Chicago Downtown vs Manhattan, Chicago = Mini-NYC (state, largest, America, bigger)
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.
It doesn't make sense to compare Downtown Chicago to Manhattan. One is a downtown, the other is not. Midtown or Lower Manhattan might more sense.
Between 14th and 59th streets: 298k in 4.8 sq miles [the very east and west sides are really more residential, especially the east. parts of the west are formerly industrial]
Lower Manhattan: 61k in 1.5 square miles
In terms of the population and size of the downtown core, obviously NYC is much bigger than Chicago. But in this respect Chicago is also much larger than any other US city, eg its downtown population is 3-4 times larger than that of Philly (the 3rd most populous downtown in the US).
There's no way in hell Downtown Chicago is 3-4 times the size of Center City Philly.
They are relatively close in size. Downtown Chicago is clearly, indisputably, bigger, but were talking maybe 25-35% bigger, not 3-4 times bigger. Philly has a very big core, and is easily Top 5 among largest U.S. downtowns.
I would say it goes like this-
NYC
-
-
-
Then Chicago, DC, SF, Philly, and Boston, in that order. One could argue the relative placement of Philly and Boston, but they have to both be somewhere in that Top 5 or 6.
DC is hard to place in that ranking, IMO, because it's really big (possibly bigger than Chicago in terms of area) but quality is lacking. I would probably put it last in a U.S. Top 6 in terms of the quality of the downtown built form (too many faceless 80's midrise office buildings and dead streets outside of business hours).
There's no way in hell Downtown Chicago is 3-4 times the size of Center City Philly.
They are relatively close in size. Downtown Chicago is clearly, indisputably, bigger, but were talking maybe 25-35% bigger, not 3-4 times bigger. Philly has a very big core, and is easily Top 5 among largest U.S. downtowns.
I would say it goes like this-
NYC
-
-
-
Then Chicago, DC, SF, Philly, and Boston, in that order. One could argue the relative placement of Philly and Boston, but they have to both be somewhere in that Top 5 or 6.
DC is hard to place in that ranking, IMO, because it's really big (possibly bigger than Chicago in terms of area) but quality is lacking. I would probably put it last in a U.S. Top 6 in terms of the quality of the downtown built form (too many faceless 80's midrise office buildings and dead streets outside of business hours).
I don't think it's 3-4 times the size, but I would say twice the size of Philly's though.
I would disagree. Philly has a very large and solid, contiguous, busy core. It can be compared to any U.S. city, excepting NYC.
Center City Philly has very good urbanity, with narrow streets, solid street walls, and relatively limited parking, and over a big area.
Yes though to me Chicago has a larger core in a lot of ways - concentration of population seemless flow into neighborhoods, tighter and more mixed use no, but Chicago is larger
In some ways I think you could argue there i a more energentic core in ome ways, albeith smaller though I would bnever uggest there is a real comparison to MI Ave though they both have their plused and minuses so to speak but Chicago is larger in the DT - 2x might make sense to me
Enjoy both for what they are as they are different. Philly is probably more similar to Boston or SF though would lack both on shopping maybe excel in residential integration relative to them but again they are similar. NYC is just hard to compare as it delievers on so many levels with so much scale. SF may have the next best achievement of levels but is closer to the size of Boston or Philly
It doesn't make sense to compare Downtown Chicago to Manhattan. One is a downtown, the other is not. Midtown or Lower Manhattan might more sense.
Between 14th and 59th streets: 298k in 4.8 sq miles [the very east and west sides are really more residential, especially the east. parts of the west are formerly industrial]
Lower Manhattan: 61k in 1.5 square miles
Yes, I agree 100%.
Chicago and New York are my favorite cities but you can't just blankly compare The Loop/South Loop/River North (the combination of which people usually call 'Downtown') to the entire borough of Manhattan.
I still strongly stand by my association that the two are entirely different cities that simply both just have big buildings everywhere.
The only connection I can make is that The Loop is some bizarre combination of mostly Midtown with some Lower Manhattan mixed in, while I still think River North still reminds me of parts of The Meatpacking District and Hells Kitchen.
Both are the best urban areas the US has to offer but New York just trumps it by sheer size alone.
Chicago and New York are my favorite cities but you can't just blankly compare The Loop/South Loop/River North (the combination of which people usually call 'Downtown') to the entire borough of Manhattan.
