Chicago Fun Fact: The Loop and North Lakefront Community Areas would be a City as Large as Cleveland (Lincoln: neighborhoods, live)

[Lookout Kid]

Most of us are aware that the north side lakefront neighborhoods have the highest population densities in Chicago. But it's interesting to note that if we were to combine the Loop and the six north lakefront community areas, this narrow strip of land would have roughly the same population as all of Cleveland.

Loop: 16,388
Near North: 72,811
Lincoln Park: 64,320
Lake View: 94,817
Uptown: 63,551
Edgewater: 62,198
Rogers Park: 63,484

Total: 437,569

Roughly 16% of the city's population lives in just these seven community areas. There are 77 community areas in Chicago.

(Figures come from 2007 Census estimates).

[Chicagoland60426]

Also If you calculate all the Northside(and the loop included) communities east of that narrow river, the population comes out to be 587,200. A little smaller than the population of D.C., Boston, and Milwaukee, while bigger than Atlanta.

2000 census

Loop: 16,388, 1.6 sq. miles
Near North: 72,811, 2.7 sq. miles
Lincoln Park: 64,320, 3.2 sq. miles
Lake View: 94,817, 3.2 sq miles
Uptown: 63,551, 2.4 sq. miles
Edgewater: 62,198, 2.7 sq. miles
Rogers Park: 63,48, 1.8 sq. miles
West Ridge: 73,199, 3.5 sq. miles
North Center:31,895, 2.1 sq. miles
Lincoln Square: 44,574, 2.6 sq. miles

Total- 587,200 (20% of the population in 2000).

Total sq. miles- 25.8

Density ppsm- roughly 23,000

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by Chicagoland60426

Also If you calculate all the Northside(and the loop included) communities east of that narrow river, the population comes out to be 587,200. A little smaller than the population of D.C., Boston, and Milwaukee, while bigger than Atlanta.

2000 census

Loop: 16,388, 1.6 sq. miles
Near North: 72,811, 2.7 sq. miles
Lincoln Park: 64,320, 3.2 sq. miles
Lake View: 94,817, 3.2 sq miles
Uptown: 63,551, 2.4 sq. miles
Edgewater: 62,198, 2.7 sq. miles
Rogers Park: 63,48, 1.8 sq. miles
West Ridge: 73,199, 3.5 sq. miles
North Center:31,895, 2.1 sq. miles
Lincoln Square: 44,574, 2.6 sq. miles

Total- 587,200 (20% of the population in 2000).

Total sq. miles- 25.8

Density ppsm- roughly 23,000

What is also interesting is that in the case of Boston and Washington D.C., the city propers contain a much smaller population. There wasn't the historic annexing of going on there like in Chicago. Meanwhile their total metro population gets a bit closer to Chicagos. Especially since on the east coast, its hard to tell where one metro ends and the next one begins.

IE: D.C. area including northern Virginia suburbs plus Baltimore and its suburbs (which are only 35-40 miles away from downtown D.C.) are part of the same metro area since the suburbs totally blend has just about the same population as metro Chicago.

Same with the San Francisco Bay area.

If the whole north side from the Loop to Rogers Park and west to the north branch were to secede from the rest of Chicago, it would be a bit more like the San Fran bay area where the city is smaller part of the whole metro area.

[Superion2K9]

Originally Posted by Chicagoland60426

Also If you calculate all the Northside(and the loop included) communities east of that narrow river, the population comes out to be 587,200. A little smaller than the population of D.C., Boston, and Milwaukee, while bigger than Atlanta.

Sorta-OT:
What's funny is that people may complain about Chicago and sprawl may not know that D.C. and Atlanta's metro area is ten times (or more) populated than the city proper. Both cities metro areas are about 5.3 million people. Chicago's metro if the tri-state areas are included is close to 10 million. I can't think of any other city in America whose metro areas are that much bigger than the city it surronds.

Another thing I found is that Chicago 50 years ago had as many people as Los Angeles does now. So the population of the city has decreased by a million. Imagine the city of Chicago with 3.9 million people today!

