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.
Well, streetcars/trams are not automobiles. There were nearly 2M people in Chicago before an automobile was available.
That’s the point.
It’s worth noting, Chicago’s L began development in 1892.
The general idea is there was a middle step in urban development. There was pre-streetcar between streetcar and automobile and post automobile.
People pretend is post war-pre war but there is an 1880-1940 era that’s different from pre 1880. Like for example almost every 75,000+ mill town in New England or PA have more people in over 20,000 ppsm than any Midwest city not Chicago. Worcester has more people in 10,000+ precincts than Cincinnati, Cleveland, St Louis or Detroit
Chicago is in the middle. And that makes it present different than the cities that were pre-streetcar.
Like think Montreal v Toronto. Toronto has fantastic transit, but is built distinctly different from Montreal.
Chicago v Philly is similar
I don’t think anyone Is under the impression Chicago is Houston
Last edited by btownboss4; 06-17-2022 at 09:49 PM..
I probably don’t see it, because it’s factually not. Chicago is more dense at metro level than Philadelphia.
Also, a better and more widely available commuter system.
Metra and SEPTA Regional Rail are, in order, the fourth- and fifth-busiest regional rail systems in the country. (Nos. 1, 2 and 3 all serve the New York metropolitan region, and No. 2 — New Jersey Transit, the nation's most extensive regional rail system — also operates one line in the Philadelphia region and a second that combines with SEPTA's Trenton Line to form a regional-rail route between the two cities, with a transfer in Trenton.)
Metra operates further into Chicago's hinterlands than SEPTA RRD does into Philadelphia's, but SEPTA's station network is unusually dense. And the system (a) is fully electrified because (b) thanks to the Center City Commuter Connection (aka Commuter Tunnel), it is the only regional rail system in the United States to operate through rather than to the center of the core city.
More widely available, yes. Better, I'm not so sure. Philadelphians love to hate on SEPTA, but on the whole, it's not a bad system at all.
And if we can close a gap between Newark, Del., and Perryville, Md. — which is in Cecil County, which is part of the Philadelphia MSA — it will be possible to travel from Fredericksburg, Va., to New York entirely on regional commuter trains, with transfers at: Washington Union Station; either Perryville or Newark, depending on which system does the extending; 30th Street Station in Philadelphia; and Trenton. The trip can continue on to New Haven and New London (transfer at New Haven) with a short trip from Penn Station to Grand Central Terminal via subway or taxi.
I think one reason that some people here perceive Chicago as more sprawling than Philadelphia is because (like the LA Basin) it's surveyed on the grid and quite flat. And the grid is the Jeffersonian version, with township and range lines at one-mile intervals, with major streets at the township and range lines. Those streets tend to be wider than their Greater Philadelphia counterparts.
BTW, to the poster who distinguished between the freeways of Chicagoland and the expressways of the East Coast: The roads Northeast residents refer to as "expressways" are freeways, both by design and legally speaking. So are the superhighways called "parkways" in the New York region and New Jersey. An "expressway" is a fast highway without controlled access — highways of the kind New Jersey is laced with (US 46, US 130, NJ 4/38/70...).
Metra and SEPTA Regional Rail are, in order, the fourth- and fifth-busiest regional rail systems in the country. (Nos. 1, 2 and 3 all serve the New York metropolitan region, and No. 2 — New Jersey Transit, the nation's most extensive regional rail system — also operates one line in the Philadelphia region and a second that combines with SEPTA's Trenton Line to form a regional-rail route between the two cities, with a transfer in Trenton.)
Metra operates further into Chicago's hinterlands than SEPTA RRD does into Philadelphia's, but SEPTA's station network is unusually dense. And the system (a) is fully electrified because (b) thanks to the Center City Commuter Connection (aka Commuter Tunnel), it is the only regional rail system in the United States to operate through rather than to the center of the core city.
More widely available, yes. Better, I'm not so sure. Philadelphians love to hate on SEPTA, but on the whole, it's not a bad system at all.
And if we can close a gap between Newark, Del., and Perryville, Md. — which is in Cecil County, which is part of the Philadelphia MSA — it will be possible to travel from Fredericksburg, Va., to New York entirely on regional commuter trains, with transfers at: Washington Union Station; either Perryville or Newark, depending on which system does the extending; 30th Street Station in Philadelphia; and Trenton. The trip can continue on to New Haven and New London (transfer at New Haven) with a short trip from Penn Station to Grand Central Terminal via subway or taxi.
I think one reason that some people here perceive Chicago as more sprawling than Philadelphia is because (like the LA Basin) it's surveyed on the grid and quite flat. And the grid is the Jeffersonian version, with township and range lines at one-mile intervals, with major streets at the township and range lines. Those streets tend to be wider than their Greater Philadelphia counterparts.
BTW, to the poster who distinguished between the freeways of Chicagoland and the expressways of the East Coast: The roads Northeast residents refer to as "expressways" are freeways, both by design and legally speaking. So are the superhighways called "parkways" in the New York region and New Jersey. An "expressway" is a fast highway without controlled access — highways of the kind New Jersey is laced with (US 46, US 130, NJ 4/38/70...).
For what it’s worth, I don’t disagree. You could insert Boston, instead of Philadelphia, and everything I posted would be still be true (if not more so). This wasn’t meant to be an indictment on Philadelphia, in favor of Chicago.
The original point, before this devolved into something it wasn’t meant to be, I’d that Chicago was not developed to support the automobile. And the idea that it was, and it sprawls as a result, is ridiculous.
