U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [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 02-01-2013, 10:50 AM
 
Location: Upper West Side, Manhattan, NYC
14,798 posts, read 18,999,348 times
Reputation: 6800

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nairobi View Post
Others might be confused, but I'm not. The City of Chicago is more sprawled than San Francisco with less dense development. That's a fact.
The south side of Chicago makes up for a lot of it. I'm talking about the North and West sides (and a little south and a little of the lower west) specifically. The south side of Chicago used to be a lot more urban but over the years it became less and less, but some parts are slowly becoming more urban again. I'm quite aware of the south side being big time SFHs.


But again, as I've said about 4 times already. There is no city in the US which 100% suffices for what the OP asked. NYC is the closest thing by quite a bit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-01-2013, 10:51 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,101,497 times
Reputation: 3979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Actually, the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland CSA is 7,563,460, or which only the 813K in SF is actually "urban".
Oakland and San Jose are big cities too (~400k and 900k, respectively). By your very strict definition of urban I think they would also qualify.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2013, 10:51 AM
 
Location: Chicagoland
1,802 posts, read 1,650,692 times
Reputation: 1640
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
Most of the real single family home blocks in Chicago are either on the south side or you have to go to the NW side in areas like Dunning, Portage Park, Irving Park, or certain parts of Ravenswood, etc. Ravenswood is the closest which is about 6-7 miles outside of the core to the north. To the west, most of it starts with Logan Square or Humboldt Park before you see blocks of actual SFHs. These areas are around 5.5-6+ miles from the Loop.
Not to single out the post above, only that I know one of the neighborhoods mentioned. I may be the only one, but I'm always surprised that the cost of living in these urban meccas isn't acknowledged. I have a friend with a 2200sf SFH in Ravenswood that's appraised at $800K, "6-7 miles outside of the core." If you drove by it, it's by no means an out of the ordinary home. Is there really a large segment of the population here (or anywhere) that can play in that league?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2013, 10:55 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,101,497 times
Reputation: 3979
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
Except it's true for both cities. Chicago is a lot more urban than LA overall EASILY, but LA is urban in its core as well. It's just at a smaller scale than San Fran, Chicago, and NYC.

It exists in Los Angeles too. My dad and his side is from LA and while people think it's suburban and it is after a little bit, the core of LA isn't all that suburban. LA has a lot more sprawl than the other cities though.
I wouldn't say easily - I'd say they are pretty close but the more well-developed downtown and inner core of Chicago, I can definitely see why you would pick it over LA. I was mostly saying that people are deceived by LA's very high density because many of the buildings looks small or semi-suburban, when they really are "high-rises on their sides". I definitely disagree anything about LA is at a smaller scale than San Francisco, except maybe the quality of the downtown - San Francisco has much better continuity in its urban areas, so I can see where you are coming from though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2013, 10:56 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,983 posts, read 41,921,149 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack View Post

You can live a "Euro" lifestyle in major cities, but they're all surrounded by considerable suburbs where cars as essential. The OP's 100% question is somewhat of a misnomer, the US is mostly suburban...

NYC 8.24M population, metro area 19M
Chicago 2.71M, metro 9.5M
San Francisco 813K, metro 4.4M
Boston 625K, metro 4.6M
DC 618K, metro 5.7

Cities and metropolitan areas of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
for Boston, using city population is terrible for judging places where cars are essential or most people don't live in houses. It's ok for the others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Actually, the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland CSA is 7,563,460, or which only the 813K in SF is actually "urban".
That's the CSA population, not the MSA population.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2013, 10:59 AM
 
Location: Upper West Side, Manhattan, NYC
14,798 posts, read 18,999,348 times
Reputation: 6800
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack View Post
Not to single out the post above, only that I know one of the neighborhoods mentioned. I may be the only one, but I'm always surprised that the cost of living in these urban meccas isn't acknowledged. I have a friend with a 2200sf SFH in Ravenswood that's appraised at $800K, "6-7 miles outside of the core." If you drove by it, it's by no means an out of the ordinary home. Is there really a large segment of the population here (or anywhere) that can play in that league?
Well, I'll put it this way. First, yes there's a lot of millionaires here. It's the third largest city, so it's no surprise that it has the 3rd most millionaires of any city. There's a lot of well off people here in reality (there's also a lot of poor people but that's another story...there's quite a few millionaires and there's quite a few people who are close to the millionaire status).

Ravenswood and those areas are interesting. Basically those houses are very historical so they cost more. There are SFHs in areas like Ukrainian Village that are just as big as this for under or around $500,000 and a lot more modern. Some of these places might be buildings with 2 units. I went to a party at a "house" once there ...the CEO of a hedge fund. There were 2 units in the building..it looked like a SFH on the outside (a modern one) and apart from the main entry, seemed like an ultra modern SFH. In many regards, they're nicer than Ravenswood homes. I'm a fan of Ravenswood homes for their historical value, but I much prefer the modern homes/2 unit condo buildings in areas like UK Village, Wicker Park, Lakeview, etc.


Example of getting more for the same money than a Ravenswood home:
http://www.realtor.com/realestateand...2_M80641-67544
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2013, 11:00 AM
 
1,380 posts, read 1,885,376 times
Reputation: 2384
Regarding, Chicago and SF. Chicago has a greater variance. More very tall superdense but more low density areas too. SF is more uniform, and people there would be very unhappy if a developer proposed tearing down some of their old average density housing stock in order to build tall superdense structures. Which is part of the reason housing is so crazy expensive there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2013, 11:00 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 14 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,981 posts, read 102,527,356 times
Reputation: 33045
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
for Boston, using city population is terrible for judging places where cars are essential or most people don't live in houses. It's ok for the others.



That's the CSA population, not the MSA population.
Yes, I said that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2013, 11:01 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,101,497 times
Reputation: 3979
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
for Boston, using city population is terrible for judging places where cars are essential or most people don't live in houses. It's ok for the others.
Yeah, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Revere, Malden and Somerville (and to some extent Brookline) all have very high density areas, while parts of Boston I mentioned earlier are very low density.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2013, 11:01 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,983 posts, read 41,921,149 times
Reputation: 14804
I thought MSA was the metro population, not the CSA, which is more of a greater regional population.
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 > General Forums > Urban Planning
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