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

 
 
Old 03-19-2013, 04:31 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,107,696 times
Reputation: 3982

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hipcat View Post
Only Koreatown could match up in density with some of the densest neighborhoods in Chicago.

But looking at the structural density of both areas on Google. It's unfair to compare both areas, as LA was designed in a more automobile oriented area than the Chi.

Near North Side
near northside chicago - Google Maps

Koreatown.
Koreatown, Los Angeles, CA - Google Maps
I agree that Los Angeles has no answer for neighborhoods like the Near North Side, Streeterville, Mag Mile, etc - basically very upscale, highly urban living. The closest Los Angeles currently has are South Park and the Historic Core, which are still a decade from reaching their potential. There are neighborhoods in Los Angeles that reach the densities of those north side neighborhoods in Chicago but are very working-class and probably get to that density through some overcrowding (though they would still be some of the densest neighborhoods in the country even with lower household sizes).

Koreatown (which I agree is pretty auto-centric), Fairfax, Hollywood, East Hollywood, West Hollywood - even North Hollywood seem like they would be a better comparison with neighborhoods like Wicker Park, Wrigleyville, Logan Square, etc. I don't think the fact that LA is more car accommodating precludes the ability to compare both areas (and if it was unfair why did you start this thread?)
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-19-2013, 05:11 PM
 
201 posts, read 377,572 times
Reputation: 198
One has to remember there are also plenty of neighborhoods in Chicago like this too.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Arche...,49.22,,0,5.27
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2013, 05:17 PM
 
Location: Chicago
297 posts, read 401,044 times
Reputation: 299
I think this comparison is fascinating because of the diametrically different models of cities and how they each play to their own geographies. Chicago has the very appealing and gorgeous lakefront, where most of the high density areas are located. Then once you get far enough inland you have the more prototypical Midwestern we-have-a-ton-of-land development. So, pick your ideal population density and that tells you how far away from the lake to live.

LA has it's ocean, it's mountains, and it's downtown in all different areas, and a large, but ultimately finite amount of land in between them. I'm not as familiar with my LA history as I need to be, but I wonder what it would be like if downtown LA had developed along the ocean hypothetically say where LAX is and if LAX had been placed where DTLA is?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2013, 05:44 PM
 
Location: Hollywood, CA
1,576 posts, read 2,536,238 times
Reputation: 1119
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
I agree that Los Angeles has no answer for neighborhoods like the Near North Side, Streeterville, Mag Mile, etc - basically very upscale, highly urban living. The closest Los Angeles currently has are South Park and the Historic Core, which are still a decade from reaching their potential. There are neighborhoods in Los Angeles that reach the densities of those north side neighborhoods in Chicago but are very working-class and probably get to that density through some overcrowding (though they would still be some of the densest neighborhoods in the country even with lower household sizes).

Koreatown (which I agree is pretty auto-centric), Fairfax, Hollywood, East Hollywood, West Hollywood - even North Hollywood seem like they would be a better comparison with neighborhoods like Wicker Park, Wrigleyville, Logan Square, etc. I don't think the fact that LA is more car accommodating precludes the ability to compare both areas (and if it was unfair why did you start this thread?)
It seemed some of the pro-LA posters had a problem when I said sprawled density. It's a simple fact that LA is a sprawled city by most defintions. It seems like you guys are trying to make LA out to have a dense urban core, but the facts say otherwise.

I'm not anti-LA at all, but you guys are trying to make LA look like what it's not. Especially considering the Suburban like areas of the SFV, Hollywood Hills, and some of the Westside neighborhoods that are a part of LA city limits.

Sure, Chicago has portions of the city that look fairly Suburban. But the surburban looking parts don't make up a large portion of Chicago's area like the San Fernando Valley, South LA, or the Westside in LA.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Chica...199.74,,0,5.04
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2013, 05:49 PM
 
12,299 posts, read 15,190,901 times
Reputation: 8108
How can you call LA more urban than Chicago? Oh, right, more rappers!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2013, 11:43 PM
 
201 posts, read 377,572 times
Reputation: 198
It's true Chicago does not have a much suburban sprawl as Los Angeles city. As for one it's what 228 square miles as compared to 469 that LA is. I wonder though if you measured LA's 464 sq miles and the same sq miles around Chicagoland how close would they be in population and density. I personally don't know but would be curious if anyone is up to the challenge?


I lived in Chicago briefly and often visit family in the area so I've seen and explored a lot of the city and metro. The Loop, Magnificent Mile, Streeterville, etc there is no match in LA to these areas. I do agree that many neighborhoods along the lakefront are walkable urban neighborhoods. Although once you get away from the lake the density drops off and there are plenty of areas of the city that are very similar to areas of LA such as the San Fernando Valley. Although many parts of the SFV have become much denser and in my opinion a lot of LA feels much more crowded and vibrant than Chicago outside the Loop/Magnificent Mile, and north side lakefront neighborhoods.

