Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-05-2012, 09:04 PM
 
5,985 posts, read 13,133,994 times
Reputation: 4931

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliFool View Post
gosh, well then I should have been more specific. Los angeles is not as big as chicago. It is a more overpopulated suburb, which is far from being the same thing. it has really reached the point where I see that people from los angeles are truly deluded about the state and size of their city. los angeles struggles to compete with the seattle, los angeles fails to make any top 10 list for downtown or vibrancy or urban amenities. los angeles has a small urban coet with short buildings, especially compared to chicago. chicago is like a muscular man with a big you know what, los angeles is like an obese man with a micro you know what. I hope you understand the analogy I am making here.
I spent most of my life in the Chicago suburbs, and just moved to LA. I feel like I am in a bigger, more exciting and happening place.

Downtown/core Chicago was always a great place for me to go to and hang out for the day, but more as a tourist. I would feel cramped and confined if I spent 24 seven. The rest of the metro is kind of boring unless you are raising a family.

LA metro feels like a place like there is literally endless number of things to do, see, and places to hang out and people to meet. With each place being just at the right scale.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-06-2012, 01:57 AM
 
Location: Brooklyn
2,314 posts, read 4,801,275 times
Reputation: 1946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il? View Post
I spent most of my life in the Chicago suburbs, and just moved to LA. I feel like I am in a bigger, more exciting and happening place.

Downtown/core Chicago was always a great place for me to go to and hang out for the day, but more as a tourist. I would feel cramped and confined if I spent 24 seven. The rest of the metro is kind of boring unless you are raising a family.

LA metro feels like a place like there is literally endless number of things to do, see, and places to hang out and people to meet. With each place being just at the right scale.
I love people raised in the burbs of any city (who probably have been there a total of 20 times) acting like they know the place better than anywhere else.

I truly find it hilarious.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2012, 03:07 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles
5,864 posts, read 15,250,592 times
Reputation: 6767
Flying into LA from Seattle during the day is an incredible site to see. Starting the descend from about Santa Barbara and riding the coast is awesome. Then when you see the San Fernando Valley, the Santa Monica Mountains, the LA basin and beyond all together is when you really see how humongous Los Angeles is. Chicago is big but LA is gigantic!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2012, 07:27 PM
 
672 posts, read 1,790,226 times
Reputation: 499
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
Does anybody know what Chicago's population would be if its city limits were as large as Los Angeles(468 sq. miles)?
I can come close using radius data around a point. This is all based on the 2010 census.

Chicago's densest zip code is 60626.

If I form a radius of 17.5 miles around that point. It leaves 467 square miles of land.
That 467 square miles of land has a population of 3,611,847.
Therefore, the population density in that 467 square miles is approximately 7,730.

To answer your question, "Would Chicago be more populated than Los Angeles?" The answer is NO. Is this fair enough?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2012, 07:34 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,078 posts, read 15,867,321 times
Reputation: 4049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhymes with Best Coast View Post
I can come close using radius data around a point. This is all based on the 2010 census.

Chicago's densest zip code is 60626.

If I form a radius of 17.5 miles around that point. It leaves 467 square miles of land.
That 467 square miles of land has a population of 3,611,847.
Therefore, the population density in that 467 square miles is approximately 7,730.

To answer your question. NO. Is this fair enough?
That seems fair, they are fairly comparable at the same square mileage.

One thing to note is that Chicago at 467 square miles would be (mostly) built environment.

LA includes a significant amount of square mileage that consists only of undeveloped mountain range. I don't know the number of mileage that is taken up by undeveloped land. This is part of the reason much of LA is much denser than the 8k ppsm overall figure.

Last edited by munchitup; 02-06-2012 at 07:43 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2012, 08:04 PM
 
Location: The City
22,378 posts, read 38,951,203 times
Reputation: 7976
^^^ what is continually perplexing to me (and I dont know all of LA) but why does it feel so much less developed. This isnt a slight on LA but on feel it truly does not feel the core city of Chicago.

Also at 400+ miles you are pushing boundaries, that is a huge spread

LA perplexes me with all the people it doesnt feel as much the city as Chicago with many comparable if not exceeding metrics. There is something to the LA construct that dimishes the cohesion. I think I have said disjointed before and think there is some truth to it.

Maybe it is the lack of central mass, like a noght where there is a large core just pasked on every block, why to me a city like my home town can feel like a larger more crowded core.

Dunno but stats on LA perplex me because it just doesnt feel as dense

The expanse is felt but not the crush if that makes sense

After much time in LA I feel like I still have so much to learn, a tough study, like a Tolstoy book (in Russian)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2012, 09:17 PM
 
Location: MIA/DC
1,190 posts, read 2,254,944 times
Reputation: 699
This thread is more about pictures and memory than arguing, statistics, and silly nilly arguing. Refrain from talking about how many SQM a city covers density, etc there are in abundance of those topics and is not necessary here
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2012, 09:33 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,078 posts, read 15,867,321 times
Reputation: 4049
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
^^^ what is continually perplexing to me (and I dont know all of LA) but why does it feel so much less developed. This isnt a slight on LA but on feel it truly does not feel the core city of Chicago.

Also at 400+ miles you are pushing boundaries, that is a huge spread

LA perplexes me with all the people it doesnt feel as much the city as Chicago with many comparable if not exceeding metrics. There is something to the LA construct that dimishes the cohesion. I think I have said disjointed before and think there is some truth to it.

Maybe it is the lack of central mass, like a noght where there is a large core just pasked on every block, why to me a city like my home town can feel like a larger more crowded core.

Dunno but stats on LA perplex me because it just doesnt feel as dense

The expanse is felt but not the crush if that makes sense

After much time in LA I feel like I still have so much to learn, a tough study, like a Tolstoy book (in Russian)
Yeah I know what you mean about it being disjointed. It doesn't look like any other big city I have ever experienced.

To me Los Angeles is more impressive flying in, with the never ending expanse of lights and streets, then mountains and more never ending lights. It is pretty incredible.

Driving in Chicago is much more mind-boggling to me. It is insane just how massive the skyline is. It really impresses me more than NYC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2012, 10:47 PM
 
Location: So California
8,704 posts, read 11,126,956 times
Reputation: 4794
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
This thead, and post #365 in particular, has some of the best collection of L.A. pics I've seen, and even they do not fully capture the beastly size of this city. Even the Griffith Park can't do that.

Just phenomenal stuff (pwright's work is world class too):

//www.city-data.com/forum/los-a...la-pic-37.html

pwrights work is great and kcmo's is amazing some of the best there is anywhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2012, 10:56 PM
 
Location: So California
8,704 posts, read 11,126,956 times
Reputation: 4794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il? View Post
I spent most of my life in the Chicago suburbs, and just moved to LA. I feel like I am in a bigger, more exciting and happening place.

Downtown/core Chicago was always a great place for me to go to and hang out for the day, but more as a tourist. I would feel cramped and confined if I spent 24 seven. The rest of the metro is kind of boring unless you are raising a family.

LA metro feels like a place like there is literally endless number of things to do, see, and places to hang out and people to meet. With each place being just at the right scale.

This has always been my impression. DT Chicago is fabulous to stay/visit and Im sure live, but its not as crowded/vibrant as Manhattan or even San Francisco, but with a top notch skyline. LA is just a different animal, its just massive and has so many areas that are different and happening. Chicago has dt, old suburbs and new suburbs. Everything radiates out of downtown. LA has just so many different neighborhoods in and out of the basin.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:17 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top