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 don't think anyone actually responded to the question. In my opinion, though, I wouldn't put
Chicago as second for density/urbanity. I would put Boston, SF or Phila. as 2nd to NYC; then Chicago.
Have you been to Chicago? It's much more urban feeling than Boston, SF or Phila. Way more people walking around on the streets. Feels much bigger too. All great cities BTW.
Have you been to Chicago? It's much more urban feeling than Boston, SF or Phila. Way more people walking around on the streets. Feels much bigger too.
So you're going to argue with me about feelings? The super-density in neighborhoods like Beacon Hill, Back Bay, North End, Shawmut, South End, etc. make it feel much more urban to me than Chicago; same goes with South Philly, and SF as a whole.
So you're going to argue with me about feelings? The super-density in neighborhoods like Beacon Hill, Back Bay, North End, Shawmut, South End, etc. make it feel much more urban to me than Chicago; same goes with South Philly, and SF as a whole.
Hey we don't have to argue about anything but the fact is Chicago is a much larger city than all of those places. And yes, it feels much bigger too, as it should, because it actually is. Have you been?
These whole "2nd city, 3rd city, etc" nonsense needs to stop. It's like beating a dead horse and has no actual value outside these forums.
And LOL San Fran and Chicago are both VERY urban.. if anyone has visited both, you wouldn't state one is more so than the other. And Chicago has MUCH more urban grit and culture, probably due to the substantial African American and Hispanic population in comparison to SF. Chicago is nearly 1/3 white, 1/3 black, 1/3 hispanic... San Fran is mainly White and Asian.
So you're going to argue with me about feelings? The super-density in neighborhoods like Beacon Hill, Back Bay, North End, Shawmut, South End, etc. make it feel much more urban to me than Chicago; same goes with South Philly, and SF as a whole.
South Philly, for one, has nothing on much of the North Side. Chicago maintains density for much bigger distances than the cities you mentioned here.
What makes a city second, third, or fourth city in the U.S.? What are the criteria?
If it's strictly about population, it goes: 1.NYC 2.LA 3.Chicago 4.Houston.
If it's density then it goes: 1.Guttenberg 2.Union City 3.West New York 4.Hoboken (all in NJ).
It it's about CSAs it goes: 1.New York 2.LA 3.Chicago 4.Washington DC/Baltimore.
If it's by area, it goes: 1.Yacutat City 2. Sitka 3. Juneau 4. Anchorage (all in AK)
What makes a city second, third, or fourth city in the U.S.? What are the criteria?
If it's strictly about population, it goes: 1.NYC 2.LA 3.Chicago 4.Houston.
If it's density then it goes: 1.Guttenberg 2.Union City 3.West New York 4.Hoboken (all in NJ).
It it's about CSAs it goes: 1.New York 2.LA 3.Chicago 4.Washington DC/Baltimore.
If it's by area, it goes: 1.Yacutat City 2. Sitka 3. Juneau 4. Anchorage (all in AK)
If you go strictly by population, San Francisco is pretty far down on the list. It doesn't come close to either LA or Chicago.
Fascinating information on the origin of "Second City," by the way.
If it weren't for the powerful Nimby's in San Fran-nimby, it could easily overtake any number of competitors as well as population. It could be the Hong Kong of the U.S., very easily. And it still has that opportunity today.
If Chicago or NYC had the Nimby's San Fran-nimby has had over the years, it's something to meditate on.
Imagine NYC with a Parisian 7-story height limit from day one. The Empire State building would have been built in Brooklyn or the Bronx or Jersey City.
Manhattan would have looked like someone took a power saw and all the buildings would have been even. Trees would have then been the tallest structures.
If Chicagoans had tried to protect their lakefront with low-rise buildings, similar to the coastline of southern California, what a strange skyline Chicago would have had today.
I don't think anyone actually responded to the question. In my opinion, though, I wouldn't put
Chicago as second for density/urbanity. I would put Boston, SF or Phila. as 2nd to NYC; then Chicago.
Is this a serious post?
I don't think you have ever been to Chicago...Chicago is more dense all around than any of those cities you mentioned except for NYC ofcourse.
See pic for reference
And if you mean population density...lol yes there are more people in chicago than Boston/Philly and SF
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.
