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.
Oh I agree, it's all on how you evaluate it. You'd get more numbers moving into LP/LV I think though than into west loop south loop?
Chicago's population definitely isn't uniform but is a bit scattered and very well connected by rail going out, SF and Philly are more consistent foot print in the core, but less connected in the city. In Chicago, tons of people come into the DT Core from the other neighborhoods, so it makes it seem bigger/busier in actuality. But even then, the DT work areas are more spread out than SF or Philly... hard to say. I would definitely say there are more interesting good urban nabes to explore in Chicago than SF or Philly, and those people can probably get into DT easier than their counterparts.
It's hard to tell if Chicago's population follows rail. A bit on the north side, it looks like, not as much as elsewhere. The pattern in NYC is much more clear:
but it has more adjacent areas (to the south and west) to downtown that are lightly populated. NYC has a small resident population "hole" at the peak of the Midtown Business district. Judging from the map, NYC has a more linear downtown than any of the other cities, Chicago is more a point/ rectangle.
I think Chicago is more bustling than SF's downtown for a few reasons:
- More employment: Loop + North Michigan Ave
- More retail: Union square is slightly behind Michigan Avenue, but further when you add State Street
- More transit options to and from the center: 10 rapid transit lines, 12 commuter lines vs 6 rapid transit/1 Commuter for the Bay
- Less nodes than the Bay: theres more downtowns to choose from in the SF area, while Chicago is the top player in the region
However SF's downtown is more interesting as a traditional neighborhood. Someone had bought some stats up that showed SF has more stores, which isn't surprising as it has smaller storefronts on average, and much smaller blocks. There's hundreds of stores in that small area of Chinatown alone. So Chicago may have more retail space and more of a feel of spectacle, but not stores. Chicago's downtown is bizarre, 1,000 ft buildings being proposed less than a mile from vacant land.
The only connection I can make is that The Loop is some bizarre combination of mostly Midtown with some Lower Manhattan mixed in, while I still think River North still reminds me of parts of The Meatpacking District and Hells Kitchen.
Completely think the same these areas looked similar ... Other areas also looked similar as well
Additionally, Just the fact that Chicago and New York had the only significant pre-war skyline/skyscraper , makes a connection to them that no other city in the world can ever have .... considering that this is a major identity of both cities
Oh I agree, it's all on how you evaluate it. You'd get more numbers moving into LP/LV I think though than into west loop south loop?
Chicago's population definitely isn't uniform but is a bit scattered and very well connected by rail going out, SF and Philly are more consistent foot print in the core, but less connected in the city. In Chicago, tons of people come into the DT Core from the other neighborhoods, so it makes it seem bigger/busier in actuality. But even then, the DT work areas are more spread out than SF or Philly... hard to say. I would definitely say there are more interesting good urban nabes to explore in Chicago than SF or Philly, and those people can probably get into DT easier than their counterparts.
Yes, LP and Lakeview are around 150,000 together, although no one would call that downtown like you would the immeidate west loop are and the south loop.
They've certainly grown:
South Loop:
1990: 6,828
2010: 21,390
West Loop:
2000: 46,419
2010: 54,881
North Loop:
1990: 62,842
2010: 80,484
Loop:
1960: 4,337
1990: 11,954
2010: 29,283
Check out the west/south sides. They're normally the most dangerous, which is why they only have a fraction of their former populations and make up a fairly small % of the city overall. Most of them are barely 8,000 to 10,000 people per square mile:
Oh I agree, it's all on how you evaluate it. You'd get more numbers moving into LP/LV I think though than into west loop south loop?
Likewise, for Manhattan, you'd get higher numbers from the Upper West Side or Upper East Side than Midtown or Midtown South (14th to 59th streets). Even taking some pieces of the West Bronx would give higher numbers than Midtown.
Additionally, Just the fact that Chicago and New York had the only significant pre-war skyline/skyscraper , makes a connection to them that no other city in the world can ever have .... considering that this is a major identity of both cities
True, though New York City had far more tall pre-war buildings. Skim through the list of tallest building in the world:
Most are from the last few decades… then there are a number of 30s buildings, all from NYC. And one 1913 one [Woolowrth building]. Both of the currently open skyscraper observation decks in NYC (Top of the Rock, Empire State Building) are from the 30s. The two in Chicago (Willis Tower & John Hancock Tower) are from the 60s or 70s.
By number of skyscrapers (> 100 m) New York City has slightly more than double Chicago (794 vs 341). At higher thersholds the gap is smaller.
Back in 1950, NYC had far more skyscrapers.
In 1950, most big American cities had small clusters of skyscrapers downtown. A few cities (Detroit, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, etc.) had a handful over 400 feet. Chicago had twelve over 500 feet. Cleveland had Terminal Tower, close to 800 feet tall.
And then there was New York City.
Any statistical way you look at it, New York was the king of high rise cities. In 1950 the world had 160 buildings over 400 feet. New York alone accounted for 87 of those. Over half of the world's tall buildings in one city--that was the dominance of Gotham. Of the world's ten tallest buildings, nine were in the Big Apple. (The one exception was the Terminal Tower.) Of the thirty tallest, 22 were in New York.
Likewise, for Manhattan, you'd get higher numbers from the Upper West Side or Upper East Side than Midtown or Midtown South (14th to 59th streets). Even taking some pieces of the West Bronx would give higher numbers than Midtown.
correct, but we all know that doesn't match reality.
correct, but we all know that doesn't match reality.
What do you mean?
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.
