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.
Sorrry it is grapico who posted the pictures. Anyway those pictures are far from what he claims. They show Chicago as a semi-dense midwetern town outside the downtown areas and they look very much like many LA neighborhoods and don't meausre up to SF.
Until you do, I don't think we are talking. I am sorry but the pictures kidphilly posted just prove the opposite. They pale so much in comparison.
Honestly there are only about 5 cities that actually have density (SF, Chicago, NY, Boston, and Philly) I am perplexed - the densest part of Chicago is bigger than SF - maybe certain 1 sq mile areas are more dense in SF but not by much on any scale - I agree both are and Chicago is bigger
I don't see why it is a problem to use a car to get from one walkable area to another. You can only walk for so long and then you get tired. LA has worse public transportation than Chicago that's for sure but that is another topic. Chicago L is filthy and slow in some areas anyways and I don't feel like taking it until it is absolutely necessary but that is just me. Besides the steel frames supporting the L look so rusted it looks like they can collapse any day just like the Minneapolis I35 bridge. I don't have problems with cars and that is totally irrelevant to the topic.
Its a problem if you don't own a car. Despite LA's improving transit system, its still not easy or mainstream to live car-free in LA.
If you take the contiguous central and northside Chicago neighborhoods of Rogers Park, West Ridge, Uptown, Edgewater, Lincoln Square, North Center, Lakeview, Lincoln Park, Near North, Loop, Near South, West Town, Logan Square, Avondale, Irving Park, Near West Side, and North Park you have an area of 50.2 square miles with a population (2000 Census data) of 927415, for a population density of 18.4k per square mile, higher than San Francisco. These neighborhoods contain the vast majority of "yuppified" Chicago, the vast majority of the wealth, and disproportionately low amount of the crime.
Obviously there are vast swaths of the west and south side of Chicago with very low population density which bring down the city's overall average. These neighborhoods have/had most of the city's industry and most of the neighborhoods depopulated due to urban decay. However, for better or worse, many residents of the north side go about their lives without any exposure to these areas.
The point was that both pairs were relatively equidistant to each other. It wasn't about finding which one had the closest remote stretches of their city limits to each other.
7.6 million people/8750 square miles = 869 people per square mile
9.8 million people/9600 square miles = 1021 people per square mile
You're right, I stand corrected on that one. I had heard otherwise, but the numbers dont lie
Chicago feels like it gets more suburban more quickly once you leave the city compared to the bay area (at least to the east and south of SF), but the edges of the Bay Area CSA are pretty low density and there are several very low populated mountainous areas, so this makes sense...
If you take the contiguous central and northside Chicago neighborhoods of Rogers Park, West Ridge, Uptown, Edgewater, Lincoln Square, North Center, Lakeview, Lincoln Park, Near North, Loop, Near South, West Town, Logan Square, Avondale, Irving Park, Near West Side, and North Park you have an area of 50.2 square miles with a population (2000 Census data) of 927415, for a population density of 18.4k per square mile, higher than San Francisco. These neighborhoods contain the vast majority of "yuppified" Chicago, the vast majority of the wealth, and disproportionately low amount of the crime.
Obviously there are vast swaths of the west and south side of Chicago with very low population density which bring down the city's overall average. These neighborhoods have/had most of the city's industry and most of the neighborhoods depopulated due to urban decay. However, for better or worse, many residents of the north side go about their lives without any exposure to these areas.
See thats the problem with chicago everything is just not even and evertyone likes to focus on the north side. This isnt a shot at you but just some thoughts. And there are a few s. side neighborhoods with high density.
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.
