Does Chicago have any areas with Manhattan type density?

[Northsider]

I wouldn't imagine it was too much higher than now...certainly not anywhere close to NYC's. While we have more highrises today obviously, we have less people/unit.

[ChicagoNight]

To Cbot, I feel I owe you props on that photo for using it on page 1. Nice job!

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by 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?

...we don't talk about that time.

The population and structural density of Manhattan is truly breathtaking. Really, I don't think there's anything in the world like it, with that stock of vintage high rises. Hong Kong is astounding but, save for a handful of icons, the architecture is pretty banal.

I'm very partial to the Chicago model but can certainly understand why someone would prefer New York. I'd like to think that when they, you know, add the Circle Line (...) and as they fill in the downtown surface lots, more people will realize that they, too, prefer this model. As it is now, whenever someone brings up New York and Chicago, those flaws are pretty glaring.

Still, I don't think the outer neighborhoods in Chicago get enough credit. Wicker Park is a pretty bustling place at all times, specifically the North-Damen-Milwaukee intersection. And Roger's Park down through Edgewater is quite built up, especially along Sheridan.

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by ChicagoNight

To Cbot, I feel I owe you props on that photo for using it on page 1. Nice job!

thanks, I was surprised to see that one here. Density is exactly what I was going for in that one.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by -Akira-

I wouldn't imagine it was too much higher than now...certainly not anywhere close to NYC's. While we have more highrises today obviously, we have less people/unit.

that's the key. families in general and children in particular are the falling demographic. Not just in Chicago, but NYC and other cities as well.

And while we're figuring out the density issue and we look at all those high rise condos that rise in Manhattan and along the Chicago lakeshore, do we ever stop to realize that a lot of those units go unoccupied much of the year, their residents being residents of no city but having homes in a number of locations?

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

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.

SOHO has a population density of over 60k, wicker park is 20K. River North / Streeterville density are close to 45k, areas in Manhattan such as UES or UWS are over 100k / sq. mi

[prelude91]

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.

Yeah, Those areas can be compared to Manhattan as far as built environment goes, but comparing those areas Densities to Manhattan? They are not even close.

Actually that is not why we are the "Second City"

[prelude91]

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.

Very well said...No city in the US can compare to NYC in Density.

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by prelude91

SOHO has a population density of over 60k, wicker park is 20K. River North / Streeterville density are close to 45k, areas in Manhattan such as UES or UWS are over 100k / sq. mi

Thats why I said a smaller scale. Chicago is about a 1/3 the size in population to NY so obviously the numbers will show as much. But I'm not really talking about population, moreso buildings and "feel" of urban density.

Is there anywhere else in the country that compares to density of NY and Chicago?

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

Thats why I said a smaller scale. Chicago is about a 1/3 the size in population to NY so obviously the numbers will show as much. But I'm not really talking about population, moreso buildings and "feel" of urban density.

Is there anywhere else in the country that compares to density of NY and Chicago?

San Francisco is the decptive third place city in this respect.

Before mentioning why, I'd like to share my view on major cities in the US:

in terms of "big city" and all that means, to me the west to east (most logical way to show it graphically) way of viewing the super cities is this:

Los Angeles Chicago New York

However, in terms of urbanization and density and city-as-a-core based magnet, my progression goes more like this:

San Francisco Chicago New York

San Francisco like no other city represents the core like magnitude and emerald city quality (with apologies to Seattle) that lies shimmering in the distance, drawing you to it and its magic.

Its downtown area is not only dense, but the density continues in areas around it, particularly to the west where block after block of midrise residential buidlings dominates the landscape. SF's core is high rise and dense and packs a whollop financially (Montgomery Street) and commercially (Union Square and environs) with BART and other forms of public transporation upholding their role unparalleled by any western city.

But SF is also a small city, a mere 3/4 million. And while downtown is dense and business and somewhat pleasure oriented, the real growth in downtown residency does not compare with New York or Chicago. High rise residential living plays a far less important (albeit growing) role in SF than it does in NY and Chgo. San Francisco, for all its density, has a certain LA quality about it in the sense that it spreads its pleasures across the city away from the core. Golden Gate Park hangs by the Pacific. The power structure that is Pacific Heights is well removed from downtown and the most tourist intense parts of the city hug the north waterfront well distanced from the downtown skyline. And ultimately SF is a city of homes in a way that Chicago or Manhattan are not.

So its a mixed bag for San Francisco. Its allure and core density certainly find parallels with New York and Chicago. But it lacks the real big city quality of either the eastern or midwestern metropolis.

