Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [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)
 
Old 01-04-2009, 04:29 PM
 
Location: Irvine,Oc,Ca
1,423 posts, read 4,687,009 times
Reputation: 689

Advertisements

Chicago Looks like the 2nd biggest city in America by Picture 100% it does.That's something LA needs to improve its downtown area and La is to dam sprawled so everything is to spreaded out,Chicago is smaller in city limits and is not sprawled so is much denser than LA but its a Different story Metro Wise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-06-2009, 06:47 PM
 
464 posts, read 1,079,547 times
Reputation: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by californialove24 View Post
Chicago Looks like the 2nd biggest city in America by Picture 100% it does.That's something LA needs to improve its downtown area and La is to dam sprawled so everything is to spreaded out,Chicago is smaller in city limits and is not sprawled so is much denser than LA but its a Different story Metro Wise.
not entirely. The Chicago grid continues into all the bordering suburbs and most of the suburbs surrounding them. It's not really until you get into truly upscale suburbs, Wilmette, Winnetka, Barrington, etc.

The 8.8 million people living in urban Chicago have a decent density number..I think its something close to 5,000 per square mile. I may be wrong...but I know its higher than 4,000.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2009, 06:55 PM
 
Location: ITL (Houston)
9,221 posts, read 15,955,543 times
Reputation: 3545
As of 2000, the density number for Chicago's urban area was about 3900. It might have grown since then: USA Urbanized Areas: 2000 Ranked by Population(465 Areas)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2009, 07:03 PM
 
464 posts, read 1,079,547 times
Reputation: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel713 View Post
As of 2000, the density number for Chicago's urban area was about 3900. It might have grown since then: USA Urbanized Areas: 2000 Ranked by Population(465 Areas)
Urban Chicago: covers 2,122.8 sq miles
Urban Chicago: population: 8,711,000

8,711,000/2,122.8 = 4,103.54 people per square mile.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2009, 07:49 PM
 
Location: Triad, NC
990 posts, read 3,186,841 times
Reputation: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spire View Post
Urban Chicago: covers 2,122.8 sq miles
Urban Chicago: population: 8,711,000

8,711,000/2,122.8 = 4,103.54 people per square mile.
That sounds pretty accurate
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2009, 07:49 PM
 
Location: ITL (Houston)
9,221 posts, read 15,955,543 times
Reputation: 3545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spire View Post
Urban Chicago: covers 2,122.8 sq miles
Urban Chicago: population: 8,711,000

8,711,000/2,122.8 = 4,103.54 people per square mile.
Do you have a link? I was going by the Census numbers in 2000.

And on a side note, LA's urban area population density was about 7100 people (11.8 million).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2009, 07:52 PM
 
464 posts, read 1,079,547 times
Reputation: 126
I used Wikipedia. Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Don't they go by the 2000 Census?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2009, 08:19 PM
 
Location: ITL (Houston)
9,221 posts, read 15,955,543 times
Reputation: 3545
No, I believe that is 2007.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2009, 09:07 PM
 
464 posts, read 1,079,547 times
Reputation: 126
Well this census it will be at 3,000,000 . I can't wait to see what they have it at. If they have Chicago lower than 3,000,000, we know they are biased. I can see 2,999,999, but anything less is wrong. that means the metro may exceed 10,000,000...super city status .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2009, 10:10 PM
 
Location: ITL (Houston)
9,221 posts, read 15,955,543 times
Reputation: 3545
In my opinion, Chicago has already reached that "super city" status. It controls a large region that is already well over 10 million (if you include Milwaukee).
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.

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