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.
The densest ZIP code in Camden is 10,000 per square mile. So.... no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
Many more if I go the individual neighborhood within municipalities, but also get your point. But also the footprint of Chicago proper is much larger. On the whole I would say that Philly in general is more dense than Chicago but they are very close (Stats show Chicago on stats slightly more dense) and Chicago is larger so that more than makes up for it. The Philly city density is misleading as more than 20% of the 134 sq miles are not inhabited, would probably estimate closer to 10% for Chicago.
Regardless I dont really find one place more or less urban, they both are. Neighborhood by neighborhood there are differences. Even similarities, places like Wicker Park remind me more of areas in Philly (No Libs) than do place like lincoln park etc.
One thing though for sure is that Chicago is the larger city and maintains urban space over a wider footprint. Oddly after Chicago Philly is probably the next largest city by urban footprint but not as large
The bolded part above I find particularly interesting considering I can provide numerous examples of neighborhoods several miles away from the Loop that are anywhere from 15,000 to 30,000+ people per square mile. So I would speculate again that this is more of an issue of perception than reality, namely that east coasters have an idea of what urban should "look like" and don't recognize density in a different physical form and therefore it doesn't register as "urban." To wit, you'll find the population densities on the far fringes of north and west Philly on the whole to be substantially lower than those on those of the far south, southwest, and northwest fringes of Chicago.
The densest ZIP code in Camden is 10,000 per square mile.
The bolded part above I find particularly interesting considering I can provide numerous examples of neighborhoods several miles away from the Loop that are anywhere from 15,000 to 30,000+ people per square mile. So I would speculate again that this is more of an issue of perception than reality, namely that east coasters have an idea of what urban should "look like" and don't recognize density in a different physical form and therefore it doesn't register as "urban." To wit, you'll find the population densities on the far fringes of north and west Philly on the whole to be substantially lower than those on those of the far south, southwest, and northwest fringes of Chicago.
There are areas in those places that are over 15K, well over at the tract level. Also I think you missed part of my point, I am not talking about places further away. I know Chicagoland fairly well. I also do agree on the perception aspect. The development type for similar densities makes some of areas of Philly feel more congested (not always a good thing really)
Philly to me has a slightly more cohesive feel, this could be perception. Also Chicago IS larger and extends further, am not arguing that at all
I think that I've found the distinguishing factor which might explain the difference, and it's based upon "structural density" , rather than population density..
Philly feels more dense than Chicago because its residential neighborhoods are attached, rather than separate. Chicago's 2-3 flats, or bungalows, often have small yards or "alleys" to separate the buildings, although the gaps might be very small, while row house neighborhoods utilize every inch, thus giving the visitor the impression that the row house city ( Philly) is also more densely populated, even if it might not be true.
I think that I've found the distinguishing factor which might explain the difference, and it's based upon "structural density" , rather than population density..
Philly feels more dense than Chicago because its residential neighborhoods are attached, rather than separate. Chicago's 2-3 flats, or bungalows, often have small yards or "alleys" to separate the buildings, although the gaps might be very small, while row house neighborhoods utilize every inch, thus giving the visitor the impression that the row house city ( Philly) is also more densely populated, even if it might not be true.
Can we just make this a "sticky" post? I don't think anymore really needs to be said on this.
I just hope no one posts any more pictures of the Chicago skyline. The thread could be "Which city looks more urban from the earth's core?" and people would still be posting pictures of the Chicago skyline.
I think that I've found the distinguishing factor which might explain the difference, and it's based upon "structural density" , rather than population density..
Philly feels more dense than Chicago because its residential neighborhoods are attached, rather than separate. Chicago's 2-3 flats, or bungalows, often have small yards or "alleys" to separate the buildings, although the gaps might be very small, while row house neighborhoods utilize every inch, thus giving the visitor the impression that the row house city ( Philly) is also more densely populated, even if it might not be true.
This is what I have been saying for 25 posts. Philly's residential neighborhoods are definitely more urban than Chicago's. Rowhouses and their make up are structurally dense than bungalows. Plus, Chicago has the enormously wide streets running from north to south that look like the burbs of the east coast. Pound for pound, outside of the DT area, Philly looks more urban.
There isn't much in Delaware...oh, wow Wilmington. It's small
The county in DE you go through is ALONE considered a large metropolitan area by the Census. It didn't just pop up a hundred years ago like Chicago. The entire I95 corridor in Delaware is surrounded by dense suburbs and towns, refineries, railroads, and ports.
Because the area is just so infinitesimally small, you may note that New Castle County is denser than 12 of your 14 "DENSE" Chicagoland counties, and more populated than 10 out of 14 counties in your mighty Chicagoland metro area. Might say something about your metro's counties, huh? Driving through DE on 95 is driving through the middle of half a million people in 15 minutes. Farmland, really.
Chicago, with 100-story skyscrapers and 40+ story highrises for miles and miles can't even attain a density twice of what a tiny regional city like Wilmington attains, after losing half its population.
You would have an English accent if not for a Wilmington company producing and negotiating the necessary amount of gunpowder to win the war of 1812. Pick on cities your own size, ass.
Cook County (5,287,037)
DeKalb County (107,333)
DuPage County (932,541)
Grundy County (48,421)
Kane County (511,892)
Kendall County (104,821)
McHenry County (320,961)
Will County (685,251)
Jasper County (IN) (32,816)
Lake County (IN) (494,211)
Newton County (IN) (13,736)
Porter County (IN) (163,598)
Lake County (IL) (712,567)
Kenosha County (WI) (165,382)
The county in DE you go through is ALONE considered a large metropolitan area by the Census. It didn't just pop up a hundred years ago like Chicago. The entire I95 corridor in Delaware is surrounded by dense suburbs and towns, refineries, railroads, and ports.
Because the area is just so infinitesimally small, you may note that New Castle County is denser than 12 of your 14 "DENSE" Chicagoland counties, and more populated than 10 out of 14 counties in your mighty Chicagoland metro area. Might say something about your metro's counties, huh? Driving through DE on 95 is driving through the middle of half a million people in 15 minutes. Farmland, really.
Chicago, with 100-story skyscrapers and 40+ story highrises for miles and miles can't even attain a density twice of what a tiny regional city like Wilmington attains, after losing half its population.
You would have an English accent if not for a Wilmington company producing and negotiating the necessary amount of gunpowder to win the war of 1812. Pick on cities your own size, ass.
Cook County (5,287,037)
DeKalb County (107,333)
DuPage County (932,541)
Grundy County (48,421)
Kane County (511,892)
Kendall County (104,821)
McHenry County (320,961)
Will County (685,251)
Jasper County (IN) (32,816)
Lake County (IN) (494,211)
Newton County (IN) (13,736)
Porter County (IN) (163,598)
Lake County (IL) (712,567)
Kenosha County (WI) (165,382)
Picking one city over the other here is really splitting hairs. I can see a case where both feel more urban than the other...for different reasons. Philly feels more compact, with smaller roads and rowhouses, and more of a hectic vibe. Chicago feels more like a BIG city with wider streets, but impressive infrastructure and large buildings all over. Chicago is obviously far more expansive, but pound for pound...it's about the same. Philadelphia might be my choice....it seems to FEEL more urban at street level. Chicago's most impressive neighborhoods don't seem as vibrant as the structural density implies. In the Northside you have many high-rises but on the street level it is about the same as Philly (I'll give the edge to Philly, because it FEELS more crowded to some extent).
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.
