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.
Boston already pushes into New Hampshire and Rhode Island, and--if you include the CSA--Maine.
Chicago is filled with top-notch museums, restaurants, and sports destinations. It's where house music started, so I'm sure there are plenty of awesome clubs there too. In the summer, the Lake is beautiful and provides the most beautiful urban beach in the nation.
Agree with everying 100%, except the awesome clubs thing, I think it gets trounced by its east coast and west counterparts. Irish bars/sports bars/neighborhood bars/beer gardens/blues clubs/outdoor fests is more Chicagos thing. I certainly wouldn't say Detroit had a great club scene either because techno started there for instance.
Agree with everying 100%, except the awesome clubs thing, I think it gets trounced by its east coast and west counterparts. Irish bars/sports bars/neighborhood bars/beer gardens/blues clubs/outdoor fests is more Chicagos thing. I certainly wouldn't say Detroit had a great club scene either because techno started there for instance.
I've definitely liked clubs I've been to in Chicago though, don't sleep on 'em
How is it not clear to you by now that you are? Are you really that naive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osito57
Urban area is different than city. We are talking about cities. Urban area includes all adjacent sprawl.
All of Chicago's inner ring suburbs are denser than Houston. Even some of the ones farther out are just as if not more dense than Houston.
Allow me to educate you. Here is a list of just a few Chicago suburbs, all of them more dense than Houston.
Evanston: 9,581.1 people per square mile
Cicero: 14,685 people per square mile
Skokie: 6,685 people per square mile
Berwyn: 13,856 people per square mile
Oh and just for your knowledge,the average density of Urban Chicago is 4,103.5 people per square mile. That's denser than all of Houston . Now before you tell me I'm lying, why don't you do a little research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osito57
So if you want to say Chicago has much more sprawl than Houston, then you are correct.
Do you even realize what you're saying? Houston manages to fit 2.2 million people into 600+ square miles of land. Chicago fits 2.8 million people into 227 square miles of land. With that statement being a FACT, explain to me how Chicago has more sprawl than Houston. Do you even realize what you're saying?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osito57
But if you want to say the City of Chicago is much larger than the City of Houston, that is incorrect.
For everyone 1 person you have in Urban Houston, you have 2.27 people in Urban Chicago. Ouch, it hurts to be wrong all the time. Maybe you should look into being a Meteorologist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osito57
In fact, Houston will be larger than Chicago within a decade or so.
Are you kidding? They are separated by something like 600,000 people. That's almost the entire city of Boston.
How is it not clear to you by now that you are? Are you really that naive?
All of Chicago's inner ring suburbs are denser than Houston. Even some of the ones farther out are just as if not more dense than Houston.
Allow me to educate you. Here is a list of just a few Chicago suburbs, all of them more dense than Houston.
Evanston: 9,581.1 people per square mile
Cicero: 14,685 people per square mile
Skokie: 6,685 people per square mile
Berwyn: 13,856 people per square mile
Oh and just for your knowledge,the average density of Urban Chicago is 4,103.5 people per square mile. That's denser than all of Houston . Now before you tell me I'm lying, why don't you do a little research.
Do you even realize what you're saying? Houston manages to fit 2.2 million people into 600+ square miles of land. Chicago fits 2.8 million people into 227 square miles of land. With that statement being a FACT, explain to me how Chicago has more sprawl than Houston. Do you even realize what you're saying?
For everyone 1 person you have in Urban Houston, you have 2.27 people in Urban Chicago. Ouch, it hurts to be wrong all the time. Maybe you should look into being a Meteorologist.
Are you kidding? They are separated by something like 600,000 people. That's almost the entire city of Boston.
Haven't you realized that facts and simple logic don't compute in Osito's head?
You're correct. I go by CENSUS numbers, while City-Data Chicago boosters go by "facts and simple logic" dictated by their biases!
Could you please give me a link to the census data showing Chicago's population has dropped to 2.7 million? I haven't been able to find a reference anywhere supporting your assertion. Thanks again.
You're correct. I go by CENSUS numbers, while City-Data Chicago boosters go by "facts and simple logic" dictated by their biases!
No one's boosting Chicago, we're just telling you what Chicago is. The only person on this thread as of now thats "facts" are dictated by their biases is you. Easy to criticize the world when you live your life behind a computer screen.
Could you please give me a link to the census data showing Chicago's population has dropped to 2.7 million? I haven't been able to find a reference anywhere supporting your assertion. Thanks again.
It's actually likely less than 2.7 million by now. It was 2.7 million back in 2005:
Chicago’s population decreased to 2.7 million by 2005, a loss of 6% leaving Chicago with fewer people in 2004 than in 1990 (or any time since 1920).
If we want to be accurate we should only go by 2000 real census data. Anything else is purely speculation. Current estimates are higher however. Why would you pick 2005 of all years, when there is just as speculative census estimates for 2008 out already?
It's actually likely less than 2.7 million by now. It was 2.7 million back in 2005:
[SIZE=2][LEFT]Chicago’s population decreased to 2.7 million by 2005, a loss of 6%,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]leaving Chicago with fewer people in 2004 than in 1990 (or any time since 1920).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Source:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]http://www.pacebus.com/pdf/2009%20Bu...0Part%20II.pdf
[LEFT][SIZE=2][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Page 76[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Chicago's population peaked at 3.6 million at the end of World War II, and is now 2.7 million[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Source:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Who we are by the Numbers[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2] [/LEFT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][/SIZE]
Lol you totally didn't edit that piece of "information" though, so it must be true. The 2008 estimate is over 2.8 million. So Chicago's population dropped 100,000, and went back up 100,000 people in one year? Wow, talk about spectacular growth.
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.