[WesternburbsTony23]

My opinion and my opinion only:
Manhatten is an animal in itself. No place in the World comes close
Chicago has the best architecure in the world
Chicagoland(I know many hate suburbs) is one of the best laid out metros in the world. I know, I know the RTA problems, but find me the scale of metropolitan Chicago with as many downtowns using rail to get downtown. It is really something to be admired.
Compared to 99% of the other cities in the U.S. Chicago is extremely dense.

Last, but not least people must realize how incredible our city planners have done, our mayor, etc. We are a city of 2.8 million people and a metro around 9 and have a skyline that challenges cities twice or three times the size!!! It is really amazing when you think of it.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

Is there anywhere else in the country that compares to density of NY and Chicago?

Not to New York. San Fran is denser than Chicago. Boston is just about the same as Chicago, and LA is too

[prelude91]

I guess I just don't understand the idea of comparing Chicago's Density to Manhattan. Manhattan is the most densely populated area in the United States.
Manhattans "low rise" districts such as the Village, SoHo, Etc. are more dense than Chicago's Highest Density "High Rise" Districts.
Chicago can't even match the density of Brooklyn (over 30k/sq. mi), why are we trying to compare Chicago to Manhattan?

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by edsg25

And ultimately SF is a city of homes in a way that Chicago or Manhattan are not.

I dont understand this. Chicago not a city of homes? Most chicagoans dont live in a highrise.

[robituss]

^The thing is though, and edsg said it, SF and Boston are tons smaller in area and therefore population, so their density numbers is a bit decieving. Those cities, while having a dense core and peripheral areas, seem and feel way smaller than Chicago since here the density is carried over a much larger area. LA is way less dense than Chicago, I believe 7-8k/sq mile. So as far as a city carrying a relatively high density for a huge area, Chicago is next closest to NYC.

But LAs metro area of 12 million, remarkably, is denser than any metro in the US, including NYCs!

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by robituss

^The thing is though, and edsg said it, SF and Boston are tons smaller in area and therefore population, so their density numbers is a bit decieving. Those cities, while having a dense core and peripheral areas, seem and feel way smaller than Chicago since here the density is carried over a much larger area. LA is way less dense than Chicago, I believe 7-8k/sq mile. So as far as a city carrying a relatively high density for a huge area, Chicago is next closest to NYC.

But LAs metro area of 12 million, remarkably, is denser than any metro in the US, including NYCs!

that logic is inconsistant though:

LA is 8,205/sq mi and 498 sq mi.
Chicago is $12,470/sq mi and 234 sq mi.

So where as Chicago's 234 sq mi are more dense than LA's 498 sq mi, LA carries its density far more than Chicago does. Also keep in mind that LA has a mountain bisecting the city. Leave downtown Chicago and the density is not THAT impressive

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by 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?

1950 pop. 3,620,962 in 213 sq. mi. = 17,000 persons/sq. mi.
1960 pop. 3,550,404 in 224 sq. mi. = 15,850 persons/sq. mi.

[Northsider]

So where as Chicago's 234 sq mi are more dense than LA's 498 sq mi, LA carries its density far more than Chicago does.

What do you mean by that?

[robituss]

Originally Posted by prelude91

that logic is inconsistant though:

LA is 8,205/sq mi and 498 sq mi.
Chicago is $12,470/sq mi and 234 sq mi.

So where as Chicago's 234 sq mi are more dense than LA's 498 sq mi, LA carries its density far more than Chicago does. Also keep in mind that LA has a mountain bisecting the city. Leave downtown Chicago and the density is not THAT impressive

Well, I didnt realize the sq miles of LA was that much bigger. Still LA being twice the size, vs Chicagos being what like 5 or 6 times bigger than Boston or SF and having a slightly lower density; I still think the logic is somewhat consistent.

Either way, I will say that the north shore does have some of the densest hoods in the country. While nothing more impressive than manhattan, is still very impressive in comparison to almost anywhere else in the US.

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by prelude91

that logic is inconsistant though:

LA is 8,205/sq mi and 498 sq mi.
Chicago is $12,470/sq mi and 234 sq mi.

So where as Chicago's 234 sq mi are more dense than LA's 498 sq mi, LA carries its density far more than Chicago does. Also keep in mind that LA has a mountain bisecting the city. Leave downtown Chicago and the density is not THAT impressive

I was just in LA for a week, and LA has zero density. Everything is a 20 minute drive away. Mind you, I'm not talking about population. When I think of urban density LA is far, far down the list.

I think you're confusing sprawl with density.