The point made around land availability being the main culprit, only continues a nonsensical argument, as any city during the time chicago developed - 19th century - had the land to support outward development. If a new city were being developed now? Sure, massive open land in the Midwest would allow for sprawl and development better than near a Northeast metro… But again, that has very little to do with what happened in Chicago centuries back.
The point made around land availability being the main culprit, only continues a nonsensical argument, as any city during the time chicago developed - 19th century - had the land to support outward development. If a new city were being developed now? Sure, massive open land in the Midwest would allow for sprawl and development better than near a Northeast metro… But again, that has very little to do with what happened in Chicago centuries back.
Agreed. Both Chicago and Philadelphia developed — and "sprawled" — on the backs of the railroads that served them. Philadelphia was home to the nation's biggest railroad for many years (and the one that collapsed in the most spectacular bankruptcy in US history up to that date), while Chicago's genius was that all the railroads that ran to it (including the Pennsylvania) ended there, meaning you had lots of interchanging of goods and people going on.
I think one reason that some people here perceive Chicago as more sprawling than Philadelphia is because (like the LA Basin) it's surveyed on the grid and quite flat. And the grid is the Jeffersonian version, with township and range lines at one-mile intervals, with major streets at the township and range lines. Those streets tend to be wider than their Greater Philadelphia counterparts.
In many cases, noticeably so. When Philadelphia's major artery coming from the western suburbs is only two lanes in each direction, that's pretty indicative of how much cars are historically more of an afterthought in the area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwj119
The point made around land availability being the main culprit, only continues a nonsensical argument, as any city during the time chicago developed - 19th century - had the land to support outward development. If a new city were being developed now? Sure, massive open land in the Midwest would allow for sprawl and development better than near a Northeast metro… But again, that has very little to do with what happened in Chicago centuries back.
I think you're neglecting the role of topography and land conservation practices that were MUCH more fundamental to the patterns of development in/around a city like Philadelphia.
In many cases, Greater Philadelphia's hillier sections are just not as conducive as developable land.
Combine that factor with a ton of pre-existing colonial era estates in the Philly area prior to major suburbanization that prevented a lot of uninterrupted development you see more commonly in the Midwest, and I think it contributes greatly to the perception of "sprawl" in an area like Chicagoland versus much more patchwork development patterns found in suburban Philadelphia.
In many cases, noticeably so. When Philadelphia's major artery coming from the western suburbs is only two lanes in each direction, that's pretty indicative of how much cars are historically more of an afterthought in the area.
I think you're neglecting the role of topography and land conservation practices that were MUCH more fundamental to the patterns of development in/around a city like Philadelphia.
In many cases, Greater Philadelphia's hillier sections are just not as conducive as developable land.
Combine that factor with a ton of pre-existing colonial era estates in the Philly area prior to major suburbanization that prevented a lot of uninterrupted development you see more commonly in the Midwest, and I think it contributes greatly to the perception of "sprawl" in an area like Chicagolamd versus much more patchwork development patterns found in suburban Philadelphia.
I think this is very contradictory, but again, is getting far away from the point.
The reason you don’t see the same level of continued density in cities like Boston and Philadelphia, is because of what you mentioned. If anything, the main line and metro west are sprawled.
A dense, gridded metro built around train lines, around one of North Americas largest cities, is not my definition of sprawl.
I think this is very contradictory, but again, is getting far away from the point.
The reason you don’t see the same level of continued density in cities like Boston and Philadelphia, is because of what you mentioned. If anything, the main line and metro west are sprawled.
A dense, gridded metro built around train lines, around one of North Americas largest cities, is not my definition of sprawl.
The thing about Boston or Philly sprawl is that it too is pre automobile.
Some of the sprawliest, most rural suburbs like Ipswich MA had about ~50% of its current population pre War (1940) well before it became metro Boston. Places like Hingham had 1/3rd. For context, Naperville had 1/25th. Wheaton, the county seat of Depuage county had 1/7th of its current population in 1940. Lake county grew by about 6x over its 1940 population.
Those Illinois places are largely both newer and denser.
I would be shocked if there is any town in the entirety of MA, PA, or NJ that had as much of rapid post war growth as Naperville, let alone a pretty big population center
The thing about Boston or Philly sprawl is that it too is pre automobile.
Some of the sprawliest, most rural suburbs like Ipswich MA had about ~50% of its current population pre War (1940) well before it became metro Boston. Places like Hingham had 1/3rd. For context, Naperville had 1/25th. Wheaton, the county seat of Depuage county had 1/7th of its current population in 1940. Lake county grew by about 6x over its 1940 population.
Those Illinois places are largely both newer and denser.
I would be shocked if there is any town in the entirety of MA, PA, or NJ that had as much of rapid post war growth as Naperville, let alone a pretty big population center
Your entire point is that chicago grew more, with more frequency. Sure. It also had a WAY larger population pre war, both city and suburb.
Your entire point is that chicago grew more, with more frequency. Sure. It also had a WAY larger population pre war, both city and suburb.
Again, Chicago really did both and has both.
I think Chicago is the largest urban center outside New York City and the city is overall more auto friendly than Philly is not really exclusive statements. Chicago has more post car and post streetcar growth than Philly. So it’s built different.
Chicago has more post car and post streetcar growth than Philly. So it’s built different.
It also has more pre car growth.
It’s a more substantial metro, with slightly more density. It was then, and is now.
I still do t understand how your associate Chicago with sprawl, unless you’re from Europe.
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.
