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.
He still thinks SF is third to Chicago, by comparing the area, but clearly the map shows SF has a much higher walk score
Because what you're not thinking about is that Chicago is 237 square miles, and San Fran is 49 square miles.
Talking density of cities because apples to oranges when you take San Fran and compare it to Chicago or say Los Angeles, with almost 10 times as much square milage.
I LOVE San Fran, and I'm not saying it isn't the most walkable, but density can be an endless discussion depending on how far out people push the area.
For insance I looked at some of the more urban areas on the north side of Chicago:
Neighborhood / Population / Size
Rogers Park - 63,484 - 1.85
Edgewater - 62,198 - 2.73
Uptown - 63,551 - 2.31
Lakeview - 94,817 - 3.16
Lincoln Park - 64,320 - 3.19
Near North - 72,811 - 2.72
Near West - 87,435 - 4.57
Logan Square - 82,715 - 3.23
Avondale - 43,083 - 2.00
West Ridge - 73,199 - 3.53
Lincoln Square - 44,574 - 2.57
North Center - 31,895 - 2.07
Lower West - 44,031 - 2.80
south lawndale - 91,071 - 4.44
humbolt park - 100,236 - 3.62
hermosa - 26,908 - 1.17
belmont craigin - 78,144 - 3.94
49.9 square miles, roughly equal to San Fran, 1,124,472 people
22,534 per square mile. I'm not sure if these are the densest, but I would assume they're close to it.
Then you have industrial areas, vacant lakes, swampland, Midway and O'hare airports:
That's 57,508 people in 45.41 square miles. Only 1,266 people per square mile.
The 12K number for Chicago is fairly vague, since most area either have a much higher density since the residential area are pre-WWII, or they have extremely small density, since there just isn't any residential zones on that land.
I'm not sure why Chicago has such a huge area on the south side that's basically just large lakes and vacant land.
sorry chics 5th densest ..not bad for the midswestern town
5. Chicago, Illinois
Coming in as the fifth-densest city in America, and unsurprisingly so, given the excellent public transportation, which has allowed development to progress with a reasonable level of sprawl, is Chicago
Image from StuckinCustoms on Flickr
The Windy City, charged with rebuilding itself after Mrs. O’Leary’s cow kicked over a lantern and burned four square miles of the city in 1871, developed the urban core upwards, and later installed an elevated rail system as the centerpiece of Chigaco Transit Authority. The CTA, which runs 24 hours a day, is the second-largest transit system in the nation, and provided nearly 500 Million rides last year. 4. Honolulu, Hawaii
The fourth-densest city in the United States is, shockingly in Hawaii– this Pacific paradise is shoehorned into some of the most difficult geography of any American city, in the low-lying areas on a mountainous island.
You can see in the above photo how the city is forced to contour around the natural obstacles to development– the mountain on one side, and the ocean on the other. Kudos to the Hawaiians for not taking the Kentucky approach to things and simply blowing the top off of the mountain, or building out into the ocean like they do in [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]Dubai[/color][/color]. 3. Los Angeles, California
The third-densest city in America bucks its reputation. Long the poster child for urban sprawl, the reality of L.A. is simply that it’s that big– density EVERYWHERE doesn’t make a city any less (or more) sustainably developed. The difference between Los Angelenos and the rest of the citizenry on this list is that L.A. has far more commuters on the road and not using mass transit.
From Thomas Pintaric See the smog? Imagine if they had good public transit.
2. San Francisco, California
Next on our hit parade is San Fransisco– much like [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]Honolulu[/color][/color], the SF-Oakland area has its hand forced by geography, and it also has an excellent rapid transit system– the BART– that enables a tightly-packed populous to move around as they would with automobiles in suburban areas.
LA has the highest population density of any metropolitan area in the US. However, as far as the City of Los Angeles is concerned, it's nowhere near being the 3rd densest city in the US. If you strictly go by major cities, and not include small cities like Paterson, NJ or Cambridge, MA, then Chicago would be #3 after NYC and SF.
Second that. Chicago loses on this one. Not even close. Outside of the waterfront, Chicago is another midwest city and is very sparce. Besides, most people don't live at the waterfront or downtown. They live in their typical midwest suburbs, with detached houses. Not the rowhouse you can find in northeast or bay area.
Chicago is the 3rd densest major city in the US, it's not sparsely populated at all. BTW, Chicago has plenty of rowhouses as well as greystones which are unique to Chicago. Where in the Bay Area do they have rowhouses outside of SF or Oakland?
Chicago is the 3rd densest major city in the US, it's not sparsely populated at all. BTW, Chicago has plenty of rowhouses as well as greystones which are unique to Chicago. Where in the Bay Area do they have rowhouses outside of SF or Oakland?
Huh...what point are you trying to make? You just took another city across the Bay, grouped it with the city in question...then proceeded to ask what other cities outside of said city in question have rowhouses?
cambridge, somerville, allston, brighton, quincy ect all are VERY walkable areas that should be included in that boston map. they are just not part of boston proper. The cities boundaries are not an accurate portrayal of the metro's density, size or shape.
Huh...what point are you trying to make? You just took another city across the Bay, grouped it with the city in question...then proceeded to ask what other cities outside of said city in question have rowhouses?
Strange man...
What's so strange about it? The borders of SF are tiny. If it had similar borders to Chicago, then Oakland would be apart of the city proper. Same thing goes for Boston with Cambridge/Somerville/Brookline.
What's so strange about it? The borders of SF are tiny. If it had similar borders to Chicago, then Oakland would be apart of the city proper. Same thing goes for Boston with Cambridge/Somerville/Brookline.
So what? Andorra is tiny... Do you group that country with France or Spain when talking statistics?
btw I will admit I love lumping the greater bay area in when need be...like metro population, diversity,weather etc but for this argument I think I'll confine SF...at least Im on honest lol...this should give that milwaukee guy a good chuckle
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 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.
