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.
If a job offering to someone with the same salary, I am guessing 90-95 percent of those after visiting both cities would chose Chicago if no family members in area.
Same with things like Boston, small city population, but if someone is wanting a walkable urban environment, do they chose Houston or Boston.
The stat nerds of city data(I am one of them) matter to .000000000001% of the real population.
Now if your talking about moving to a city for weather, say Chicago vs. Miami, Chicago has no chance nor should it.
If a job offering to someone with the same salary, I am guessing 90-95 percent of those after visiting both cities would chose Chicago if no family members in area.
...
As far as Downtown Density? Center City's population density is 30,000 ppsq.mi. If you can provide written information stating that downtown Chicagos density is greater I am all ears.
...
Basically the Loop without Grant Park, and the Near North Side both average over 30,000 ppsm. And both of those are increasing. I think a reasonable estimate for the Loop plus the sections of the Near North Community area called River North, the North Michigan Avenue corridor, Streeterville, and the Gold Coast right now is that together they average about 35,000 ppsm, but with added projects being constructed now that will hit 40,000 ppsm by 2020, and probably exceed 50,000 ppsm by 2030. The West Loop and the Near South Side are less than 30,000 ppsm right now, but both have huge plans for added population and it's well within the realm of possibility that the Near South Side will be over 30,000 ppsm no later than 2030, and possibly 40,000 ppsm by 2050, and the West Loop portion of the Near West Side won't be quite as dense, but will add a lot by then, too. All together, the portion of Chicago within 2 miles of City Hall could possibly hit a population of 300,000 by 2020, and almost certainly will hit 300,000 by 2030. That land area is about 9.5 square miles, so that would be average for the entire 9.5 square miles would be over 30,000 ppsm, with several square miles of that being in the range of 50,000 ppsm.
Near North Side has a population density of 31,511 ppsm. Near North is the community area immediately north of the Loop and most of it is usually included in any discussion of Chicago's "downtown" which includes River North, North Michigan Avenue, Streeterville, and the Gold Coast. The parts that are debatable as for being part of downtown are debatable because they're brownfield where Cabrini Green was demolished, or strip mall type environment near the very north edge, so they lower the average density anyway and without them the density would be higher for the remaining areas. With new construction currently underway, but 2020, the population density of the Near North Side should be in the range of 35,000, with the southern half of the area (River North and Streeterville) and NE portion (North Michigan Avenue and Gold Coast) having an average density approaching 50,000 ppsm.
The Loop community area, which includes the Financial District and Grant Park, so is mostly office space and has a 1/2 square mile park, has a population density of 21,265 ppsm. If you subtracted Grant Park, which is 319 acres or 0.4984 square miles, the population density of the remaining area (which includes smaller parks, too) rises to 30,919 ppsm. I don't normally advocate subtracting parks and such to calculate density because it opens up a can of worms, but Grant Park is a special case, more like Central Park - you don't include Central Park in the Upper West Side or Upper East Side density calculations, so you shouldn't include Grant Park in the Loop's density numbers.
The Near South Side community area, which stretches from the Loop south to basically the Stevenson expressway, has a LOT of vacant land, so it's the least-dense part of the Central Area. But it's also planning to add tens of thousands of people over the next decade or so just in two megaprojects for former rail yards, not to mention thousands of people just in two supertall buildings along Grant Park. As of 2015 it's population density was 12,800 ppsm. Now, if you wanted to cut off anything east of Lakeshore Drive because it's lake and massive park/Soldier Field area, you'd end up with a density of 16,478 ppsm, about half of the other parts. But again, within the next decade there will literally be about 10,000 new people added to the area, at least - possibly as many as 20,000. That'll push up the population densities of the Near South Side by 50 to 100%. Within 20 years, the density should be 25,000 ppsm even including the Lake and Soldier Field, or over 30,000 ppsm if you subtract those areas. And possibly you'd need to add another 5,000 ppsm to each of those figures because of the immense population growth going on right now. Like with the Loop, I wouldn't normally subtract parkland, but here it would also be like including Central Park in Upper East or Upper West Side density calculations.
Finally, a big chunk of the Near West Side community area, specifically the West Loop neigborhood, is included in the Chicago Central Area. Basically, the area of Roosevelt to Kinzie, the River to Ashland, which is about 2.25 square miles and the population of those tracts in 2015 was about 35,684, for density figure of about 15,860 ppsm. The West Loop in the Near West Side is a wild mix of warehousing, commercial buildings, residential, and railyards. The parts most heavily walked around in are significantly more dense than the average, but there's no fair way to edit them out so I won't touch that here. Based on construction, though, I would guess that population density will rise to at least 17,500 ppsm by 2020. Commercial density is high here, too, with Google having located their Chicago offices in this area, and McDonalds relocating their suburban campus to this neighborhood by 2020, too. It also has one of the most popular "restaurant rows" in Chicago, along Randolph Street. That adds a lot to the feeling of vibrancy to the area allowing it to "punch above its weight" as far as density is concerned.
^^^ Great thorough stats post.
These pictures clearly show why the trinity of Parks Grant/Millennium/Maggie Daley Parks as Chicago's front yard.
Are a decent chunk of a 2-mile radius from its City Hall and even Monroe Harbor in it.
Over most of Chicago's core (south Loop cut off) showing the Parks of Grant/Millennium/Maggie Daley
and Harbor in Chicago's ----> 2-mile radius from City and lakefront.
Agreed. I chose Philly over Chicago (job opportunities in both). Doesn't make one better than the other, but there are many reasons that one would choose one over the other.
Philly becoming a major player in the Bio / Life Science Industry also known for it's Eds and Meds sector . Philly had the largest % increase in B. degrees than any large city in the U.S. . As far as population growth in it's CBD , Philly had the largest millennial increase which gives Philly a more youthful and vibrant feel . Over 66% of Philly college grads desire to remain in Philly . Jll 2017 report on the Bio Tech puts Philly at 5th place up two places from last year over taking Seattle and DC .Philly Now a Top 5 City for Life Sciences, Study Says
If a job offering to someone with the same salary, I am guessing 90-95 percent of those after visiting both cities would chose Chicago if no family members in area.
Patently false. Location-wise, for many people, residing in the Northeast Corridor, as compared to the center of the Midwest, is objectively a much better choice for a multitude of reasons, including recreation, environment, weather and culture. There's some broader context to consider here outside of both cities' respective CBDs.
Patently false. Location-wise, for many people, residing in the Northeast Corridor, as compared to the center of the Midwest, is objectively a much better choice for a multitude of reasons, including recreation, environment, weather and culture. There's some broader context to consider here outside of both cities' respective CBDs.
Not false...a lot of people would choose Chicago over Philadelphia. I know a lot of people who could reside where they want...they are in the Midwest. The weather in the NE isn't that much better than in Chicago.
Not false...a lot of people would choose Chicago over Philadelphia. I know a lot of people who could reside where they want...they are in the Midwest. The weather in the NE isn't that much better than in Chicago.
That poster didn't say "a lot." He said "90-95 percent of those after visiting both cities would choose Chicago if no family members in the area."
The Lower Northeastern U.S. has milder winters than Chicago though the summers can be quite hot.
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.
