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)
View Poll Results: Which city is more Urban
Chicago 114 79.17%
Los Angeles 30 20.83%
Voters: 144. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-22-2013, 08:20 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,832 posts, read 7,677,426 times
Reputation: 6288

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ankhharu View Post
Lol @ LA being urban. The 15 people who voted for LA either a) have never been to Chicago or b) have never been to LA or c) don't know what urban means. LA is a huge sprawling suburb. Chicago is very urban. It's no contest.
And the most "factless post of the day" award goes to...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-23-2013, 12:07 AM
 
Location: SoCal
1,243 posts, read 1,570,643 times
Reputation: 848
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Would Brooklyn qualify as a suburb by that definition? Queens? The Bronx? Yonkers? Jersey City?



That doesn't make L.A. unique. All metro areas have a ton of jobs in the suburbs. A suburb does not become "urban" simply because it has office parks.
You can choose to read my post if you like And I'm not 12, condescend to somebody else. And be thankful this isn't a face to face conversation.


The other buroughs of NYC are different, they aren't suburbs, they used to be their own thing then were absorbed into NYC. LA's "burbs" are essentially the same. They were independent cities absorbed into one. LA's real suburbs exsist much further out on the periphery, though they aren't as sleepy and "suburban" as the ones you find in the Northeast.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2013, 12:57 AM
 
Location: SoCal
460 posts, read 721,079 times
Reputation: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
As far as LA and Chicago goes, I have spent considerable time in Los Angeles and Chicago. There are a few small areas like Koreatown which are very urban and just as urban as Chicago, but overall Chicago wins and it's not terribly close. Definitely dense areas of Los Angeles for US standards, but Chicago is very dense for a long period of time, especially on the north side. Even 9 miles north of City Hall in Chicago, it's 30,000 per sq mile and if you average just going north, it's probably around 23,000-26,000 per sq mile all through those 9 miles.

LA is more dense if you take the entire metro area into account, but not by a ton. People need to realize though that Chicago's MSA is over twice as large, physically, as Los Angeles' and there are many areas on the very outskirts of the MSA where it's not populated at all. Los Angeles eventually overtakes it, but it takes a little bit because the city of chicago and some of the suburbs that border it (such as Berwyn, Cicero, and Evanston) are quite dense too and have pretty sizable populations (250,000-300,000 for those three cities alone).

In short, the city of Chicago is a good deal more dense for a longer period of time than LA, but LA's metro area is on average more built up to be dense, but at the same time, Los Angeles MSA is over twice as small as Chicago's MSA in physical area.
It's actually quite close. LA is actually denser for a longer period of time than Chicago. Since Chicago does not only consist of the north side, and city hall was brought up (a starting density measurement point I've always found arbitrary, but whatever), here is the LA/Chicago Population-Weighted Density by Distance From City Hall comparison by MSA from the Census: Population density profiles - People and Households - U.S. Census Bureau (Click and open the Excel link and and on the right side select the year and area - 2010, LA metro and Chicago metro).

In the 2nd chart, you see at 0-1 miles (from City Hall), Chicago is denser at 30K-31K psm (LA starts at 23K psm but catches Chicago after 1 mile at 31K), but Chicago drops off significantly from 1-2 miles to around 22K psm and is lower than LA's to until mile 4. From 4-10 miles Chicago has higher density but after 9 miles (at around 9K psm) is where Chicago can't compete with LA's density anymore...with certain points having significant differences. And LA overtakes it quite fast, first at mile 1, then at 2-3 miles, then again at 10+ miles and on, where Chicago doesn't reach 10K psm or even 8k psm again (compared to LA where from mile 10 to mile 30 for example it goes up and down consistently at around 10K psm).

And as you rightly pointed out, Chicago MSA is physically twice as big as LA, which brings down the overall density beyond the core, the flip side is that city of LA is physically twice as big as Chicago, including huge uninhabitable mountains ranges within city limits, and that hurts LA's overall density in the core.