South side and southwest side Chicago neighborhoods
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Arche...4.95,,0,0&z=19

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=weste...13,160.89,,0,0

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=47th+...13,225.38,,0,0

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=47th+...&cbp=13,0,,0,0

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=47th+...&cbp=13,0,,0,0


Chicago north side neighborhood away from the lake

Looks a lot like LA, could even be the San Fernando Valley but only with a lot of brick.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=foste...VgOyRWSSKlMj0w

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=foste...PSEfZzVGTaatkw

This is mostly what I remember seeing out by Ohare airport in Chicago city neighborhoods, again looks like it could be a San Fernando Valley community, but with bricks.
http://goo.gl/maps/9IbNc


In comparison in LA, this is the San Fernando Valley
http://goo.gl/maps/P2c4y
http://goo.gl/maps/AL7Oc
http://goo.gl/maps/wnH6x


South Los Angeles neighborhood
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=85th+...k7tCoTreQd5amA

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=adams...7Q3-73EpDSeXvg

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=54th+...Wgxl1L570JXx1Q

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=53th+...hQyTRW72mZL6-Q

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=83rd+...PoI6J9t_5_Gvdw

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=mlk+a...cbp=13,90,,0,0

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=adams...bp=13,180,,0,0

Last edited by LA Fan; 03-20-2013 at 01:11 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2013, 07:55 AM
 
465 posts, read 737,333 times
Reputation: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipcat View Post
Sure, Chicago has portions of the city that look fairly Suburban. But the surburban looking parts don't make up a large portion of Chicago's area like the San Fernando Valley, South LA, or the Westside in LA.
Totally disagree. I would say that Chicago has a much higher proportion of suburban looking parts.

LA is dense sprawl, and not very typical suburban looking. Chicago has a dense core, but 90% of Chicagoland is typical Midwest suburban, which is much more sprawling than West Coast suburban.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2013, 08:03 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
45,987 posts, read 41,947,535 times
Reputation: 14805
It's not just the well known parts of Chicago near downtown (Wrigleyville, Lincoln Park, etc.) that have a traditionally urban landscape; it's the entire north and northwest side of the city.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Arche...,,0,-6.21&z=14

LA doesn't really have as much stuff like that contigously. After Hollywood, Koreatown/Westlake and some scattered centers (beverly hills, santa monica, pasadena?) there isn't much.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2013, 09:38 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,107,696 times
Reputation: 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
It's not just the well known parts of Chicago near downtown (Wrigleyville, Lincoln Park, etc.) that have a traditionally urban landscape; it's the entire north and northwest side of the city.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Arche...,,0,-6.21&z=14

LA doesn't really have as much stuff like that contigously. After Hollywood, Koreatown/Westlake and some scattered centers (beverly hills, santa monica, pasadena?) there isn't much.
The problem with LA is there are a lot of pedestrian-un-friendly designs scattered along the commercial corridors, so it is hard to say anything is "contiguous". The residential portion of Los Angeles is pretty contiguously urban from DTLA to Koreatown, up to East Hollywood and through Hollywood/West Hollywood to Beverly Hills. It's not a straight line north like in Chicago, but more of a "Z" shape and measures about 14 miles in distance. These areas are all connected with dense residential development, the problem is the main corridors can look like this: los angeles, ca - Google Maps - So it doesn't have as much stuff contiguously but again, it is far from dominated by Chicago in this category.

Once you add in the scattered urban centers within Los Angeles outside of that core (North Hollywood, Van Nuys, Westwood, Venice, Mid-City, Miracle Mile) and the non-municipal urban centers like Glendale (surprisingly, a very dense city in its core), Pasadena, Long Beach, Beach Cities, Culver City, Santa Monica, etc. the LA Metro pulls away.

So as I said in my first post, Chicago is the more urban city, Los Angeles the more urban metro. Both are very urban cities
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2013, 10:07 AM
 
1,750 posts, read 2,893,491 times
Reputation: 764
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Fan View Post
It's true Chicago does not have a much suburban sprawl as Los Angeles city. As for one it's what 228 square miles as compared to 469 that LA is. I wonder though if you measured LA's 464 sq miles and the same sq miles around Chicagoland how close would they be in population and density. I personally don't know but would be curious if anyone is up to the challenge?
If one was to add all of the suburbs of Chicago that surround the city limits, it would look like this:

Population: 803,300
Area: 122.17 sq miles
Density: 6,575 / ppsm

if you add those figures to Chicago, you get:

Population: 3,503,000
Area: 349 sq miles
Density: 10,037

That area is still significantly less than Los Angeles, but the suburbs beyond the inner ring suburbs of Chicago tend to be less dense, so I think LA and Chicago both at the same area, would probably be very very close in population, which make sense; it is just that the population is spread out differently.

Obviously, LA pulls away beyond that as their suburbs tend to be more densely populated than the outer ring suburbs of Chicagoland.
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.


 
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