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.
Location: Pittsburgh (via Chicago, via Pittsburgh)
3,887 posts, read 5,489,993 times
Reputation: 3107
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4
No i wasn't saying that I said, you are drawing borders for Chicago to reach the greatest Population, try drawiing a 48 sq Mile city with all the land trailing off to the south and west (7X8) with Downtown in the NE corner., and areas a mile North of Downtown in a seperate town.
no..I'm not "drawing" borders for Chicago.. the city is what it is. I'm not drawing borders.
no..I'm not "drawing" borders for Chicago.. the city is what it is. I'm not drawing borders.
when people "shrink" Chicago to 48 Sq. Miles they find the largest possible population while they neglect to to the same for Boston (Using city limits) which is unfair
Location: Pittsburgh (via Chicago, via Pittsburgh)
3,887 posts, read 5,489,993 times
Reputation: 3107
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4
when people "shrink" Chicago to 48 Sq. Miles they find the largest possible population while they neglect to to the same for Boston (Using city limits) which is unfair
I'm not "shrinking" Chicago...why would I shrink it?
I'm not "shrinking" Chicago...why would I shrink it?
Maybe not you but Chicago067 shrank Chicago to 50 sq Miles and said it had 950,000 people, but that is as high as possible for Chicago, but Boston doesn't have that liberty as people assume the city limits are the densest 48sq miles.
Location: Pittsburgh (via Chicago, via Pittsburgh)
3,887 posts, read 5,489,993 times
Reputation: 3107
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4
Maybe not you but Chicago067 shrank Chicago to 50 sq Miles and said it had 950,000 people, but that is as high as possible for Chicago, but Boston doesn't have that liberty as people assume the city limits are the densest 48sq miles.
i dont see what this even has to do with anything. boston and chicago are boston and chicago, respectively. the city limits are the city limits. not sure why people are shrinking anything
i dont see what this even has to do with anything. boston and chicago are boston and chicago, respectively. the city limits are the city limits. not sure why people are shrinking anything
because you can't campare 48 sq Miles to 263 (?) and Bostons Urbanity extends well past its Borders, Cambridge, Somerville, Chelsea, Everett ect. have no desernable border with the city (Charleston, East Boston) unless you know the area.
Maybe not you but Chicago067 shrank Chicago to 50 sq Miles and said it had 950,000 people, but that is as high as possible for Chicago, but Boston doesn't have that liberty as people assume the city limits are the densest 48sq miles.
This all started cause everyone was trying to make it more apples to apples. Chicago physically is almost 5 times larger than Boston. It has a lot more very high and very low density areas because it's hundreds of square miles of airports, vacant land, wilderness areas, industrial, huge downtown, large areas of residential highrises, dense areas, single family homes, etc. It's easier to talk about Chicago when getting into specifics by breaking the city up into areas and comparing them against other areas of similar size.
I see what you're saying. It's not a right answer or wrong answer, people are just debating using a variety of examples.
This all started cause everyone was trying to make it more apples to apples. Chicago physically is almost 5 times larger than Boston. It has a lot more very high and very low density areas because it's hundreds of square miles of airports, vacant land, wilderness areas, industrial, huge downtown, large areas of residential highrises, dense areas, single family homes, etc. It's easier to talk about Chicago when getting into specifics by breaking the city up into areas and comparing them against other areas of similar size.
I see what you're saying. It's not a right answer or wrong answer, people are just debating using a variety of examples.
but when you shrank Chicago did you center it around Downtown?
but when you shrank Chicago did you center it around Downtown?
Yes, downtown, near south and west sides, then the core residential areas up directly north of downtown.
I just made sure to pick a solid 50 square miles and not jump around. There are other areas on the northwest and southwest sides of the city with 23,000 people per square miles and a few hundred thousand people, but they have areas surrounding them that are heavily industrial for miles and miles.
Maybe not you but Chicago067 shrank Chicago to 50 sq Miles and said it had 950,000 people, but that is as high as possible for Chicago, but Boston doesn't have that liberty as people assume the city limits are the densest 48sq miles.
No it is actually higher than that if you were to cherry pick areas. He just grouped quite large neighborhoods of 3-7 miles a piece together. Your posts are ceasing to make sense. Chicago IS over 200 sq miles, Boston isn't. You realize Chicago goes out dense into the inner suburbs just like Boston right? Evanston is around 100k and is still over 10k per square mile for instance. You also realize some inner ring suburbs are denser than Chicago actual city also right? Plus it has the others. Look. Chicago has 2.7 million in the city in 220 sq miles. In the next 700 square miles, there is yet another 2.5 million people in Cook county. Then when you go to the metro level, there is STILL another 5 million people that are part of Chicago as a central hub. I like Boston a lot, and you can call Boston as urban as Chicago, I don't give a flip. But Chicago and the surrounding area is MUCH larger than Boston, not even a contest. Chicago DWARFS Boston in terms of size/scale. That is all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4
but when you shrank Chicago did you center it around Downtown?
YES. Damn dude... As I said, he could get it even HIGHER if he were to carefully cherry pick dense areas, not a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4
but Boston doesn't have a street thats urban like Annapolis, it has entire areas. and when people count for Chicago for the inner 48 sq Miles they are using areas that add up to the largest population. The City of Boston was not made like that, as Boston counldn't annex the more develped areas like Cambridge, Somerville or Chelsea, even though they are 1-3 miles from Downtown, and annexed areas like Hyde Park about 7 miles from downtown.
WTF man, don't you think the same applies to Chicago? Chicago couldn't annex Evanston, Skokie or Oak Park. Who cares! Chicago is still bigger, and Chicago area still has bumped up inner ring burbs with prestigious universities also! PLUS the city itself is about 5x bigger. It was a city of 3.6 Million at one time to give you an idea of the footprint/urbanity. These days people moved out, but people still flood into the city from the other 7 million people who are centered around Chicago that didn't use to be there. NYC Chicago and DC have the most centralized job centers in the city and it shows.
Look my family is from Boston (Somerville) and Chicago on dad/mom side respectively, so I like both cities... But this whole thread is getting ridiculous.
Last edited by grapico; 02-01-2012 at 09:40 PM..
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.