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.
Queens is 110 sq miles, with a population over 2.2 million people. Chicago is 230 sq miles (I might be off a little), with a population of 2.8 million. Now, you tell me how "suburban" Queens is.
City nabes don't have to look like "downtowns". Sure there are pockets of Queens that are very residential. But every city has city neighborhoods that look like that.
There are tons of areas that are suburban in Queens. You don't need to compare it to a different city to prove a point.
There are tons of areas that are suburban in Queens. You don't need to compare it to a different city to prove a point.
"Tons"? Think about what you're saying, I don't think so. If that were true, they'd NEVER have 2.2 million people in Queens. My reference to Chicago is a great comparison to prove my point!
"Tons"? Think about what you're saying, I don't think so. If that were true, they'd NEVER have 2.2 million people in Queens. My reference to Chicago is a great comparison to prove my point!
Well, you have LA which is incredibly suburban, but also incredibly dense. You can have dense suburban blocks which is what LA and Queens have a lot of.
Well, you have LA which is incredibly suburban, but also incredibly dense. You can have dense suburban blocks which is what LA and Queens have a lot of.
Have you ever been to LA? LA's density is 8,000 per sq mile, Queens is 21,000 people per sq mile. Trying to compare Queens with LA?
Comparing Chicago to Queens isn't really fair..The far out parts of queens are very suburban in nature. If you're going to compare any part of NYC to Chicago, it would be Brooklyn, with Midtown as a skyline. L.A is very awkward though, its essentially a dense suburb. I live in a Suburb of Chicago that's around 7,000 people per square mile, but it feels nothing like L.A. You can't really match L.A with anything else because it either destroys the city you're comparing it to (Houston) or gets destroyed by the city you're comparing it to, Chicago or New York.
Anyway, some misconceptions of Chicago are:
1: Everyone's fat. This is not the case at all. In fact, most people you meet aren't stuffing their faces with sausage as they watch the Bears game. We also don't use "da" as a replacement for "the."
2. Everyone's depressed. Sure, some people are down on their luck, or just plain down, but most people are perfectly content with their lives.
3. Winter. The stereotypical image of Winter in Chicago is one of nonstop snow and bitter cold. Really its not that bad. I may just be used to it, but I'm pretty sure its only like 7 degrees colder here than in New York...suck it up.
4. The South side is an inhabitable ghetto. Most people don't realize that at one point, nearly all the wealthier residents of Chicago lived on its south side. This is still true today, but a lot of the south side is fairly safe. All of the crime is concentrated in certain areas, and bullets aren't flying by you at every intersection.
that's all I feel like explaining. I'm going to bed
Have you ever been to LA? LA's density is 8,000 per sq mile, Queens is 21,000 people per sq mile. Trying to compare Queens with LA?
You statement is laughable........
Yea, raised in LA and most of my family and many friends are still there scattered in the city itself and the suburbs. I don't think it's a laughable statement since a lot of the older suburbs within LA or adjacent to it, especially in the basin itself, consist of densely developed suburbs of much higher density than the city-wide 8000 per square mile. This is understandable given that there are several fairly rugged hills in LA as well as a mountain range running through the city--kind of harder to develop suburban lots on that, you know? Kind of takes down the stats a bit for density. If you actually live in the city for a while, you'll understand that LA in the areas where most people live is actually dense.
Comparing Chicago to Queens isn't really fair..The far out parts of queens are very suburban in nature. If you're going to compare any part of NYC to Chicago, it would be Brooklyn, with Midtown as a skyline. L.A is very awkward though, its essentially a dense suburb. I live in a Suburb of Chicago that's around 7,000 people per square mile, but it feels nothing like L.A. You can't really match L.A with anything else because it either destroys the city you're comparing it to (Houston) or gets destroyed by the city you're comparing it to, Chicago or New York.
Anyway, some misconceptions of Chicago are:
1: Everyone's fat. This is not the case at all. In fact, most people you meet aren't stuffing their faces with sausage as they watch the Bears game. We also don't use "da" as a replacement for "the."
2. Everyone's depressed. Sure, some people are down on their luck, or just plain down, but most people are perfectly content with their lives.
