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.
I was talking about both population density along with street level activity. People were talking about 24/7 vibrancy/pedestrian activity/etc.
So what does development density have to do with that? Obviously the loop is more built up than Queens, as an extreme example.
Well, in that case 24/7 vibrancy along with population density then I agree. I was only thinking building density comparing certain specific areas back to back my bad.
Well, in that case 24/7 vibrancy along with population density then I agree. I was only thinking building density comparing certain specific areas back to back my bad.
No worries. I definitely wasn't saying most of Queens is structurally denser than areas of Chicago, to clarify, not close.
Queens Boulevard was not all that impressive compared to Michigan Avenue and I've been to both. Yes, Queens is denser "over all" (when combined) compare to Chicago's neighborhoods but there are some neighborhoods of the borough that are also less urban than some of the neighborhoods in Chicago.
I have no idea what you're trying to say. No one claimed that every corner of Queens was dense. One could post a picture of bombed out Gary, IN, or even sprawlburb Schaumburg, IL, that's denser than a picture of Chicago. What exactly does that prove? All it shows is that Chicago has a variety of neighborhoods and densities, from high density to empty.
There are portions of Hong Kong that are practically uninhabited. Posting pictures of trees and fishing villages in Hong Kong doesn't mean that Hong Kong isn't about the densest first-world place on earth.
And Queens Boulevard is 9 miles long, and quite a ways from the city center. You're comparing it to the few densest blocks along Michigan Ave. in downtown Chicago, which is by far the busiest part of Chicago. That's kind of a silly comparison, and illustrates how different these cities really are.
May I remind everyone that this thread is Chicago vs Los Angeles. I didn't start a Chicago vs New York thread for obvious reasons, please try to stay on topic, New York City really has no place in this discussion.
May I remind everyone that this thread is Chicago vs Los Angeles. I didn't start a Chicago vs New York thread for obvious reasons, please try to stay on topic, New York City really has no place in this discussion.
You're correct, let me be the first one to apologize.
Who has the most iconic pier? I haven't been to the Santa Monica Pier. Anyone been to both? The two are nearly the same age, have a lot of visitors, ferris wheels and are iconic to both cities. I know the one in LA isn't within the city limits but it's close enough for the locals.
Santa Monica Pier is definitely the more iconic pier, and is probably the most iconic pier on earth.
It's in so many movies, I've lost count. Falling Down, Cellular, Hancock, Ruthless People, and others.
The thing is, it kind of sucks. It's nothing like it is in the movies. It's a bit seedy and not really family-friendly.
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.