So I agree, the city of Chicago is denser for longer periods (if one uses City Hall as a starting point), but only up to 9 miles. By metro area, LA is denser for longer. As the title reads "Which city/metro area is more urban," I say (like many have) that by city, Chicago is more urban, but by metro, LA is more urban.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2013, 07:42 AM
 
Location: Oak Park, IL
5,522 posts, read 12,287,970 times
Reputation: 3827
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmykem View Post
It's actually quite close. LA is actually denser for a longer period of time than Chicago. Since Chicago does not only consist of the north side, and city hall was brought up (a starting density measurement point I've always found arbitrary, but whatever), here is the LA/Chicago Population-Weighted Density by Distance From City Hall comparison by MSA from the Census: Population density profiles - People and Households - U.S. Census Bureau (Click and open the Excel link and and on the right side select the year and area - 2010, LA metro and Chicago metro).

In the 2nd chart, you see at 0-1 miles (from City Hall), Chicago is denser at 30K-31K psm (LA starts at 23K psm but catches Chicago after 1 mile at 31K), but Chicago drops off significantly from 1-2 miles to around 22K psm and is lower than LA's to until mile 4. From 4-10 miles Chicago has higher density but after 9 miles (at around 9K psm) is where Chicago can't compete with LA's density anymore...with certain points having significant differences. And LA overtakes it quite fast, first at mile 1, then at 2-3 miles, then again at 10+ miles and on, where Chicago doesn't reach 10K psm or even 8k psm again (compared to LA where from mile 10 to mile 30 for example it goes up and down consistently at around 10K psm).
Does this calculation take into account the fact that about half of that circle centered around city hall in Chicago has a population of zero due to the lake?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2013, 07:52 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
45,988 posts, read 41,967,271 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by oakparkdude View Post
Does this calculation take into account the fact that about half of that circle centered around city hall in Chicago has a population of zero due to the lake?
Yes. It's weighted, so a census tract with more people counts more. Each census tract is multiplied by its population. After summing over all tracts, the total is divided by the total population of the region, giving a population density weighted by population of census tract.

A census tract with zero people wouldn't affect the total at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2013, 08:08 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,266 posts, read 26,242,183 times
Reputation: 11726
Quote:
Originally Posted by MB8abovetherim View Post
You can choose to read my post if you like And I'm not 12, condescend to somebody else. And be thankful this isn't a face to face conversation.
Right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MB8abovetherim View Post
The other buroughs of NYC are different, they aren't suburbs, they used to be their own thing then were absorbed into NYC. LA's "burbs" are essentially the same. They were independent cities absorbed into one.
You said that "suburbia" was defined by function more than form, right? Places where the majority of people commute elsewhere are "suburbia" according to your definition. So I asked if Yonkers would fit the bill. It seems that it would.

And yes, there are parts of NYC that could (and should) be classified as "suburban." You can have suburban areas in a very large urban city. Chestnut Hill, for example, is a suburban area of a largely urban city (Philadelphia). I don't think most Philadelphians would argue otherwise. Similarly, Rosedale is a suburban area of NYC, and I doubt many New Yorkers would argue otherwise. If people on C-D are always claiming that city limits are arbitrary, then how can a place be "urban" based strictly on the fact that it's located within the city limits?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MB8abovetherim View Post
LA's real suburbs exsist much further out on the periphery, though they aren't as sleepy and "suburban" as the ones you find in the Northeast.
This is in the city of Los Angeles.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Los+An...bp=12,225,,0,0

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Los+An...&cbp=12,0,,0,0

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Los+An...cbp=12,45,,0,0

Is any of this really any more "happening" than Chicago's bungalow belt?

Last edited by BajanYankee; 04-23-2013 at 08:18 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2013, 10:01 AM
 
Location: The City
22,331 posts, read 32,161,575 times
Reputation: 7738
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmykem View Post
It's actually quite close. LA is actually denser for a longer period of time than Chicago. Since Chicago does not only consist of the north side, and city hall was brought up (a starting density measurement point I've always found arbitrary, but whatever), here is the LA/Chicago Population-Weighted Density by Distance From City Hall comparison by MSA from the Census: Population density profiles - People and Households - U.S. Census Bureau (Click and open the Excel link and and on the right side select the year and area - 2010, LA metro and Chicago metro).

