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: SF vs Chic
San Francisco 157 41.21%
Chicago 224 58.79%
Voters: 381. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-07-2014, 08:13 PM
 
409 posts, read 458,148 times
Reputation: 260

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531 View Post
I don't know why people say SF is European style urbanity either.
First, have you ever been to Europe? If you have been there, you would know that Florence is hardly representative of Europe. That's like saying Charleston or Savannah is representative of the Sunbelt.

And no one said that SF was "like Europe". They said the urban development is more "European style" compared to Chicago, which is true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-07-2014, 08:33 PM
 
6,816 posts, read 6,928,713 times
Reputation: 5486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Standard111 View Post
First, have you ever been to Europe? If you have been there, you would know that Florence is hardly representative of Europe. That's like saying Charleston or Savannah is representative of the Sunbelt.

And no one said that SF was "like Europe". They said the urban development is more "European style" compared to Chicago, which is true.
How is Florence hardly a representation? It shares many of the same characteristics of other European major cities that I already listed in the post you quoted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2014, 11:34 PM
 
388 posts, read 472,692 times
Reputation: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nafster View Post
I've never heard Chicago described the way you just did ..... very odd.... but it's your opinion so you must be right!
I'd have to agree actually. It isn't a stab at Chicago, I think Chicago is uniquely "American" if that makes sense. SF doesn't compare to European cities, but as far as US cities go, I can see it looking more European than most. Arterials instead of freeways, height restrictions in most of the city leave buildings that move with topography. I think it is also everything looks white from afar, it reminds me of Istanbul or something from afar.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 03:31 AM
 
Location: West Hollywood
2,223 posts, read 4,127,818 times
Reputation: 1762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Standard111 View Post
Well I know you're being untruthful here, because 1. I'm not the first person on this thread to say "European-style"; I only agreed with others who said SF was more "European-style" compared to Chicago and 2. You would have to be living in a cave to not know that there are different styles of urbanity in different parts of earth.
Since we're number now:

1. You're response had nothing to do with my comment - I said I never heard Chicago described in the bizarre way you did.

2. San Francisco is not European like at all.... Have you been to Europe before??? There's more to a city being European than simple density. For example, cities like Boston and New Orleans are more European like (especially New Orleans) than San Francisco.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 11:02 AM
 
Location: Chicago
38,690 posts, read 89,059,495 times
Reputation: 29446
FWIW his description of Chicago isn't too far off the mark. I wouldn't say it's "surrounded" by freeways but there are several freeways anywhere from 6 to 14 lanes wide slicing through the urban landscape. "Choppy urbanity" I'm not sure about, but yes there are large industrial areas scattered among the residential parts of the south and southwest sides in particular (though I'm not sure if that's any different from other cities); and yes, new residential developments are required to have X number of off-street parking spaces per unit which typically results in the first several floors of residential highrises consisting of parking decks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 12:29 PM
 
Location: Upper West Side, Manhattan, NYC
14,792 posts, read 18,953,559 times
Reputation: 6797
I agree that San Francisco is more European in streetscape than Chicago. What may surprise people too is that much of the north side of Chicago is about the size of San Francisco and actually a little denser than San Francisco.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 12:33 PM
 
Location: So California
8,509 posts, read 8,848,311 times
Reputation: 4612
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
I agree that San Francisco is more European in streetscape than Chicago. What may surprise people too is that much of the north side of Chicago is about the size of San Francisco and actually a little denser than San Francisco.
Chicago is just bigger, not denser. San Francisco's core area is much denser and reaches much higher peaks. The majority of SF's density is on its northern half. Its easy to see on the streets of both cities. Again, this is one of SF's strengths is its compact size, surrounded by water.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 12:38 PM
 
Location: Upper West Side, Manhattan, NYC
14,792 posts, read 18,953,559 times
Reputation: 6797
Quote:
Originally Posted by slo1318 View Post
Chicago is just bigger, not denser. San Francisco's core area is much denser and reaches much higher peaks. The majority of SF's density is on its northern half. Its easy to see on the streets of both cities. Again, this is one of SF's strengths is its compact size, surrounded by water.
I said the north side of Chicago, not all of Chicago. There's a difference. I already did the work for this, actually. I can dig it up if you want to see for yourself (or I can re-calculate as it's not that difficult). You can take a continuous geographic area of Chicago that covers the north side that is very similar in physical land area to all of San Francisco and there's actually more people in that area of Chicago than in SF. Again, not for the whole city but the north (and part of the NW) side.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 12:56 PM
 
Location: Upper West Side, Manhattan, NYC
14,792 posts, read 18,953,559 times
Reputation: 6797
Here's some work from above. You can map these out and see it's a continuous geographical area on the north and part of the NW sides:

San Francisco | 837,442 people (2013) | 46.87 sq mi (land) | 17,867 per sq mi


Breakdown of North side (and some NW side) of Chicago by community area:

