Does Chicago have any areas with Manhattan type density?

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by 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?

its all relative. NY's population is 3 times that of Chicago, obviously it will have a higher population density. I'm pretty sure everyone understands that, we are just comparing relativley speaking. A bulit density is much more relevant here, or anywhere compared to NY.

A good visual example would help. I think Mr.D posted it before, it was a map of Chicago over a map of Manhattan.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

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.

No, I am not confusing sprawl with density. You are mistaken, LA does not have zero density. LA peak density is higher than Chicago peak density. Korea Town in LA has over 47k/sq. mi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koreato...es,_California

You sound kind of silly saying LA has zero density.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

its all relative. NY's population is 3 times that of Chicago, obviously it will have a higher population density. I'm pretty sure everyone understands that, we are just comparing relativley speaking. A bulit density is much more relevant here, or anywhere compared to NY.
.

The title of the thread is "Does Chicago have any areas with Manhattan type density".

Chicago does not have built up density like Manhattan either.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by prelude91

No, I am not confusing sprawl with density. You are mistaken, LA does not have zero density. LA peak density is higher than Chicago peak density. Korea Town in LA has over 47k/sq. mi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koreato...es,_California

You sound kind of silly saying LA has zero density.

You're grasping at straws.

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by prelude91

No, I am not confusing sprawl with density. You are mistaken, LA does not have zero density. LA peak density is higher than Chicago peak density. Korea Town in LA has over 47k/sq. mi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koreato...es,_California

You sound kind of silly saying LA has zero density.

I was obviously exaggerating, but I'd bet there are more highrises (condo/apt, not office) in Streeterville then there are in all of downtown LA. People do not live in highrises in LA like they do in NY and Chicago. LA is so spread out its insane.

Originally Posted by prelude91

Chicago does not have built up density like Manhattan either.

I would argue there are similar densities, the Loop and Streeterville are 2 examples. Again, on a smaller population scale.

[Logsy]

There are some interesting numbers regarding the NYC- Chicago comparison in terms of density, but I feel it it important to establish a proper context in which we use this data. Look at the comparison between Europe's two most prominent urban centers- Paris and London. Paris has the density more than 5 times greater than London, yet no one would use that fact alone to argue that Paris is more "urban" than London. That is because London offers comparable cultural, social and entertainment contents to the ones available in Paris.
Same thing applies here, it is a fact that NYC is twice as dense as Chicago, but I am not sure if that really indicates anything regarding the "urbanity" of these two cities. Don't get me wrong here, I acknowledge that a certain number of people is needed for any given area to make it seem urban and live, but I think that even Chicago is well above that threshold. Now it comes more to population developing (or being able to develop) certain urban habits, such as walking places, going to shops, museums, concerts, dining out regularly, etc. that kind of collective behavior makes a place truly feel lively and urban.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

I was obviously exaggerating, but I'd bet there are more highrises (condo/apt, not office) in Streeterville then there are in all of downtown LA.

Yeah, your probably right. Keep in mind though that High Rises do not necessarily mean higher population density (Greenwich Village being more dense than anywhere in Chicago with few highrises).

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

People do not live in highrises in LA like they do in NY and Chicago. LA is so spread out its insane.

Not that many people live in a high rise in Chicago either, Chicago is a city of Nieghborhoods, almost all of which do not have high rises.

Just because LA is "spread out" does not mean it is not dense.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by Logsy

There are some interesting numbers regarding the NYC- Chicago comparison in terms of density, but I feel it it important to establish a proper context in which we use this data. Look at the comparison between Europe's two most prominent urban centers- Paris and London. Paris has the density more than 5 times greater than London, yet no one would use that fact alone to argue that Paris is more "urban" than London. That is because London offers comparable cultural, social and entertainment contents to the ones available in Paris.
Same thing applies here, it is a fact that NYC is twice as dense as Chicago, but I am not sure if that really indicates anything regarding the "urbanity" of these two cities. Don't get me wrong here, I acknowledge that a certain number of people is needed for any given area to make it seem urban and live, but I think that even Chicago is well above that threshold. Now it comes more to population developing (or being able to develop) certain urban habits, such as walking places, going to shops, museums, concerts, dining out regularly, etc. that kind of collective behavior makes a place truly feel lively and urban.

