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 am really not seeing the difference in urban footprint that you are pointing out in the two maps. I am guessing you are referring to the fact that Chicago has a lot more skyscrapers in its downtown core. But, as everyone knows, skyscrapers are a very poor way to judge urbanity. For example, Paris and Madrid have very few skyscrapers and yet are among the most urban cities in the western world with some of the highest density and most developed infrastructure. In fact when you zoom out on the two maps you see that San Francisco appears to have denser and more consistent urban fabric around downtown with fewer abandoned/empty spaces, fewer (and smaller) industrial zones and a tighter grid. If you look at density charts -- or any other urban metrics -- there is a chasm separating NYC and every other city in the country. Chicago and SF/Philly/Boston -- not so much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4
Chicago is larger than San Francisco or Philly but those cities are much closer to Chicago than Chicago is to New York.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JosephMalin
^Agree. Manhattan (the whole island) is just jampacked with density not found anywhere else in this country. Even upper Manhattan has higher densities than most cities densest area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by personone
^This
Ditto'd!
Will point out that though it is the point of the topic, without NYC, and not just Manhattan but much of three of the outer boroughs, massively skewing the scale, Chicago does have a notably larger contiguous footprint of high density development than other cities. I believe SF spikes to a greater peak over a very small area while Los Angeles over a total but discontinuous area has about the same or more people in high density tracts, but the single largest contiguous high density blob without including NYC is Chicago by tens of percentage differences from the next ones. The thing is, NYC is anything from several times to an order of magnitude difference from Chicago.
I'll also point out that in the mid-20th century, Chicago, which has a similar land area to Madrid, also had a similar population size to Madrid today (and Madrid's population has remained where it is for the last several decades), so its population density was at one time about the same (though effectively higher for Madrid due to a particularly large green area though not immensely higher). Of course, like Madrid but perhaps more so, there was a substantial amount of variation in density among different parts of the city, but the overall was cllose. What differed in part was that Chicago had seen some really intense net population loss and with it came some parts of the city looking quite emptied out.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 06-09-2022 at 10:50 AM..
Will point out that though it is the point of the topic, without NYC, and not just Manhattan but much of three of the other boroughs, massively skewing the scale, Chicago does have a notably larger contiguous footprint of high density development than other cities.
Yeah, like other people have pointed out, it’s nothing like NYC, but that stretch of neighborhoods/sub neighborhoods from Rogers Park to the South Loop of just continuous 3-6 story apartment buildings and highrises doesn’t really have any parallels outside of NYC.
Location: Miami (prev. NY, Atlanta, SF, OC and San Diego)
7,409 posts, read 6,537,276 times
Reputation: 6671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gantz
Not just Manhattan.
Brooklyn has over 3 times the population density of Chicago, with roughly the same amount of people in both. Brooklyn has the density of inner Tokyo.
I just had a phenomenal visit to Williamsburg (Brooklyn)…enjoyed my stay there much more than a recent Manhattan visit or two.
Last edited by elchevere; 06-10-2022 at 04:36 PM..
I just had a phenomenal visit to Williamsburg (Brooklyn)…enjoyed my stay there much more than a recent Manhattan visit or two.
Williamsburg has been one of the higher-growth, infill-dense-development areas for Brooklyn, over the course of the last 15+ or so years.
I moved to NYC for my first time back in April 2001, and landed in Williamsburg--living in an old sewing factory loft. The area was pretty unknown to outsiders who visited NYC, and the area was a bit sketch, still.
Wow, how times truly do change! Flash forward 21 years and now Williamsburg vibrancy, excitement and options of bars/restaurants/entertainment venues is one of the best you can find for neighborhoods in the city. Rents are also on par with the West Village, Chelsea, Upper West Side and other Manhattan 'hoods.
But yeah, Williamsburg is still one of my favorite NYC neighborhoods.
I love the options, vibrancy and stuff going on. Glad you enjoyed the visit.
Apples and oranges. I will say that despite the issues it has with crime/QOL, I was pleasantly surprised by my very short visit to Downtown Chicago on Memorial Day 2021. It was bustling, streets were cleaner than I was expecting, riverwalk was nice. Wasn't impressed by Union Station area.
If the pols can get a grip on the issues there, I wouldn't mind residing near the lake.
Not just Manhattan.
Brooklyn has over 3 times the population density of Chicago, with roughly the same amount of people in both. Brooklyn has the density of inner Tokyo.
Good points.
People might forget that Brooklyn is NYC's most populous borough.
The 2020 census:
Brooklyn: 2.736 million
Queens: 2.405 million
Manhattan: 1.694 million
The Bronx: 1.472 million
Staten Island: 495k
Granted, the population probably dipped from 2020-21 due to COVID, but those numbers are still pretty close.
Not just Manhattan.
Brooklyn has over 3 times the population density of Chicago, with roughly the same amount of people in both. Brooklyn has the density of inner Tokyo.
Brooklyn is dense, but it's not that dense. Tokyo's Yamanote "loop" (Tokyo's equivalent of Manhattan) has day time populations the routinely exceed +3 million in the same geographic area as Manhattan
Brooklyn is dense, but it's not that dense. Tokyo's Yamanote "loop" (Tokyo's equivalent of Manhattan) has day time populations the routinely exceed +3 million in the same geographic area as Manhattan
I was talking about the inner 23 wards of Tokyo, effectively the Tokyo city, what people mean when they say "Tokyo". Comparing just the Yamanote loop (essentially CBD area for the whole Tokyo metro) to Brooklyn is apples and oranges. Manhattan would be a lot more comparable to Yamanote loop when it comes to function within the metro area.
Note: before a mod deletes my post again for "trolling", since I guess my claim is unbelievable even to mods, here are the actual stats:
inner 23 wards of Tokyo (effectively Tokyo city (old Edo), since officially Tokyo city doesn't exist):
Population: 9,375,104
Density: 39,000/sq mi
Brooklyn
Population: 2,736,074
Density: 38,634/sq mi
And just for reference, for the purposes of this thread:
Chicago
Population: 2,746,388
Density: 12,059.84/sq mi
Last edited by Gantz; 06-17-2022 at 01:45 PM..
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.
