Does Chicago have any areas with Manhattan type density?

[Northsider]

1. I don't know when this photo was taken, could be that the South Loop building boom had not started yet

2 (and more likely). Could be the angle. The photo looks like it was taken WELL north of the Loop...with the massive bulk of the Loop blocking the view of more southern skyscrapers.

[gllt13]

Originally Posted by Paddington

It's asymmetric how there's a gradual rise from the North side, with huge skyscrapers downtown, bookended by the massive Sears Tower, but then very little towards the South.

To add to what Akira said, the reason there appears to be relatively zero high skyscraper to the south in this picture is because it was taken from the northwest and you can not see the south shoreline because it curves off behind the Loop. You get this similar view when coming down the Kennedy, just a little closer up and the view is more focused on the loop and river north.

[DCT]

Sure, the loop is much like Midtown with respect to built density, but as soon as you move out of the loop you come across a lot of surface parking lots (north, south, and west). Once out of downtown, or away from the lake, the height scale really drops down to mostly 2-4 storey detached buildings.

I don't see the same amount of surface parking and vacant land in Manhattan. And where you don't see tall buildings (like in Greenwich Village or in the other boroughs ...Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx), New York is packed with these attached 5-6 storey tenements. Those really help to boost the population density.

Chicago doesn't really have the downtown neighborhoods that New York has either. I think the Gold Coast and maybe parts of Old Town are comparable to what you'd find in Manhattan.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by -Akira-

I feel you need some imagary ed.

imagary provided...but i hold you responsible for that smoggy, unrefined sky!

[Northsider]

lol

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by DCT

Chicago doesn't really have the downtown neighborhoods that New York has either. I think the Gold Coast and maybe parts of Old Town are comparable to what you'd find in Manhattan.

River North and Streeterville too, with the South Loop catching up. Wicker Park has a Manhattan feel, but not as much.

[i_am_hydrogen]

The Gold Coast and parts of Lincoln Park resemble the Upper West Side.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

River North and Streeterville too, with the South Loop catching up. Wicker Park has a Manhattan feel, but not as much.

I agree with Streeterville, and to an extent River North, but I dont see the Wicker Park/Manhattan comparison. All three of those areas are far less dense than Manhattan

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by prelude91

I agree with Streeterville, and to an extent River North, but I dont see the Wicker Park/Manhattan comparison. All three of those areas are far less dense than Manhattan

I wouldnt say far less dense. Have you been to River North / Streeterville recently? There doesnt seem to be a surface lot left. I think Wicker park has a SOHO feel to it, but on a smaller scale.

[TEN-A-KEY]

Do you guys see the area bound by Division on the north,Lasalle on the east,Kinzie on the south,and the river on the west being filled with densely packed highrises over the next 15-20 years or so?

[gymguy2k]

Certainly the Loop and River North, Streeterville, LSE, the Gold Coast and on up into Lincoln Park could give even seasoned urban enthusiasts comparisons to NYC/Manhattan. The real point is that nothing else in the entire USA comes as close. No other city. We are the "Second City" for just that reason.

[Northsider]

The real point is that nothing else in the entire USA comes as close. No other city. We are the "Second City" for just that reason.

Well said.

[gymguy2k]

Thank you -Akira-. Amen!

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by gymguy2k

Certainly the Loop and River North, Streeterville, LSE, the Gold Coast and on up into Lincoln Park could give even seasoned urban enthusiasts comparisons to NYC/Manhattan. The real point is that nothing else in the entire USA comes as close. No other city. We are the "Second City" for just that reason.

i wouldn't argue with your point here, but i do believe a lot of us Chicagoans are happy we are second to the type of density you see in New York. It certainly works for them and Manhattan and I can understand its allure; but personally I prefer how density plays out in Chicago.

I like the special type of juxtaposition between the super tall and the nicely scaled that Chicago so uniquely seems to generate. I would hold up the type of density that we have on the North Side of the city up to what any city can offer. I really do believe that we have found a way to package the complete urban experience in an area that offers human scale, greenery, beauty, and quality of life.

[edsg25]

if i may add to my own comment:

i don't look at how cities stack up on any type of continuim on issues of density, size, etc., to determine what they offer to the urban experience.