* Edgewater | 56521 people | 1.71 sq mi | 33053.22 per sq mi
* Lake View | 94368 people | 3.16 sq mi | 29863.29 per sq mi
* Rogers Park | 54991 people | 1.85 sq mi | 29724.86 per sq mi
* Near North Side | 80484 people | 2.72 sq mi | 29589.71 per sq mi
* Albany Park | 51542 people | 1.93 sq mi | 26705.7 per sq mi
* Uptown | 56362 people | 2.35 sq mi | 23983.83 per sq mi
* Logan Square | 73595 people | 3.23 sq mi | 22784.83 per sq mi
* West Ridge | 71942 people | 3.53 sq mi | 20380.17 per sq mi
* Lincoln Park | 64116 people | 3.19 sq mi | 20099.06 per sq mi
* Avondale | 39262 people | 2 sq mi | 19631 per sq mi
* West Town | 81432 people | 4.57 sq mi | 17818.82 per sq mi
* Irving Park | 53359 people | 3.23 sq mi | 16519.81 per sq mi
* North Center | 31867 people | 2.07 sq mi | 15394.69 per sq mi
* Lincoln Square | 39493 people | 2.57 sq mi | 15366.93 per sq mi

Total | 849,334 people | 38.11 sq mi | 22,286 per sq mi

The area above in Chicago has 12,000 more people than all of San Francisco in 8.76 sq mi less than San Francisco.


Even if you took out the downtown portion of the above (Near North Side) and replaced it with a NW side neighborhood in Portage Park (64,124 people, 3.98 sq mi, 16,111 per sq mi) and a not very dense almost suburban neighborhood in North Park (17,931 people, 2.07 sq mi, 8662 per sq mi), you would still get an area of Chicago that is 5.43 sq miles less than San Francisco with 13,000 more people than San Francisco. Density of over 21,000 per sq mi. In fact, you could also remove Lincoln Park from that, which also has some high rises (but nothing compared to downtown) and put Belmont Cragin in its place and actually result in more people with barely an increase in overall land area.

This is more complicated, because I'm sure SF has a higher building density and what not and probably in many areas a higher weighted density as well, but overall? The entire north and part of NW side of Chicago is actually denser than all of SF for a similar physical area.

Last edited by marothisu; 04-09-2014 at 01:04 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 01:06 PM
 
Location: In the heights
22,003 posts, read 23,542,011 times
Reputation: 11567
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
Here's some work from above. You can map these out and see it's a continuous geographical area on the north and part of the NW sides:

San Francisco | 837,442 people (2013) | 46.87 sq mi (land) | 17,867 per sq mi


Breakdown of North side (and some NW side) of Chicago by community area:

* Edgewater | 56521 people | 1.71 sq mi | 33053.22 per sq mi
* Lake View | 94368 people | 3.16 sq mi | 29863.29 per sq mi
* Rogers Park | 54991 people | 1.85 sq mi | 29724.86 per sq mi
* Near North Side | 80484 people | 2.72 sq mi | 29589.71 per sq mi
* Albany Park | 51542 people | 1.93 sq mi | 26705.7 per sq mi
* Uptown | 56362 people | 2.35 sq mi | 23983.83 per sq mi
* Logan Square | 73595 people | 3.23 sq mi | 22784.83 per sq mi
* West Ridge | 71942 people | 3.53 sq mi | 20380.17 per sq mi
* Lincoln Park | 64116 people | 3.19 sq mi | 20099.06 per sq mi
* Avondale | 39262 people | 2 sq mi | 19631 per sq mi
* West Town | 81432 people | 4.57 sq mi | 17818.82 per sq mi
* Irving Park | 53359 people | 3.23 sq mi | 16519.81 per sq mi
* North Center | 31867 people | 2.07 sq mi | 15394.69 per sq mi
* Lincoln Square | 39493 people | 2.57 sq mi | 15366.93 per sq mi

Total | 849,334 people | 38.11 sq mi | 22,286 per sq mi

The area above in Chicago has 12,000 more people than all of San Francisco in 8.76 sq mi less than San Francisco.


Even if you took out the downtown portion of the above (Near North Side) and replaced it with a NW side neighborhood in Portage Park (64,124 people, 3.98 sq mi, 16,111 per sq mi) and a not very dense almost suburban neighborhood in North Park (17,931 people, 2.07 sq mi, 8662 per sq mi), you would still get an area of Chicago that is 5.43 sq miles less than San Francisco with 13,000 more people than San Francisco. Density of over 21,000 per sq mi. In fact, you could also remove Lincoln Park from that, which also has some high rises (but nothing compared to downtown) and put Belmont Cragin in its place and actually result in more people with barely an increase in overall land area.
Does that come out to a really weird shape for Chicago? What happens if it's slightly more blobular or square-ish and including University Village, the Loop and Near South Side? I think a good comparison would be one that includes the majority of Chicago major institutions comparable to SF's (city proper) with the possible exclusion of the Hyde Park area since that's a bit removed from the North Side and the Loop.
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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top