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.
Companies? I am talking about density. Chicago is past its prime, it's density is down from its peak and there's no telling what can happen in the foreseeable future either.
Didnt Toronto just surpass Chicago in population with eerily similar land area? So which one will be denser? btw, Toronto and LA urban areas are 7K ppsm, Chicago is half that 3.5K ppsm.
Yes, Toronto very narrowly passed Chicago with population. Since when does that have anything to do with "the future?" Both Minneapolis, Houston, Dallas, and Seattle are much less dense than all three and still have bright futures. In terms of "future," density only means so much.
People who bring up pure population numbers don't see the larger picture. While population loss sucks (which Chicago appears to not be going through now - narrow growth right now), you have to look at who is leaving, and why, and who is coming in instead. That is more important.
The area on google maps you showed me doesn't feel like Church and Wellesley or Bloor and Avenue or Parliament and Gerrard or lakeshore and Bremner.. all hyper dense residential areas that are in the heart of DT Toronto..
I'm not saying your areas isn't urbanized or nice - I like Chicago but these don't feel as connected to the DT core as my examples..
Asking me how many times I've been to Chicago or how long isn't going to change reality
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu
How many times have you been to Chicago and for how long? Just curious.
Asking me how many times I've been to Chicago or how long isn't going to change reality
I don't care whether your opinion is changed or not. I'm just wondering how many times you've been to Chicago and how much you experienced. Yes, it actually does matter if we're talking about anything. I can ask the same question about LA too. How many times have you been to LA and for how long? It's a matter of credibility and trust. I don't doubt your opinions at all, but there is a level of credibility associated with experience.
Yes, Toronto very narrowly passed Chicago with density. Since when does that have anything to do with "the future." Both Minneapolis, Houston, Dallas, and Seattle are much less dense than all three and still have bright futures. In terms of "future," density only means so much.
I mentioned future because I am not sure Chicago will ever surpass its peak density much less come close to even recapturing some of it. Toronto and LA on the otherhand have never had a decline and their densities are at an all time high, so are NYC and San Francisco.
Density is not the end all be all for how urban a city is but it sure helps and Chicago does look past its prime.
Companies? I am talking about density. Chicago is past its prime, it's density is down from its peak and there's no telling what can happen in the foreseeable future either.
Didnt Toronto just surpass Chicago in population with eerily similar land area? So which one will be denser? btw, Toronto and LA urban areas are 7K ppsm, Chicago is half that 3.5K ppsm.
How does a city who looses thousands and thousands of poor and welfare individuals and replaces them with wealthy individuals a city that is past it's prime?
Fact: Chicago has more housing units today that at any point in it's history
Fact: The tax base of Chicago is higher today than at any point in it's history
I think cohesiveness from downtown (Loop, Near North Side) to other neighborhoods is something Chicago lags behind other cities in, especially NYC, Philly, DC, Boston, SF. Much of this as brought up by others is due to the industrial past of Chicago and the role the Chicago river played. As you mentioned, heading north from river north (east of LaSalle is probably a good point of reference) is really the only direction that has cohesiveness, and this is obviously due to the development along the lake. However, beyond that, every other direction of Chicago has a gap between downtown and the neighborhoods: The South Side has the rail yards, industrial, and blight;The West has the Kennedy, the river, and some industrial, The North West has Cabrini and the river. As you also know, this is improving every year, as Chicago probably has more construction going on than any city not named NYC, DC (and Toronto).
As to the thread, I find Toronto to be fairly similar to San Francisco in terms of vibrancy, and as it relates to Chicago, I find the most vibrant parts of Toronto (and SF) to be slightly more vibrant than Chicago's most vibrant part, but neither Toronto (or San Fran) can match the massive scale that is Chicago.
I mentioned future because I am not sure Chicago will ever surpass its peak density much less come close to even recapturing some of it. Toronto and LA on the otherhand have never had a decline and their densities are at an all time high, so are NYC and San Francisco.
Density is not the end all be all for how urban a city is but it sure helps and Chicago does look past its prime.
neither Manhattan nor Paris will ever reach their peak population again, are they dying as well?
How does a city who looses thousands and thousands of poor and welfare individuals and replaces them with wealthy individuals a city that is past it's prime?
Fact: Chicago has more housing units today that at any point in it's history
Fact: The tax base of Chicago is higher today than at any point in it's history
Sure, Chicago's population loss can be broomed under packing the bags of the poor and kicking them out but TBH, even the northside has population losses and even some of the middle and upper classes are moving out.
The point is that the cohesiveness continues for numerous miles north. I do agree though that it's definitely not as cohesive as you go west *on average* (yes there are big pockets) and I am also not one to say something is not cohesive if it goes from 50 story tower to 20 story tower to 5 3 story buildings. I look at more of the spacing between the buildings, the number of empty space that's not a park/plaza, etc personally.
neither Manhattan nor Paris will ever reach their peak population again, are they dying as well?
Yeah but Manhattan and Paris aren't in jeopardy of someday falling below 10K ppsm, now are they? Neither Manhattan or Paris have to worry about being eclipsed by a Toronto, now do they?
Chicago is much closer to the ranks of Toronto or San Francisco than it is to a Manhattan or Paris. BTW, Manhattan is at least growing, it's at least doing that. Cant say the same of Chicago, which lost 230K in the last census.
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.
