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 agree there's a lot of Chicago that's similar to large parts of Queens, and the cities are relatively similar in the 25K-50K range. The difference comes at 50K+, where Queens blows Chicago out of the water (I know that's not really the point, just sayin)
I agree there's a lot of Chicago that's similar to large parts of Queens, and the cities are relatively similar in the 25K-50K range. The difference comes at 50K+, where Queens blows Chicago out of the water (I know that's not really the point, just sayin)
I know what you mean - though I saw somewhere in Chicago that Census Block Group is a more accurate measure of density than Tract. Forget the reason but it made sense at the time. There's over 100 Block Groups in Chicago of at least 50K per sq mile. Anyway, there are similarities - not Manhattan and not most of Brooklyn, but part of Queens and Staten Island. Also, Northern New Jersey in places are more similar too (look at Kearny, NJ for example).
I agree there's a lot of Chicago that's similar to large parts of Queens, and the cities are relatively similar in the 25K-50K range. The difference comes at 50K+, where Queens blows Chicago out of the water (I know that's not really the point, just sayin)
So am curious, as to me Philly has always felt like Queens and BK more than other part of NYC save CC - is Chicago or Philly more like Queens?
I'm a little skeptical of using block groups in Chicago as equivalent to tracts elsewhere; I think tracts are pretty universally equivalent at least for comparisons. I hadn't even thought of NJ though, but that's a great point. Kearny, Elizabeth, Bayonne, maybe some other Newark suburbs are probably the closest to most of Chicago (except the North Side corridor) in the NY area now that I thibnk about it.
So am curious, as to me Philly has always felt like Queens and BK more than other part of NYC save CC - is Chicago or Philly more like Queens?
That's a tough one. Both Chicago and Philly have some very Queens-esque areas (the Uptown/Rogers Park/Devon Av./Albany Park etc. area on the Far North Side in Chicago and Frankford/Oxford Circle/Castor/to some degree South Philly in Philly) although there are also much larger areas that aren't much like Queens. I'd go with Chicago though just because it has more higher density areas than Philly and has a built form that's probably closer to Queens' than Philly's rowhouses.
So am curious, as to me Philly has always felt like Queens and BK more than other part of NYC save CC - is Chicago or Philly more like Queens?
In terms of built form, I would say neither is really that similar, though I suppose I would give the edge to Philadelphia. I've always thought the Northeast and Queens were similar, but not so much because of the built form, but more in the sense that the two were sort of the last great White ethnic holdouts (which have greatly diversified over the years).
I'm a little skeptical of using block groups in Chicago as equivalent to tracts elsewhere; I think tracts are pretty universally equivalent at least for comparisons. I hadn't even thought of NJ though, but that's a great point. Kearny, Elizabeth, Bayonne, maybe some other Newark suburbs are probably the closest to most of Chicago (except the North Side corridor) in the NY area now that I thibnk about it.
Their reasoning was just for the lakefront areas, which IMO do make sense:
"You can't really compare densities in census tracts because a lot of Chicago's lakefront tracts contain large areas of park land that throw the numbers off."
It makes sense for many actually. For example, there's a census tract that contains Navy Pier, the Jardine Water Filtration Plant, and Milton Olive Park where nobody lives. It lists the density as 18K per sq mile. However, one of the block groups within that tract is actually 155,000 per sq mile and the one to the south of that is 66K per sq mile (will be more soon with new construction). Just randomly looking at some others, there's another tract in Lakeview with a large piece of Lake Michigan and Lincoln Park as part of it - overall density of the tract is 21K per sq mile, but the actual block groups part of it in the non water/park areas are actually 60K - 100K per sq mile
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,278,425 times
Reputation: 1483
That works that way for downtown Chicago too. Even for the Census 2-mile square of City Hall as a downtown count. Grant Park/Millennium Park and Harbor are within the 2-mile square. Why Philly claimed to have more People in their Census of Downtown then Chicago now.
Oh, yeah, it definitely makes sense for the tracts that include Lincoln Park and whatnot. Those have always irritated me.
I wonder what the density of Chicago would be if you were to get rid of the water/park areas along the lake from those tracts . Even down on the south side in South Shore, there are tracts with a density of under 10K per sq mile, but some of the block groups within those have density of 30k-50k per sq mile. Hyde Park has some of this going on too - as well as, of course, Near South Side where Museum Campus/Soldier Field and all that stuff is.
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.
