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.
But that could be the case for all of these cities...the thought of Chicago's CBD being twice as New York's is a bit preposterous.
I'm assuming at over 7 square miles, the NYC numbers are probably including a lot of residential/hotel/retail areas that snuck in there. Also not sure if they're talking Midtown or Downtown - or both. 7 square miles is actually a LOT when we're just talking about a city's core central business district. Chicago's would probably hold up fairly well in that sense though (although as you said - obviously it's not twice as much). Chicago's office highrises tend to be extremely tall, and the degree they're squashed into the loop area without residential or many hotels is unusual in nature.
Especially thinking that counting everything from 1200 South to 1200 North and the lake over towards Halsted in Chicago is around 3 square miles - less than half the NYC number - but a majority of that land area is anything but high density employment.
That would only be the central loop area, and then the corridor up North Michigan. Around 1.5 square miles combined. I'm sure you could find a core 1-3 square miles of office highrises in NYC that have upwards of 500,000 to 700,000 workers per square mile. Every mile of "downtown" they include that isn't specifically employment hubs really dumbs down the stats.
I agree, with would be delusional to say that Chicago's is twice that of New York City.
Midtown Manhatten alone is about 2.5x bigger than downtown Chicago, Lower Manhatten which is about 80% the size of downtown Chicago, so yes, New York City is much larger
Well I agree some are only partially related especially to this thread; but vibrancy is probably the most important criteria IMO as to where I would want to spend the most time; from that perspective to me hands down SF, Bos, and Philly after NYC and Chicago; then maybe Seattle and DC after that it gets pretty sparce
IMO if the core isn't where people, live, work, play, shop, eat - then all we have is a denser version of the burbs with faster elevators. But from 10 miles away they really do look shiney
Well I agree some are only partially related especially to this thread; but vibrancy is probably the most important criteria IMO as to where I would want to spend the most time; from that perspective to me hands down SF, Bos, and Philly after NYC and Chicago; then maybe Seattle and DC after that it gets pretty sparce
IMO if the core isn't where people, live, work, play, shop, eat - then all we have is a denser version of the burbs with faster elevators. But from 10 miles away they really do look shiney
OK, but this is about the Densest and Tallest CBD. Why can't people just stick to the Original topic and quit throwing in their own details.
Houston has both density and height.
Philly to a lesser extent has both.
SF and Boston only have density.
If you want to discuss vibrancy and urbanity; there are plenty of threads on here discussing the best or most vibrant downtowns. This isn't the thread for that.
The poll results just show how much people will skew facts and opinions just to knock a southern city down. SF should NOT have that many votes.
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.