3. Winter. The stereotypical image of Winter in Chicago is one of nonstop snow and bitter cold. Really its not that bad. I may just be used to it, but I'm pretty sure its only like 7 degrees colder here than in New York...suck it up.
4. The South side is an inhabitable ghetto. Most people don't realize that at one point, nearly all the wealthier residents of Chicago lived on its south side. This is still true today, but a lot of the south side is fairly safe. All of the crime is concentrated in certain areas, and bullets aren't flying by you at every intersection.
that's all I feel like explaining. I'm going to bed
What are you talking about? Chicago density is less than 13,000 people per sq mile (12,674 or something close to that). Queens has a density of just about 21,000 people per sq mile. You trying to say that vast sections of the city of Chicago ain't residential like parts of Queens?
Think about what you're saying. Queens has a population close to 2.3 million people packed into 110 sq miles. Chicago has a population over 2.7 million packed into 227 sq miles. Are you trying to imply that Chicago is more urban than Queens? If so, you're wrong. Chicago has 117 more sq miles, which makes it more than twice the size as Queens in land mass, but only has a little over 400 thousand more people. Chicago would need a population of around 5.5 million for it to be as urban as Queens, especially when comparing density. Which let's face it, density = urban.
Take the Northside, nabes like West Ridge, Rogers Park etc, very residential with the exception of the main drags that run thru them with the business'es. A couple miles west of Lake Michigan and Chicago gets very residential looking.
1. A lot of people in Chicago are FAT! Take a trip to the east coast to see the difference. People in Chicago drive way more cause of the convience in Chicago to do so.
2. I agree. It's impossible to know what city is more depressed than another one.
3. Actually, Chicago is only 4 degrees colder during the day, and 5 degrees colder at night compared to NYC (Jan avg'ers) But nyc doesn't get the cold 'snaps' that Chicago gets, that's the difference.
4. The Southside feels so far detatched from downtown Chicago and everything the northside offers, I don't understand why people defend it. The dangerous hoods are so close to the safe ones, why risk it? Not every intersection, but enough of them!
Last edited by worldwanderer; 11-16-2009 at 01:06 AM..
Yea, raised in LA and most of my family and many friends are still there scattered in the city itself and the suburbs. I don't think it's a laughable statement since a lot of the older suburbs within LA or adjacent to it, especially in the basin itself, consist of densely developed suburbs of much higher density than the city-wide 8000 per square mile. This is understandable given that there are several fairly rugged hills in LA as well as a mountain range running through the city--kind of harder to develop suburban lots on that, you know? Kind of takes down the stats a bit for density. If you actually live in the city for a while, you'll understand that LA in the areas where most people live is actually dense.
But don't try and compare LA with Queens. You could say that if they didn't have the 2 airports located in Queens, or Shea (Citifield), the US Open tennis courts (can't remember the name ), those junk yards outside of Citifield, etc, that Queens would be denser. It is what it is.
They are VERY touchy when bring this up. They have a complex about it if you ask me. They want their big "new" homes, 2 car garages, chain restaurants and malls, yet they want to be considered "city slickers".
I really get a kick out of those people who refer to ATL as "The Mannhattan of the South". Those people are VERY dillusional to say the least.
Your absolutely right in a sense, since when is atlanta "the new york" of the south, its not by far.
What you say Houston, can be said about the entire sunbelt really. They are car dominent cities built around the automoblie. Unlike the older cities up north and on the West coast ( San Fran, Seattle, Portland) that were built up long before the automoblie.
They get offended, cause the term "suburbanite" isn't far from calling a city "suburbanish".
He has a point, with the advent of air condition many sunbelt cities are not designed to be pedestrian friendly, as its very hot and the only place you would want to be at times is inside your automobile, however this doesn't have to do with being built before the automobile per say, but rather air conditioning , of course air conditioning a couple of decades after the automobiles and hence the two are installed with eachother.
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.
"Tons"? Think about what you're saying, I don't think so. If that were true, they'd NEVER have 2.2 million people in Queens. My reference to Chicago is a great comparison to prove my point!
LA's density is 8,000 per sq mile, Queens is 21,000 people per sq mile. Trying to compare Queens with LA? 
