Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-05-2010, 09:46 AM
 
2,419 posts, read 4,698,238 times
Reputation: 1317

Advertisements

Chicago is a much bigger city so I would assume Chicago has more foot traffic.

NYC
Chicago
Philly
DC
would probably be the top four

Boston
SF
would probably be six and seven
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-05-2010, 10:14 AM
 
Location: Lower East Side, Milwaukee, WI
2,943 posts, read 5,041,819 times
Reputation: 1113
Quote:
Originally Posted by OmShahi View Post
I'm a Chicagoan and spend a lot of time in Bay Area.

It's San Francisco, the density and small land area greatly help as well as the immense tourism and beautiful scenery.
Chicago is no slouch it's in the top 4 for pedestrian traffic, but San Francisco is just higher on the list.

And what is with everyones new craze for Chicago and San Francisco these days? Everyday someone makes like 12 threads for each one.
I know you're always trying to be amiable, but sometimes you just sound like you have an inferiority complex. Chicago has 2.8 million people, SF has 800,000. Obviously Chicago has more people out on the streets at any given moment than SF does. Perhaps if we were talking about most people on the street per square mile, then SF would win.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2010, 02:13 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 15,934,312 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjacobeclark View Post
I know you're always trying to be amiable, but sometimes you just sound like you have an inferiority complex. Chicago has 2.8 million people, SF has 800,000. Obviously Chicago has more people out on the streets at any given moment than SF does. Perhaps if we were talking about most people on the street per square mile, then SF would win.
I'm talking about the amount of people walking around in the urban core of a city, the CBD, downtown, whatever it is that you would like to call it. San Francisco has a large amount of commuters daily from other parts of the Bay Area. I know Chicago does from it's suburbs as well, but I hardly doubt to the same extent.
San Francisco also reels in more tourists, they can be there at any given date, it's not summer. You're bound to see it get packed.
The density of the city as a whole really adds on to the image, you have a compact area, that means you have more walkers. Chicago is what? 200+ square miles. San Francisco is 48, and a large portion of it is surrounded by the business district of the city.

Normally when you talk about pedestrians, you're not talking about like 14 people at some park in some neighborhood of the city with their dogs and children, you're talking more in depth about people actually walking around in the core of the city, IMHO. And I know 2.8 million people don't live in downtown Chicago.

Inferiority complex? Hardly, stating that one city has something over another does not make it an "inferiority complex". I don't even understand the logic behind that, I don't even live in San Francisco, so why would giving it the props over the city that I actually do live in give me an IC problem? I don't know maybe I'm one of those crazy few people who actually like giving other cities the edge over mine in certain things, or perhaps I'm actually one of those people that really don't have that strong homer connection with my city...don't know, but I guess I just don't care to know either.

Well whatever, if you want to think I've got an inferiority complex, then cool. Won't really prevent me from posting the way I do.

List of U.S. cities with most pedestrian commuters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

^ It's not a list with the cities with most pedestrians, but I state my case, the city with more pedestrian commuters, San Francisco 14, Chicago 31.

Top 10 – The Most Visited US Cities in 2007 « [ tourism to-be ]

^ You can expect more of those overseas travelers to stay in the downtown locations of both cities. I really don't see why anyone would not be staying and touring near downtown Chicago = pedestrians in the city. I know for a fact those people go through downtown San Francisco, if you're visiting the Bay Area, that's probably a must for tourists = pedestrians in the city.

Tourism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

^ History of tourism. Tourists = part time pedestrians to designated city. Both cities are listed along with DC and NYC.

Visitors and tourists = more pedestrians for the cities.
Pedestrian commuters from other cities on daily basis = more pedestrians to the city
Smaller area to walk in = more accessible for pedestrians to walk in the city

Chicago's great, but San Francisco does a bit better, IMHO.

Anyways I'm out, going to watch again how the Lakers pwned Celtics over again. Cant get enough of the Lakers.

Last edited by DANNYY; 06-05-2010 at 02:38 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2010, 02:20 PM
 
Location: The Bay
6,914 posts, read 14,673,852 times
Reputation: 3119
Being that SF is the 2nd densest city in the country only behind NY and Chicago's the 5th (which is a huge difference in terms of density), It's probably safe to say that SF has more people walking around in any part of the city at any given time than Chicago. And that's not even counting the gigantic amount of tourists...

This is a weird thread btw... what's the point?


EDIT: Obviously Chicago has more people than SF, but you're less likely to find an empty street in SF than you are in Chicago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2010, 02:27 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 15,934,312 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava View Post
Being that SF is the 2nd densest city in the country only behind NY and Chicago's the 5th (which is a huge difference in terms of density), It's probably safe to say that SF has more people walking around in any part of the city at any given time than Chicago. And that's not even counting the gigantic amount of tourists...