[Superion2K9]

I also looked up the metro's of the cities of Baltimore, Atlanta, D.C., and San Francisco to check their populations (Wikipedia's numbers so YMMV). The poster, Tex?IL?, is on target except that Baltimore is listed as it's own metro away from Washington, and that San Francisco is not quite as small as the east coast cities listed above. Remember that San Francisco is also more of a region, sorta like S. Florida. San Jose has a million people and is the biggest city in the Bay Area, but is not counted in the numbers. Many times people don't count NW Indiana in Chicagoland which sometimes makes the area not as populated. Which doesn't matter to me, as it all blends in anyway.

I read from other posters that the south side of Chicago is about as big as Philly or Dallas, TX (in population), so that will make you realize how big Chi-town is.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by Superion2K9

I also looked up the metro's of the cities of Baltimore, Atlanta, D.C., and San Francisco to check their populations (Wikipedia's numbers so YMMV). The poster, Tex?IL?, is on target except that Baltimore is listed as it's own metro away from Washington, and that San Francisco is not quite as small as the east coast cities listed above. Remember that San Francisco is also more of a region, sorta like S. Florida. San Jose has a million people and is the biggest city in the Bay Area, but is not counted in the numbers. Many times people don't count NW Indiana in Chicagoland which sometimes makes the area not as populated. Which doesn't matter to me, as it all blends in anyway.

I read from other posters that the south side of Chicago is about as big as Philly or Dallas, TX (in population), so that will make you realize how big Chi-town is.

It depends also on whether or not you look at the regular statistical metropolitan area or the combined or consolidated metro areas.

If you use the combined/consolidated then the D.C. metro area does include the Baltimore area.

Interesting that you consider the Bay Area as being more of a region with San Jose as counted separately. Again it depends on whether or not you use the combined/consolidated.

I think one should use that. And Chicagoland is a region. IMO Lake, or even DuPage county is no part of Chicago than San Jose is part of San Francisco.

Again, Chicago was huge into annexation back in the day. Thats partially why as you say its as big as Dallas or Philly in population.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by Superion2K9

Sorta-OT:
What's funny is that people may complain about Chicago and sprawl may not know that D.C. and Atlanta's metro area is ten times (or more) populated than the city proper. Both cities metro areas are about 5.3 million people. Chicago's metro if the tri-state areas are included is close to 10 million. I can't think of any other city in America whose metro areas are that much bigger than the city it surronds.

Another thing I found is that Chicago 50 years ago had as many people as Los Angeles does now. So the population of the city has decreased by a million. Imagine the city of Chicago with 3.9 million people today!

Once again, it depends if you use the consolidated/combined statistics.

When you don't use the combined statistics Orange County is not counted as being part of LA metro area. Although it blends totally and much of Orange County is not far from the heart of LA.

Actually I would say that Chicago is quite large compared to Chicago proper. If you look at the statistics. Most cities are relatively smaller compared to the metro area. You yourself stated that D.C. and Atlanta are only one tenth of their metro areas. Whereas Chicago is one third of its metro area.

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by Superion2K9

Imagine the city of Chicago with 3.9 million

I don't have to imagine it, I remember it.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by Superion2K9

Many times people don't count NW Indiana in Chicagoland which sometimes makes the area not as populated. Which doesn't matter to me, as it all blends in anyway.

What does this mean? Who doesnt count NW Inidana in Chicagoland? NW Indiana is in Chicago's MSA, its a fact, nothing to debate.

[Chicagoland60426]

Originally Posted by Superion2K9

Sorta-OT:
What's funny is that people may complain about Chicago and sprawl may not know that D.C. and Atlanta's metro area is ten times (or more) populated than the city proper. Both cities metro areas are about 5.3 million people. Chicago's metro if the tri-state areas are included is close to 10 million. I can't think of any other city in America whose metro areas are that much bigger than the city it surronds.

Another thing I found is that Chicago 50 years ago had as many people as Los Angeles does now. So the population of the city has decreased by a million. Imagine the city of Chicago with 3.9 million people today!

Actually it was 3.6 million 60 years ago. The invention of the expressways(Dan Ryan, Eisenhower, Kennedy etc.) link to a huge population shift from the city to the suburbs at that time is part of how Chicago have over 700,000 fewer people today.