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.
Does that come out to a really weird shape for Chicago? What happens if it's slightly more blobular or square-ish and including the Loop and Near South Side?
Well it's a little harder to do that at the community area level. You'd probably have to go into the census tract level or even block if you wanted to make it similar in actual shape to SF or similar to a particular shape.
If you add Near South Side and the Loop to the first part (not with Portage Park, Belmont Cragin, or North Park), then you get a population of 900,007 for a land area of 41.44 sq mi. If you continue adding stuff on the south side, which is often times less dense and get it close to equal to SF's land area of 46.87 sq miles, then you'd include the following with the Loop and Near South Side:
* Armour Square (Chinatown) | 13391 people | 0.99 sq mi | 13526.26 per sq mi
* Douglas | 18238 people | 1.67 sq mi | 10920.96 per sq mi
* Bridgeport | 31925 people | 2.1 sq mi | 15202.38 per sq mi
TOTAL | 963,561 people | 46.2 sq mi | 20,856.3 per sq mi
Essentially in that whole area which is very close to size in SF, there's 130,000 more people in that Chicago geographical area.
Well it's a little harder to do that at the community area level. You'd probably have to go into the census tract level or even block if you wanted to make it similar in actual shape to SF or similar to a particular shape.
If you add Near South Side and the Loop to the first part (not with Portage Park, Belmont Cragin, or North Park), then you get a population of 900,007 for a land area of 41.44 sq mi. If you continue adding stuff on the south side, which is often times less dense and get it close to equal to SF's land area of 46.87 sq miles, then you'd include the following with the Loop and Near South Side:
* Armour Square (Chinatown) | 13391 people | 0.99 sq mi | 13526.26 per sq mi
* Douglas | 18238 people | 1.67 sq mi | 10920.96 per sq mi
* Bridgeport | 31925 people | 2.1 sq mi | 15202.38 per sq mi
TOTAL | 963,561 people | 46.2 sq mi | 20,856.3 per sq mi
Essentially in that whole area which is very close to size in SF, there's 130,000 more people in that Chicago geographical area.
I was just thinking that grabbing an area with a closer sort of shape and amenities to SF might make for an interesting comparison as opposed to the somewhat rectangular or wedge shape that comes out of the communities originally posted (and which would be missing the CBD and some pretty important Chicago institutions).
I was just thinking that grabbing an area with a closer sort of shape and amenities to SF might make for an interesting comparison as opposed to the somewhat rectangular or wedge shape that comes out of the communities originally posted (and which would be missing the CBD and some pretty important Chicago institutions).
Maybe, but the point is that the north side and part of the northwest side, and even part of the near south side in a continuous area is actually denser than San Francisco for the same area. SF is dense, but it's not true that no large parts of Chicago aren't as or more dense.
Maybe, but the point is that the north side and part of the northwest side, and even part of the near south side in a continuous area is actually denser than San Francisco for the same area. SF is dense, but it's not true that no large parts of Chicago aren't as or more dense.
Yea, that's definitely true. It's the same thing that keeps on popping up over and over again with people not understanding or ignoring how different legal physical boundaries for cities can hide a lot of variation that anyone can obviously see at ground level. It's a principle similar to what's behind Jacksonville not really being a bigger city than San Francisco.
Anyhow, for no apparent reason, I ran these numbers:
5,North Center,2.07,31867
6,Lake View,1.58,29283
7,Lincoln Park,3.19,64116
8,Near North Side,2.72,80484
16,Irving Park,3.23,53359
20,Hermosa,1.17,25010
21,Avondale,2.00,39262
22,Logan Square,3.23,73595
23,Humboldt Park,3.60,56323
24,West Town,4.57,81432
26,West Garfield Park,1.28,18001
27,East Garfield Park,1.94,20567
28,Near West Side,5.75,54881
29,North Lawndale,3.20,35912
30,South Lawndale,4.40,79288
31,Lower West Side,2.80,35769
32,Loop,1.58,29283
33,Near South Side,1.75,21390
34,Armour Square,0.99,13391
35,Douglas,1.67,18238
59,McKinley Park,1.40,15612
60,Bridgeport,2.10,31925
Those community areas cover most major institutions of Chicago (barring the glaring error of University of Chicago since it's pretty far removed) that's a lot more centered on the Loop and with its borders more equidistant for all axes rather than a sort of more narrow rectangular area going up the far north side. 56.22 square miles with 908,988 people. If you sort of lop off the most southern community areas and added a layer of community areas to the north, then you get an area with 51.42 square miles and 918,683 people with a density (using 2010 stats for Chicago community areas) virtually the exact same population density as that for SF in 2013. Very exciting.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 04-09-2014 at 05:36 PM..
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.
You obviously haven't been to Florence if you think that Florence is representative of Europe.
