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 think the LA metro is denser ^... Chicago definitely gets more intense in its core though.
Where would you find that number? As far as the Chicago - it's population density is 12,561. Los Angeles has a population density of 8,174. I don't know where to find the metro density.
Well obviously the mass-transit claim was ridiculous. Chicago is probably the #2 mass-transit city in the country...
However there is truth to his density claim. At least there is in regards to metro/urban areas.
Chicago Urban Area: 8,711,000 in 2,122.8 sq miles (4,103.5 ppl/sq mi)
Los Angeles Urban Area: 11,789,487 in 1,667.9 sq miles (7,068.5 ppl/sq mi)
If we're talking about city-proper, there's no question about which city is denser.
Yeah, I realized the metro area/urban area density claim as true (see above); but New York's urban area is also significantly less dense than L.A (in fact it's closer to Chicago's than it is to L.A's). Is New York's density now laughable compared to L.A's?
Yeah, I realized the metro area/urban area density claim as true (see above); but New York's urban area is also significantly less dense than L.A (in fact it's closer to Chicago's than it is to L.A's). Is New York's density now laughable compared to L.A's?
Ha, I don't think anyone will be claiming New York's density is pathetic compared to Los Angeles. I don't think anyone should be claiming Chicago's is pathetic either, because it obviously isn't. For some reason Osito is hung up on bashing Chicago for absolutely no reason.
Dallas Miami and Atlanta, while important, do not have the WORLD WIDE importance and influence that the 4 we have all been saying have. They are regional centers in America at most
And you're a product of Chicago Public Schools, I presume?
They are consistently ranked worst in the nation, and you are proof-positive!
Yes, LA is obviously much more dense!
Agreed, totally agreed!
The massive Chicago roads, and the rickety, very lightly-used transit really contribute to Chicago's suburban feel.
In contrast, LA has a much more modern and heavily used bus and rail network.
Yes, the empty, rusting, falling-down L; so bad they close the Brown and Blue lines all the time! (BTW, "Mr. Chicago", it's L, not El, but you knew that, right? )
And yes, the "super rich", (on welfare I presume?) in the South and West Side ghettos!
I guess the "super rich" enjoy living in bullet-riddled housing projects, in some of the poorest census tracts in the nation? Tres chic!
Of course, no American city has more bombed-out ghettos, since no other city has lost more population!
Wow, you proved with this statement that you've NEVER been to Chicago!
"Massive" Chicago roads? Most Chicago streets are one lane in both directions! That's why the traffic is awful!
Very lightly used rail network? Give me a break! You fail to pull up statistics or respond to them when you are proven wrong.
And thanks for correcting me on my spelling. I am human and make mistakes often.
Now it's your turn to admit your mistakes with all the BS you've been spewing this whole time.
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.
)