This is a weird thread btw... what's the point?


EDIT: Obviously Chicago has more people than SF, but you're less likely to find an empty street in SF than you are in Chicago.
Density helps, but it's not the main component. San Francisco's size as a city helps a lot. 48 square miles of urban and dense places versus Chicago's 227 square miles of more open and spaced out places (outside of downtown of course), it just sets them apart in pedestrian traffic.

San Francisco is well connected, it's not as open and spaced out like Chicago outside of downtown. That really builds to it's density and pedestrian traffic.

Chicago's downtown can probably speak for itself, but it's the other parts of the city outside of downtown that's holding it back for density and pedestrian friendliness, IMHO.

That's why I've been saying San Francisco > Chicago on pedestrian traffic, because it's limited to simply downtown.

I could hardly see the OP care for some guy in some neighborhood miles from downtown walking his dog count as "pedestrian". Very vague topic, there needs to be more clarity with the OP.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2010, 02:28 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,385 posts, read 28,378,301 times
Reputation: 5877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava View Post
Being that SF is the 2nd densest city in the country only behind NY and Chicago's the 5th (which is a huge difference in terms of density), It's probably safe to say that SF has more people walking around in any part of the city at any given time than Chicago. And that's not even counting the gigantic amount of tourists...

This is a weird thread btw... what's the point?


EDIT: Obviously Chicago has more people than SF, but you're less likely to find an empty street in SF than you are in Chicago.
Hrrm...I wouldn't go by that...Chicago has pretty dense areas... I lived in Rogers Park for awhile and it is the northernmost neighborhood, its density is 35,000 people... while SF as a whole is 16-17,000...
See what I did there. Plus you could pull off the same statistical ups and down using inner ring areas like Oak Park or Daly City...

Statistically SF is denser overall due to its strict height limitations and unification...but there are other variables. Chicago will peak higher but also have lower valleys of population density. This has been done in detail before. This has to do in a large part due to Chicago having very high skyscraper mixed residential buildings.

Anyway I don't think SF downtown is any busier or more people on the streets than the Loop/Downtown... and definitely not May-September... BUT SF in my experience, the neighborhoods have quite a bit more people on average out on the streets compared to Chicago neighborhoods...Chicago certainly has no answer for SF Chinatown, Chicago Chinatown is pretty weak in comparison. <--just an example.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2010, 02:55 PM
 
Location: Spain
1,854 posts, read 4,900,964 times
Reputation: 973
How would it be physically possible for San Francisco to have more people on the streets than Chicago?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2010, 02:55 PM
 
Location: The Bay
6,914 posts, read 14,673,852 times
Reputation: 3119
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
Hrrm...I wouldn't go by that...Chicago has pretty dense areas... I lived in Rogers Park for awhile and it is the northernmost neighborhood, its density is 35,000 people... while SF as a whole is 16-17,000...
See what I did there. Plus you could pull off the same statistical ups and down using inner ring areas like Oak Park or Daly City...

Statistically SF is denser overall due to its strict height limitations and unification...but there are other variables. Chicago will peak higher but also have lower valleys of population density. This has been done in detail before. This has to do in a large part due to Chicago having very high skyscraper mixed residential buildings.

Anyway I don't think SF downtown is any busier or more people on the streets than the Loop/Downtown... and definitely not May-September... BUT SF in my experience, the neighborhoods have quite a bit more people on average out on the streets compared to Chicago neighborhoods...Chicago certainly has no answer for SF Chinatown, Chicago Chinatown is pretty weak in comparison. <--just an example.

That's because SF is much denser... that's exactly what I meant. In SF, you have to give an arm and a leg for houses that have lawns and space in between each other. On any given residential block in SF there's upwards of 1,000 people... this is not true in Chicago.

And nobody counts DC or SSF as part of san francisco because they're not even in the same county (SF county vs San Mateo County).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2010, 03:26 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,385 posts, read 28,378,301 times
Reputation: 5877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava View Post
That's because SF is much denser... that's exactly what I meant. In SF, you have to give an arm and a leg for houses that have lawns and space in between each other. On any given residential block in SF there's upwards of 1,000 people... this is not true in Chicago.

And nobody counts DC or SSF as part of san francisco because they're not even in the same county (SF county vs San Mateo County).
Yeah we are agreeing here... SF is completely built out and dense everywhere I have seen, there really aren't any low density neighborhoods or undeveloped or previously developed and now empty areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2010, 04:21 PM
 
Location: Lower East Side, Milwaukee, WI
2,943 posts, read 5,041,819 times
Reputation: 1113
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDX_LAX View Post
How would it be physically possible for San Francisco to have more people on the streets than Chicago?
That's what I've been saying.
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top