In the 2nd chart, you see at 0-1 miles (from City Hall), Chicago is denser at 30K-31K psm (LA starts at 23K psm but catches Chicago after 1 mile at 31K), but Chicago drops off significantly from 1-2 miles to around 22K psm and is lower than LA's to until mile 4. From 4-10 miles Chicago has higher density but after 9 miles (at around 9K psm) is where Chicago can't compete with LA's density anymore...with certain points having significant differences. And LA overtakes it quite fast, first at mile 1, then at 2-3 miles, then again at 10+ miles and on, where Chicago doesn't reach 10K psm or even 8k psm again (compared to LA where from mile 10 to mile 30 for example it goes up and down consistently at around 10K psm).

And as you rightly pointed out, Chicago MSA is physically twice as big as LA, which brings down the overall density beyond the core, the flip side is that city of LA is physically twice as big as Chicago, including huge uninhabitable mountains ranges within city limits, and that hurts LA's overall density in the core.

So I agree, the city of Chicago is denser for longer periods (if one uses City Hall as a starting point), but only up to 9 miles. By metro area, LA is denser for longer. As the title reads "Which city/metro area is more urban," I say (like many have) that by city, Chicago is more urban, but by metro, LA is more urban.
What a great tool!

Thanks for sharing +1
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2013, 10:21 AM
 
2,493 posts, read 2,194,455 times
Reputation: 3351
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
What a great tool!

Thanks for sharing +1
Agree! Interesting that Denver and Portland have almost identical profiles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2013, 01:23 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,111,636 times
Reputation: 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Right.



You said that "suburbia" was defined by function more than form, right? Places where the majority of people commute elsewhere are "suburbia" according to your definition. So I asked if Yonkers would fit the bill. It seems that it would.

And yes, there are parts of NYC that could (and should) be classified as "suburban." You can have suburban areas in a very large urban city. Chestnut Hill, for example, is a suburban area of a largely urban city (Philadelphia). I don't think most Philadelphians would argue otherwise. Similarly, Rosedale is a suburban area of NYC, and I doubt many New Yorkers would argue otherwise. If people on C-D are always claiming that city limits are arbitrary, then how can a place be "urban" based strictly on the fact that it's located within the city limits?



This is in the city of Los Angeles.

Los Angeles, CA - Google Maps

Los Angeles, CA - Google Maps

Los Angeles, CA - Google Maps

Is any of this really any more "happening" than Chicago's bungalow belt?
I'm confused what point you are trying to make... If the only reason Los Angeles could compete with Chicago was because it has denser suburbs, then it would make sense.

But looking at the population density graph JimmyKem posted its clear that is not the case. Combine that info with Dweebo's structural density graph I would say that Chicago is the more urban city, though not by much and Los Angeles is the more urban metro area, mainly due to urban satellite cities, not more-dense suburbs.

I can't speak for everyone but when I say LA pulls ahead because it has denser suburbs I am talking about the metro area (which is what this thread is based on anyways) and Pasadena, Glendale, Long Beach, Burbank, etc. These are happening areas, in fact much more happening than those in-city street views you posted. I would imagine that is the case for Evanston vs. in-city bungalow belt too. There are just way more of those types of cities in the LA area than in Chicagoland.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2013, 01:41 PM
 
2,881 posts, read 4,617,025 times
Reputation: 3584
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
I'm confused what point you are trying to make... If the only reason Los Angeles could compete with Chicago was because it has denser suburbs, then it would make sense.

But looking at the population density graph JimmyKem posted its clear that is not the case. Combine that info with Dweebo's structural density graph I would say that Chicago is the more urban city, though not by much and Los Angeles is the more urban metro area, mainly due to urban satellite cities, not more-dense suburbs.

I can't speak for everyone but when I say LA pulls ahead because it has denser suburbs I am talking about the metro area (which is what this thread is based on anyways) and Pasadena, Glendale, Long Beach, Burbank, etc. These are happening areas, in fact much more happening than those in-city street views you posted. I would imagine that is the case for Evanston vs. in-city bungalow belt too. There are just way more of those types of cities in the LA area than in Chicagoland.
Just for informed context, those pics posted are from Reseda, Leimert Park and South L.A.
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