest region in our country though and if you want to argue about that, than you better talk to the US Census Bureau because they provide the numbers. All of Chicagoland is not like the innerloop, that's my point. Much of it is sprawl.
I never denied that Los Angeles suffers from sprawl. It does! I live here and see it. If you read my post, I also admit that Chicago is much more centralized with its city center and yes, most people will tell you to get a car in LA. It is the easiest way to get around because the roads have been set up to make it the best way. Only 12% of the Los Angeles work force uses public transportation to get to work, while 27% of Chicago does. However, you must admit that Chicagoland does have elements of sprawl in it. Look at the homes of the 6,952,426 residents living in the Chicago metro, but outside the city limits. The vast majority of those outer-city limit residents are living in sprawl. People have large 10,000 square foot lots in Chicagoland, while in greater LA, lots like 4,000 square feet are more typical.
Also, I see you would like to include San Bernardino and Riverside in the LA area. That's fine. When you include those, greater LA has almost 18 million residents. Chicagoland has just under 10 million. The usual distance from center Chicago to the end of development is 45 miles. LA is about 60 miles from its center to the end of development, and in some areas, shorter. In those extra 15 miles, the LA area has fit 8 million more people than Chicago (almost the size of the whole Chicago metro), so I would assume LA is going to be a little wider than Chicago.
The stats say it all in my opinion. The stats only include areas with a density greater than 500 so all the farms and stuff that lower cities are thrown out. The development is all that is included, and the Chicagoland's development spreads farther out into Illinois, Indiana, etc... per capita than Los Angeles spreads out into So Cal. Facts are facts. Chicago city limits form one of the densest cities in the nation. Los Angeles city limits are middle of the pack. As an entire urban area, Los Angeles is actually the densest region in our country though and if you want to argue about that, than you better talk to the US Census Bureau because they provide the numbers. All of Chicagoland is not like the innerloop, that's my point. Much of it is sprawl.
10,000 feet lots aren't the norm around here, a few places like the Barringtons have them but for the most part they dont.
As Nafster pointed out, both San Bernardino County and Riverside County are more spread out and have larger lots than those of Los Angeles County and Orange County. Roughly the same as Chicagoland's "large 10,000 square foot lots."
Chicagoland is a Combined Statistical Area, if you were to use Los Angeles' Combined Statistical Area then you would have 33,954 square miles and a population of about 17.6 million and a density of 518 peope/square mile.
I know that Chicago is nice but its location is the killer. Most people like the coast because of the diverse terrain, proximity to the mountains and the ocean which can't be compared to a lake. I know you guys love Lake Michigan but it can't and shouldn't be compared to the Atlantic or the Pacific. Plus NY & LA are near other major cities. From Boston to DC is one long continuous urban/suburban area. After you leave Chicago, you get cornfields. If Chicago was on either coast, it would get much more attention.
10,000 feet lots aren't the norm around here, a few places like the Barringtons have them but for the most part they dont.
As Nafster pointed out, both San Bernardino County and Riverside County are more spread out and have larger lots than those of Los Angeles County and Orange County. Roughly the same as Chicagoland's "large 10,000 square foot lots."
Chicagoland is a Combined Statistical Area, if you were to use Los Angeles' Combined Statistical Area then you would have 33,954 square miles and a population of about 17.6 million and a density of 518 peope/square mile.
The 33,954 square miles of the LA CSA include thousands upon thousands of acres of nothing (aka desert) because all of San Bernardino and Riverside County are included in the acreage count when over 95% of the two county's population lives within a few thousand acres of LA. Technically, little towns on the Arizona border, over 150 miles away are part of the LA CSA due to the fact that the CSA is just a collection of counties (and SB and Riverside County are geographically huge). I suriously doubt that little town at the Arizona border would be considered part of LA by anyone. The same goes for Chicagoland when you do that because it includes farm land in the area. It isn't fair to either city. This is why, in my opinion, the urban area statistic is most accurate. CSA's are not a good way to measure population density and that is why the government uses the "Urban Area" statistic to truly measure the density of development.
You can read this report if you like. It talks about how the Los Angeles area has consumed the least amount of land in recent years. With new development, LA has actually been the least sprawling. http://www.brookings.edu/metro/pubs/...LosAngeles.pdf
Imagine if Chicago was two hours north of LA with the same lakefront setting on the Pacific! It would be 5 million people in the city easily. Or if it was the southern anchor of the northeast corridor on Atlantic Ocean about an hour north of where Newport News is. It would be an incredible site.
I've never had a problem with Chicago's location. It's a little boring outside the city, but I rarely ever have a need to leave the city. The highrises and density along with the lakefront and large parks/trees keep me happy.
I'm not much for nature though. I'm sure if there were a lot of mountains here I'd sit and look at them, but knowing myself I'd probably very very rarely actually go up in them. That's just me though, but it's personally not a huge loss. Same with the water, I love looking out over Lake Michigan, and while it's certainly not an ocean, I don't really go in water much to begin with, so I'm not too concerned that it's just a 500 mile long lake and not an actual ocean. It still gets waves, some pretty large if the wind is off the lake, and you can go pitter patter around on the beaches.
A few pics of central Chicago. I think it's still pretty even if it's flat!
Sorry about my wild tone, lol, these constant threads about which city is better or Blank City Vs. Blank City are strating to get to me. I think what the posters who turn these threads into battlegrounds need to understand that each city has something that makes it unique. I do understand that some people do view the location as a drawback. I mean your right in many ways, New York City has Boston, Balimore, DC, Philidelphia, Richmond and Providence. And LA has SanDiego, Irvine and tons of suburban towns. Sadly all Chicago has is Gary, Milwaukee and the Quad Cities (give or take).
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.
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.