I still strongly stand by my association that the two are entirely different cities that simply both just have big buildings everywhere.
The only connection I can make is that The Loop is some bizarre combination of mostly Midtown with some Lower Manhattan mixed in, while I still think River North still reminds me of parts of The Meatpacking District and Hells Kitchen.
Both are the best urban areas the US has to offer but New York just trumps it by sheer size alone.
Arguable. I still think SF can hit above it's weight and get close to Chicago despite a smaller downtown. It's arguable that SF's downtown and greater downtown is just as vibrant and bustling as Chicago's.
He means the international and diverse feel of the place, global city means you have businesses that are connected to important business centers. Downtown Chicago along with the central neighborhoods do not feel as international as walking around Manhattan b/c Manhattan has way more raw #'s of foreign born plus always has exponentially more international visitors.
That's right. In NYC, I feel connected to London, Tokyo, Paris, Istanbul, Hong Kong, etc. Whether it's business, restaurants or people I pass on the street, the international flavor of Manhattan is incomparable to other cities in the US. People from around the world--artists, business people, students, etc.--are drawn here because they know NYC will test their mettle. I don't think Chicago has that vitality--nowhere does.
What are you including as Chicago's Downtown? Generally it is only the loop proper and near north side.
Near North Side is 80k and 2.7sq miles.
The Loop is 30k and 1.58 sq miles.
Totalling 110k and 4.28 sq miles.
So is it really fair to only use the 2 sq miles of Philly in that link?
I think if you expanded that area to Chicago's area you'd find more people in Philly and SF cores. To me they both seem to have more residential mixed in with their office buildings and less of after 5pm dead zones there.
Well if you look at the core downtown area you can look at census tracts and look at the 2000 to 2010 populaiton for the area from Chicago Ave/Mag Mile down to Roosevelt and then over to the River or the Kennedy in the immediate area of the commuter stations west loop, although it's almost all office).
That area is 2.3 miles long and averages from a half mile to a little over a mile wide in its built areas. So around 2 sq miles overall.
2000: 44,473
2010: 71,031
If you expand out from Division on the north to the Soldier Field area on the south and the Kennedy/River on the west (not counting the northwest areas near cabrini, that's not downtown) then it's around 3 miles long and around a mile+ wide. That's the core highrise area and what any normal person would call "downtown" if they were walking around and knew anything about the city. Probably a little over 3 square miles (although of course a lot of that is Grant Park and the entire financial/office district).
2000: 71,909
2010: 113,302
If you look at the 4 community areas in the city out of the total 77 that are the Loop, Near North, West Loop and South Loop then it's 186,038 people.
Anyway....just cause I saw the tracts once and it seemed relevant.
Last edited by Chicago60614; 11-12-2013 at 08:52 AM..
Well if you look at the core downtown area you can look at census tracts and look at the 2000 to 2010 populaiton for the area from Chicago Ave/Mag Mile down to Roosevelt and then over to the River or the Kennedy in the immediate area of the commuter stations west loop, although it's almost all office).
That area is 2.3 miles long and averages from a half mile to a little over a mile wide in its built areas. So around 2 sq miles overall.
2000: 44,473
2010: 71,031
If you expand out from Division on the north to the Soldier Field area on the south and the Kennedy/River on the west (not counting the northwest areas near cabrini, that's not downtown) then it's around 3 miles long and around a mile+ wide. That's the core highrise area and what any normal person would call "downtown" if they were walking around and knew anything about the city. Probably a little over 3 square miles (although of course a lot of that is Grant Park and the entire financial/office district).
2000: 71,909
2010: 113,302
If you look at the 4 community areas in the city out of the total 77 that are the Loop, Near North, West Loop and South Loop then it's 186,038 people.
Anyway....just cause I saw the tracts once and it seemed relevant.
Oh I agree, it's all on how you evaluate it. You'd get more numbers moving into LP/LV I think though than into west loop south loop?
Chicago's population definitely isn't uniform but is a bit scattered and very well connected by rail going out, SF and Philly are more consistent foot print in the core, but less connected in the city. In Chicago, tons of people come into the DT Core from the other neighborhoods, so it makes it seem bigger/busier in actuality. But even then, the DT work areas are more spread out than SF or Philly... hard to say. I would definitely say there are more interesting good urban nabes to explore in Chicago than SF or Philly, and those people can probably get into DT easier than their counterparts.
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.
