Why doesn't Chicago have any super-dense suburbs? (Cicero, Evanston: apartment complexes, high crime)

[TheTimidBlueBars]

I've been reading down the list of the most densely populated municipalities in the US, and I'm surprised that you don't find a single Chicago suburb until 37th on the list: Stone Park has 15,378.2 people per square mile, and that's only because of its small geographic area that excludes non-residential areas - it doesn't feel any denser than the surrounding neighborhoods of suburbs like Melrose Park and Northlake. The other suburbs on the list are, in descending order, Cicero, Berwyn, Elmwood Park, Oak Park, and Harwood Heights - all reasonably compact places, but not on the level of many incorporated places in the NYC area.

And it's not only NYC, but Miami, Boston, Philadelphia, Providence, and even Los Angeles and Louisville (widely known for being pretty sprawling areas) have suburbs that are denser than Chicago's densest suburbs. Why is it that there aren't any towns on, say, the north or west sides that are heavily built up with apartment complexes and reach densities like 20 or 30 thousand per square mile? Just statistical coincidence, or does it have something to do with zoning, or the towns being populated too slowly over time with immigrants to allow for the massive overbuilding you find in much of the inner NYC area? Or is it that geographically tiny towns (which represent much of the upper reaches of this list) have tended to be annexed by the city itself, whereas this doesn't happen as much in most major cities?

[Diws]

Perhaps this will occur in the next 50-100 years. For now, it seems that the inner ring suburbs, minus Oak Park, are highly undesirable with aging housing stock and high crime. If and when gentrification hits these areas, as it seem to be just starting in, say, Berwyn, then we could see a lot of density. But someone like Chet could provide a much better answer, I think.

[Peer79]

Originally Posted by Diws

Perhaps this will occur in the next 50-100 years. For now, it seems that the inner ring suburbs, minus Oak Park, are highly undesirable with aging housing stock and high crime. If and when gentrification hits these areas, as it seem to be just starting in, say, Berwyn, then we could see a lot of density. But someone like Chet could provide a much better answer, I think.

The part I bolded is a ridiculous generalization.

[3goodmonths]

WIthout looking at any data or googling I would think it is because of the vast amount of land we have. Places like New york are aurronded by water and LA is surrounded by mountains. Chicago built an infastructure that goes out from a hub and goes our forever into the cornfields we can keep spreading to Dekalb to the west minooka to the south west there is no reason to be dense. Although again without looking at any data just my thoughts I would say Oak park seems dense for a suburb, evastan,

maimi can only go so far west then you hit the everglades.

A lot of our suburbs were planned and carved out of farm fields with lots of land to use.

[TheTimidBlueBars]

Originally Posted by 3goodmonths

WIthout looking at any data or gooling I would think it is because of the vast amount of land we have. Places like New york are aurronded by water and LA is surrounded by mountains. Chicago built an infastructure that goes out from a hub and goes our forever into the cornfields we can keep spreading to Dekalb to the west minooka to the south west there is no reason to be dense. Although again without looking at any data just my thoughts I would say Oak park seems dense for a suburb, evastan,

maimi can only go so far west then you hit the everglades.

A lot of our suburbs were planned and carved out of farm fields with lots of land to use.

I think you're onto something. Despite there being a number of populated places with densities over 10,000 per square mile in Los Angeles County, the county is largely covered by uninhabitable land, some of it even bordering LA proper. So if you don't want to live a long way away from the city, you have to crowd into one of many relatively small chunks of land near it.

Still, I would think that some suburbs immediately adjacent to Chicago's highest-density neighborhoods would have similar densities (e.g. Evanston, which is less than a third as dense as Rogers Park immediately south of it). Maybe that has to do with there being many historic houses on gigantic lots that the village doesn't want to tear down to build tall apartment towers.

Originally Posted by Peer79

The part I bolded is a ridiculous generalization.

I think the crime part is true with certain western and especially southern suburbs (e.g. Maywood, Harvey), but I don't buy the idea that old housing stock is undesirable - at least not for the types of people who tend to live in inner suburbs at all. In fact, many of the NYC suburbs on this list have very old architecture (Yonkers, anyone?).

[Larry Siegel]

The onetime high-density suburbs - Rogers Park, Austin, etc. - have been incorporated into the city for decades or longer. The next ring of high-density suburbs, including Evanston and Oak Park, are as high-density as they want to be and have enacted restrictive building codes.

[BigLake]

Originally Posted by Peer79

The part I bolded is a ridiculous generalization.

eh, there is no way in hell I would consider Berwyn or Cicero desirable in *any* fashion. Skokie is meh at best. Lincolnwood is not bad. The O'Hare suburbs suck.


I will say he left out Evanston, which is most certainly a desirable suburb.

[mwj119]

Originally Posted by Larry Siegel

The onetime high-density suburbs - Rogers Park, Austin, etc. - have been incorporated into the city for decades or longer. The next ring of high-density suburbs, including Evanston and Oak Park, are as high-density as they want to be and have enacted restrictive building codes.

That's absolutely the answer. As someone who grew up in Boston, the city is miniscule- both in population and in area. That said, the boston metro area is quite large. The suburbs that immediately surround Boston, such as Cambridge or Brookline, often feel more urban and compact than parts of Chicago. The city of Boston has never really incorporated other cities, so it's not an apples to apples comparison.

Chicago extends so far north, for example, that by the time you leave the city limits you are in Niles. If you compared Niles to the suburbs that immediately surround Boston, there's a glaring difference.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by Diws

Perhaps this will occur in the next 50-100 years. For now, it seems that the inner ring suburbs, minus Oak Park, are highly undesirable with aging housing stock and high crime. If and when gentrification hits these areas, as it seem to be just starting in, say, Berwyn, then we could see a lot of density. But someone like Chet could provide a much better answer, I think.

wait.....are you suggesting Oak Park is desirable and not an area of high crime, but Evanston is not? seriously?

if "inner ring suburb" means those bordering the city, then the following qualify...

Evanston, Skokie, Lincolnwood, Park Ridge.....could any of the following be considered "undesirable", "unsafe"??????????

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by Larry Siegel

The onetime high-density suburbs - Rogers Park, Austin, etc. - have been incorporated into the city for decades or longer. The next ring of high-density suburbs, including Evanston and Oak Park, are as high-density as they want to be and have enacted restrictive building codes.

Good point. I would think that the issue both Evanston and Oak Park have as to "character" and "sense of place" would affect how dense (or tall) they would go. In other words, I could see Evanston's neighbor, Skokie, getting denser and perhaps even taller than Evanston because it doesn't have the essence that Evanston has.

That's not a slap against Skoke.....merely that it lacks that sense of place, obviously in good part due to its later era of development. I realize in so saying that Skokie has issues that Evanston does not that do affect density......Skokie, for example, is utterly amazing, almost mind boggling, considering its size: no Metra stations. Add to it that the village has only two CTA stations, density could create problems. All I'm saying though is that Skokie would be more receptive, I think, to high density than Evanston is (IMHO)