IMHO, I honestly find Chicago to be the urban model in the nation. I find that Chicago best combines the completeness of the urban experience in the best possible type of setting (which, of course, includes density).

no, i don't say this as city vs. city and certainly no knock on the greatness of New York. And nothing I say here falls in the realm of fact but opinon anyway. I merely find that we combine city (and metro) population here and execute it into an urban ideal. If I were to design and build a city from scratch, I would probably draw more from Chicago than any other.

[gymguy2k]

I agree with you too edsg25. I am happy with what we are. And we can stand up to any other world metropolis on our own. We are CHICAGO. We are broad-shouldered and muscular. And ourselves, no matter what anyone else thinks. There's only one CHICAGO.

[Northsider]

but i do believe a lot of us Chicagoans are happy we are second to the type of density you see in New York.

Indeed. I find Chicago's density to be the perfect mix.

[robituss]

As stated, Chicago is basically half as dense as NYC overall and manhattan is also like twice as dense as our densest areas in terms of population. I think Chicago is more comparable to san fran or boston, than NYC in terms of population density. No small feat either, both those cities have some very dense neighborhoods by american standards. Boston also has an entire neighborhood of 5-6 story tenements etc, its an older city and has that old school european density. SF is on a peninsula so the geographical constraints helped increase the density, much like manhattan.

For built environment though, the loop/mag mile area comes next closest to Midtown and downtown manhattan in north america. I actually think if you look at an arial, midtown looks to be roughly twice the size of the loop/mag mile combined areas, more or less but its hard to say. The loop is much bigger than lower manhattan alone though. But after chicago, no other city comes close in NA. Toronto, third in this department, looks much smaller than chicago in arials, and after TO, id venture to guess Vancouver, San Fran, Houston, Philly and LA follow. But theres clearly a giant step between 1 and 2, and 2 and 3. Chi and NYC are on their own levels in terms of big mountanous urban lanscape in North America.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by robituss

As stated, Chicago is basically half as dense as NYC overall and manhattan is also like twice as dense as our densest areas in terms of population. I think Chicago is more comparable to san fran or boston, than NYC in terms of population density. No small feat either, both those cities have some very dense neighborhoods by american standards. Boston also has an entire neighborhood of 5-6 story tenements etc, its an older city and has that old school european density. SF is on a peninsula so the geographical constraints helped increase the density, much like manhattan.

For built environment though, the loop/mag mile area comes next closest to Midtown and downtown manhattan in north america. I actually think if you look at an arial, midtown looks to be roughly twice the size of the loop/mag mile combined areas, more or less but its hard to say. The loop is much bigger than lower manhattan alone though. But after chicago, no other city comes close in NA. Toronto, third in this department, looks much smaller than chicago in arials, and after TO, id venture to guess Vancouver, San Fran, Houston, Philly and LA follow. But theres clearly a giant step between 1 and 2, and 2 and 3. Chi and NYC are on their own levels in terms of big mountanous urban lanscape in North America.

I think you and I are crushing the number differently on this one, rob. New York is fundamentally different from all US cities in the sense that Manhattan is treated with such centrality as a whole that neither the downtown or midtown business districts need to "acquire" additonal real estate or are linked with it.

In other words, Downtown Chicago started with the Loop and acquired areas north, south, west, and even east of it. It sucked the adjacent Gold Coast/Streeterville area, Rive North, the West Loop out past Greektown and the South Loop down to McCormick Place.

Midtown in Manhattan didn't do that. Where it stopped, it stopped and you would just hit another part of Manhattan's centralized core. Midtown, to me, pretty much is the heavily commercial and high rise district that starts at the south end of Central Park and runs approximately down to Hearld Square (although I think technically that area is Midtown South). It really doesn't extend past Times Sq on the West and peters out in the east before hitting the East River once you go past Lexington. Sure, areas like the Upper East Side relate to Midtown, but they aren't part of it. And I would think that downtown Chicago if including the whole core area or even the Loop/Mag Mile areas would exceed Midtown Manhattan in size if nowhere near the sq footage of its high rise structures.

[TEN-A-KEY]

What was Chicago's population density in the 50's and 60's when it's population was at it's highest?