How Large Is Chicago? (Evergreen Park, Lee: condos, homes, bankrupt)

[Motion]

How large is the city as far as land area?

I'm curious to know for example if you were to drive from Rogers Park on the north side how long would it take to drive down to the far southeast side?

Also how does the city's land area compare to other cities?

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Motion

How large is the city as far as land area?

I'm curious to know for example if you were to drive from Rogers Park on the north side how long would it take to drive down to the far southeast side?

Also how does the city's land area compare to other cities?

FYI, this is an easy question to answer with a few minutes on Google.

[Motion]

^

How long would that drive be from Rogers Park to the southeast side? That's what I'm most curious about. The amount of time it takes to drive from one area to another around the city.

[Ivory Lee Spurlock]

Im a pretty cool dude so ill be glad to answer your question, chicago has 234 square miles, most of it land. For a city of 2.7 million, chicago is very small is in area. Smaller than indianapolis, louisville, oklahoma cty, jacksonville, nashville, and austin, to name a few smaller sized big cities, and not to mention houston, dallas and LA, similar population to chicago but several times larger in land area than chicago.

Chicago, like st louis, detroit, cleveland, and Cincinnati, allowed itself to be completely surrounded by middle and upper class suburbs, leaving no room for the main city grow in population, except to "build-up" which it looks like a lot of american cities are doing these days, with so many high rise condos going up these days, in an effort to bring upper and middle class residents back to their city. Thats how those towns got so poor. Back in the 60's and 70's anybody that had enough money left the city for the suburbs, leaving the cities with a mostly poor population of people. And now so many of those towns are nearly bankrupt while their suburbs flourish.

Hope this helps.

[Motion]

Originally Posted by Ivory Lee Spurlock

For a city of 2.7 million, chicago is very small is in area. Smaller than indianapolis, louisville, oklahoma cty, jacksonville, nashville, and austin, to name a few smaller sized big cities, and not to mention houston, dallas and LA, similar population to chicago but several times larger in land area than Chicago.

That's an interesting breakdown. I had no idea that a city like Oklahoma City would be larger than Chicago in land area.

[reppin_the_847]

This could be a reason why Chicago has greater density than some of those southern sprawlfests.

Originally Posted by Motion

That's an interesting breakdown. I had no idea that a city like Oklahoma City would be larger than Chicago in land area.

[Freefall18]

Originally Posted by Motion

^

How long would that drive be from Rogers Park to the southeast side? That's what I'm most curious about. The amount of time it takes to drive from one area to another around the city.

maps.google.com

[Ivory Lee Spurlock]

Originally Posted by reppin_the_847

This could be a reason why Chicago has greater density than some of those southern sprawlfests.

I dont know whats so great about "density". When I think "high density", the first two words that come to mind are "cramped" and "crowded".

I also prefer driving home from work in the privacy of my own vehicle to the cramped quarters of a bus or a train or a subway.

I just dont get so many peoples love and fascination with "urban density".

If I want "quaint", id move to a small town.

[sirrob]

I noticed a while back while looking at the population #'s of Chicago, and today's 2.7 mil. population is equal to 1920's Chicago. That's amazing to me, because there were way less high rises downtown, and seem to have been less homes built throughout the city. Can anyone shed some light on population trends of 1920's Chicago?

[Attrill]

While I agree with others that the physical dimensions of Chicago are easy to find online, a question like "How long would that drive be from Rogers Park to the southeast side" is a legitimate question, although the answer will be complicated.

The first question is - what time of day will you be traveling? If it's rush hour I could see Rogers Park to, say, Evergreen Park, taking 1.5 hours. It could also take 35 minutes at 9PM. You also have to think about current construction. When they were working on the Dan Ryan a few years ago the drive could have taken an hour at any time of day. In a city the size of Chicago there will always be something that is under construction.

The next thing to think about is - why in the world would you even be making that drive? Unless you grew up in Evergreen Park and are going to Loyola or Northwestern or something, that's not a common drive for anyone.

Third thing is - why even drive? Living in any real city that has some public transportation driving is not going to be your main method of transportation. It's a nice thing to have for running errands on a weekend but it usually isn't your main way to get around on a day to day basis.

Anyways, Google Maps also has the option to estimate public transit times within Chicago, and there's CTA Bus Tracker and Train Tracker to look service frequency - check those out.