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 thought everyone has always said Philadelphia historically always had the 2nd highest downtown population, and in the last 10 years or so Chicago was creeping up on it with it's explosion in housing downtown?
Where is this thread coming from? Where do those links even say it surpassed Chicago? Hadn't it always been ahead???
Chicago's downtown hasn't had any large residetial population since the 1920's. It's mostly offices that employ 550,000 people and then hotels and retail.
"Greater Center City" vs "The Loop, Near North side, Near South Side" seems pretty fair to me.
Except that by not including any of the Near West Side, you exclude the new financial district around the two commuter stations that account for about 75% of the commuter rail traffic into downtown, a big number of both new commercial and residential construction, all less than a mile from the eastern edge on the opposite side of the Loop - so in other words, not including that area is not just "unfair," it's illogical because it's clearly a part of Chicago's downtown and the only reason anyone would exclude it is if their goal was to marginalize Chicago's downtown. Is that your goal? (I know it is, because this is a Philly booster thread, I just want to hear you admit it).
I'll admit I haven't been to Philly, but I have nothing against it. My mother really loves Philly and always wanted me to at least visit it, I just haven't gotten around to it. But looking on the maps and StreetView, Rittenhouse Square neighborhood seems quite similar to the southwest part of the Gold Coast area of Chicago, especially between between Clark St, Chicago Ave, Michigan Avenue and just north of Division Street.
I can see where you could make that connection, though wold say a little different - love that area of Chicago though
I think if you took that area of the gold coast - compressed it a bit and put on the southern part of River North (taking out the river) it would be closer.
even the rowhouse streets feel different in Rittenhouse to me in comparison to Chicago - think a lot has to do with when the areas were built. Two of my personal favorite urban nabes in the country. Will be staying in that area (is it the Viagra Triangle I believe) this June for ASCO
As you can see, downtown Philadelphia is clearly more populated than downtown Chicago.
Yes, Chicago's number is at 131,000 in 2010, up from 80,000 in 1990.
Again - it's never been higher than Philly strictly downtown. Chicago has around 550,000 office workers downtown compared to Philly's 293,000. Chicago has always had downtown be much more of an employment and business center than any sort of center for living. That's only been happening recently.
Whoever created this thread got a little too excited, lol. Rolling my eyes about all the "wow, Chicago is really falling behind" posts. Taking one area the city is actually doing great at and spinning it around as if it's somehow a negative.
Except that by not including any of the Near West Side, you exclude the new financial district around the two commuter stations that account for about 75% of the commuter rail traffic into downtown, a big number of both new commercial and residential construction, all less than a mile from the eastern edge on the opposite side of the Loop - so in other words, not including that area is not just "unfair," it's illogical because it's clearly a part of Chicago's downtown and the only reason anyone would exclude it is if their goal was to marginalize Chicago's downtown. Is that your goal? (I know it is, because this is a Philly booster thread, I just want to hear you admit it).
Chicago to me has a much larger DT footprint. Much more commercial office, hotel, and retail. More high rise residential too. Not sure the residential is more compressed but the DT is most definitely bigger only surpassed by NYC in the US IMHO. Philly is more similar to a Boston or SF on the whole - with SF a little bigger then the other two which are close. DC also but i a different animal and hard to compare directly. LA too and Seattle close to the these next three also
On the West side the rail station is what a half block outside the loop but it does seem that area is developing. One area for me I think could improve i the development south of the Loop - a little less urbn on the Chicago standard IMHO
to Me the Chicago DT is probably a few blocks south of the Loop to a few blocks west of the Loop- Then North say along Wells (to the Lake) to lets say Division give or take but that would sort of be my definition of the broader Chicago DT based on my experience there
Chicago to me has a much larger DT footprint. Much more commercial office, hotel, and retail. More high rise residential too. Not sure the residential is more compressed but the DT is most definitely bigger only surpassed by NYC in the US IMHO. Philly is more similar to a Boston or SF on the whole - with SF a little bigger then the other two which are close. DC also but i a different animal and hard to compare directly. LA too and Seattle close to the these next three also
On the West side the rail station is what a half block outside the loop but it does seem that area is developing. One area for me I think could improve i the development south of the Loop - a little less urbn on the Chicago standard IMHO
to Me the Chicago DT is probably a few blocks south of the Loop to a few blocks west of the Loop- Then North say along Wells (to the Lake) to lets say Division give or take but that would sort of be my definition of the broader Chicago DT based on my experience there
Yeah, the community areas can get a little broad. For instance the west town community center wasn't included, but it's literally areas directly along the river and right outside the commuter stations - core downtown, have around 9,500 people. Areas of the near north side go up to North Ave, which isn't really the downtown core.
You can go through individual census tracts and pull out the population.
I just looked at an area south of Division Street, east of the river and north of McCormick Place as far as "downtown" and then included the closest-in tracts of west town, things just west of the river over to around Morgan Street or Racine. That's what most people would call "downtown".
The population increase there is extremely notable:
2000: 80,772
2010: 125,596
+55%
Another 16,000 residential units have come online downtown since 2010, which would signal around 23,000+ increase in population.