Florence is a huge outlier, and is very historic. You really never heard of Florence and its role in the Renaissance? It's a huge tourist center. It has nothing to do with typical European cities. It receives millions of tourists specifically because it's nothing like typical European cities.
1. You're response had nothing to do with my comment - I said I never heard Chicago described in the bizarre way you did.
And you are obviously not telling the truth about #1, because I only agreed with what other people in the thread already said.
And you are the one with the bizarre opinion. I have never heard someone not describe Chicago in the way I did. Tell me specifically what you find "bizarre" about my comments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nafster
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.
And here too you reveal you are ignorant about Europe, New Orleans and didn't bother to even read my posts. New Orleans has like 1% of its neighborhoods that are remotely similar to Europe. 99% of New Orleans has a totally unique look or just looks like any other Southern Gulf Coast city. New Orleans is a new city primarily, with ranch-style homes sprawling over the metropolitan area.
And you obviously didn't read my posts, because I mentioned Boston, and how it was one of the most European-looking cities in the U.S.
And, once again, I never said that any U.S. city "looks like Europe". I made a distinction between SF and other U.S. cities, and if you don't like the term "Euro-style" you are free to use any term you prefer. If you personally think that every U.S. city looks exactly the same, well that is a bizarre opinion.
You obviously haven't been to Florence if you think that Florence is representative of Europe.
Florence is a huge outlier, and is very historic. You really never heard of Florence and its role in the Renaissance? It's a huge tourist center. It has nothing to do with typical European cities. It receives millions of tourists specifically because it's nothing like typical European cities.
Which major city is a great representative of Europe?
Well it's a little harder to do that at the community area level. You'd probably have to go into the census tract level or even block if you wanted to make it similar in actual shape to SF or similar to a particular shape.
If you add Near South Side and the Loop to the first part (not with Portage Park, Belmont Cragin, or North Park), then you get a population of 900,007 for a land area of 41.44 sq mi. If you continue adding stuff on the south side, which is often times less dense and get it close to equal to SF's land area of 46.87 sq miles, then you'd include the following with the Loop and Near South Side:
* Armour Square (Chinatown) | 13391 people | 0.99 sq mi | 13526.26 per sq mi
* Douglas | 18238 people | 1.67 sq mi | 10920.96 per sq mi
* Bridgeport | 31925 people | 2.1 sq mi | 15202.38 per sq mi
TOTAL | 963,561 people | 46.2 sq mi | 20,856.3 per sq mi
Essentially in that whole area which is very close to size in SF, there's 130,000 more people in that Chicago geographical area.
This may be a bit confusing at first but I think it is worth mentioning. You are kind of comparing the "core" of one urban area to another to find which has a higher density. I think the urban core of San Francisco actually resides in a mix of SF and Oakland's downtown across the Bay, rather than solely in San Francisco's 49 square mile. Downtown Oakland is literally closer to San Francisco in terms of travel time than much of the less dense western parts of San Francisco. So what I am suggesting is if you are cherry picking the densest places in the core of Chicagoland without respecting the complexity of the SF Bay Area urban core, I don't think it is an apples to apples comparison. You can use similar square miles, but if you get to focus on the densest part of Chicagoland, you need to include Oakland somehow to get a reasonable comparison. Forgive me if this is too complicated.
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.
What Im saying is Chicago is just bigger, so if it has more area with a density in the upper teens or even 20k, it still wont feel as busy or dense as San Francisco. The dense side of San Francisco is the northern half, again much smaller, but densities will exceed anything in Chicago so it will feel busier and does. Anyone who's spent time in both cities can see that just by driving or walking around. Even the two downtowns, Chicago's is massive but not as structurally dense as SF.
This may be a bit confusing at first but I think it is worth mentioning. You are kind of comparing the "core" of one urban area to another to find which has a higher density. I think the urban core of San Francisco actually resides in a mix of SF and Oakland's downtown across the Bay, rather than solely in San Francisco's 49 square mile. Downtown Oakland is literally closer to San Francisco in terms of travel time than much of the less dense western parts of San Francisco. So what I am suggesting is if you are cherry picking the densest places in the core of Chicagoland without respecting the complexity of the SF Bay Area urban core, I don't think it is an apples to apples comparison. You can use similar square miles, but if you get to focus on the densest part of Chicagoland, you need to include Oakland somehow to get a reasonable comparison. Forgive me if this is too complicated.
Actually, you failed to understand the post in which you quoted. I specifically lopped out the core of Chicago from those numbers, which would be Near North Side (River North, Streeterville, Gold Coast, and Old Town) and the Loop. None of the other ones are part of the core of Chicago, and it's still denser. I also lopped off Lincoln Park, which is directly north of Near North Side and replaced it with something further out and it's still denser.
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.