If you go back to 1990 and 1980 you would again see much much lower numbers for those areas. Really streeterville is the only area that had any establised residential areas with the highrises in that neighborhood.
No way Philadelphia just finally surpassed Chicago, unless Philly's downtown population is almost entirely new, which I believe it is not.
Yeah, the community areas can get a little broad. For instance the west town community center wasn't included, but it's literally areas directly along the river and right outside the commuter stations - core downtown, have around 9,500 people. Areas of the near north side go up to North Ave, which isn't really the downtown core.
You can go through individual census tracts and pull out the population.
I just looked at an area south of Division Street, east of the river and north of McCormick Place as far as "downtown" and then included the closest-in tracts of west town, things just west of the river over to around Morgan Street or Racine. That's what most people would call "downtown".
The population increase there is extremely notable:
2000: 80,772
2010: 125,596
+55%
If you go back to 1990 and 1980 you would again see much much lower numbers for those areas. Really streeterville is the only area that had any establised residential areas with the highrises in that neighborhood.
No way Philadelphia just finally surpassed Chicago, unless Philly's downtown population is almost entirely new, which I believe it is not.
it is growing but was historically strong to begin with relative to this comparison. I would not be surprised at all if Philly has more people closer to DT - but its DT is not as large - just more compressed with residential even with the Chicago adds. They have different vibes and like both very much
I have been spending time in Chicago since the early 90s and have seen a lot of growth. I have never been a hue fan of Streeterville (sans the lake frontage) as the development seems cold at times on the street. At least much of the new development in River North is better in this regard - sometime cold on the street but getting better all the time. Chicago has some great areas though both DT and extended
I can certainly see how someone would prefer DT Philly to DT Chicago. It has more of the tightly built, old world charm. But, I can't really see anyone visiting the two and coming away convinced that DT Philly is bigger. You can maybe gerrymander some geographic area that would give Philly a higher pop density than Chicago.
But, when it comes to what most people actually consider "downtown": big buildings, retail, taxis, street life, etc. I'm willing to bet 9 out of 10 neutral visitors would say DT Chicago feels bigger.
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,293,947 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
It's not going off feelings.
In most of the country "Downtown" means the Central Business District, which is an area with office towers, civic structures, sports stadiums, hotels, and a peppering of historic smaller scale buildings like midrises and old Victorian storefronts. Dedicated residential was almost totally expunged, except for a few buildings, in the mid 20th century, although in recent years it has come back in many CBDs in the form of conversions of older commercial buildings and residential towers. Downtowns are often ringed by highways which block off pedestrian connections to nearby neighborhoods. Even when these are lacking, typically a no-man's land of warehouses and parking lots separates it from the nearest intact ring of residential neighborhoods.
Philly, as I said, was quite different because there is no division between the "CBD" and the remainder of the city. Philadelphia used to have height restrictions similar to DC. Until 1968, there were only four buildings in the city which were over 400 feet tall.
The bottom line is, up until the last few decades, there was not a strong demand for office space in Downtown Philly compared to other metros. Therefore Center City remained to a significant degree a residential area - much more similar to the cores of many historic European cities than anything in the U.S. This is to Philly's credit - I wish America had more cities like Philadelphia. But still, due to unique historical circumstances, Philly had a huge headstart in terms of "downtown" residential population. Other cities cannot match this because they destroyed their downtown residential neighborhoods..
The bottom line is comparing Philly to Chicago is an apples to oranges comparison. Chicago couldn't build a neighborhood like Rittenhouse Square next to Downtown now even if it wanted to.
PHILLY INCLUDES RESIDENTIAL COLONIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND ROW HOME ONES AS PART OF DOWNTOWN. THEY DONT LOOK LIKE A DOWNTOWN? Chicago includes areas that TOTALLY LOOKS AND HAS FULL WARRANT. TO INCLUDE ITS NEAR NORTH AND NEAR EAST SIDE AND RIVER NORTH TO JUST THE LOOP OVER LAST 60 YEARS. THEY GREW AS PART OF IT.
What do you mean?? Chicago could not build ROW HOME AREAS DOWNTOWN IF IT WANTED TO??? IT DID. PICTURES PROVE IT⤵
...........Chicago built these ..... This just south of the Loop as the Near South. You see NEW ROW
............Deluxe Row Homes .... HOME AREAS and EMPTY AREAS IT CAN CONTINUE TO BUILD
.............Of River North .......... THE HIGH-RISES IN TOP 3rd PIC AND BOTTOM 1/2 4th PIC ARE NOT EVEN DOWNTOWN.
Haven't we known this for awhile? When the Census Bureau came out with the figures of populations 2 miles from city hall, Philly had more people then as well.
Chicago
2000: 133,426
2010: 181,714
Philadelphia
2000: 214,760
2010: 235,529
Chicago's downtown saw the largest increase both in terms of raw numbers and its general percentage of any "downtown" in the country, but, using the 2 mile radius, it remained smaller than NYC, SF, and Philly in terms of people, even if it is growing faster. https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/...c2010sr-01.pdf
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.