I completely agree. I am in no way saying Chicago is not urban or anything of that nature. I love Chicago, if i didn't, I wouldn't live here. Its just silly to try and compare Chicago to Manhattan.

[robituss]

Ive said it before, but the basic thing is, and I think we all can agree, Chicago is simply more in a class with Boston and SF in terms of population density than NYC. That is still very high, and considering we are talking about a city much larger in square miles, Chicago is no slouch.

In terms of built environment, nowhere in NA appoaches NYC, but Chicago is clearly next. For that reason, I think the NYC-Chi comparisons come up a lot - since many from smaller cities dont see as much of a difference as someone familiar with both cities would. And as much as I love Chicago, I will say that outside of downtown, no where in Chicago is the density close to the level of most hoods of manhattan. Just isnt. This is not a bad thing though, Chicago has great density, and a beautiful lakeshore lined with tons of scrapers, and an excellent and vast downtown. Both cities grew differently.

As far as how 'urban' chicago is, well, thats another topic. Density to me is only one aspect of urbanity, which is not clearly defined by numbers and statistics, or through pictures. Density, on the other hand, is more quantifiable.

[robituss]

BTW, its funny but while to many in the states NYC is some gigantic city - which it is- but people in Sao Paulo, Shanghai, Tokyo, and even Hong Kong, probably think density and built-up comparisons with their city to NYC is silly as well. Just a thought.

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by robituss

In terms of built environment, nowhere in NA appoaches NYC, but Chicago is clearly next. For that reason, I think the NYC-Chi comparisons come up a lot - since many from smaller cities dont see as much of a difference as someone familiar with both cities would. And as much as I love Chicago, I will say that outside of downtown, no where in Chicago is the density close to the level of most hoods of manhattan. Just isnt.

Completely agree, however it must be kept in mind that Manhattan is an island, so there is nowhere to go but up.

As far as bulit up density, areas of Chicago are catching up and very comparable to areas of Manhattan.

[Logsy]

Originally Posted by robituss

BTW, its funny but while to many in the states NYC is some gigantic city - which it is- but people in Sao Paulo, Shanghai, Tokyo, and even Hong Kong, probably think density and built-up comparisons with their city to NYC is silly as well. Just a thought.

well, that's exactly correct. In my previous post I have an example of Paris- a city with a density of 2,5 times greater than the density of NYC. That density is accomplished mostly through "low rise buildings" as well

[bluto]

Kowloon's always worth a look when talking about density.

[cbotnyse]

damn.

[TEN-A-KEY]

what the hell

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by robituss

Ive said it before, but the basic thing is, and I think we all can agree, Chicago is simply more in a class with Boston and SF in terms of population density than NYC. That is still very high, and considering we are talking about a city much larger in square miles, Chicago is no slouch.

In terms of built environment, nowhere in NA appoaches NYC, but Chicago is clearly next. For that reason, I think the NYC-Chi comparisons come up a lot - since many from smaller cities dont see as much of a difference as someone familiar with both cities would. And as much as I love Chicago, I will say that outside of downtown, no where in Chicago is the density close to the level of most hoods of manhattan. Just isnt. This is not a bad thing though, Chicago has great density, and a beautiful lakeshore lined with tons of scrapers, and an excellent and vast downtown. Both cities grew differently.

As far as how 'urban' chicago is, well, thats another topic. Density to me is only one aspect of urbanity, which is not clearly defined by numbers and statistics, or through pictures. Density, on the other hand, is more quantifiable.

Very well put, and very much in agreement.

In this thread and in another that was (unfortunately though unsurprisingly) locked on SSP, I'm having a difficult time ascertaining urban boundaries: what area -- which part of the land -- is fair game for calculation and comparison?

Los Angeles is bisected by a mountain which increases the area of the city proper but decreases its density because of logistical difficulties for building there or whatever. Fine. By this logic, though, shouldn't you then subtract the area of Central Park from the total area of New York when calculating its density? Ditto Lincoln Park and beach front in Chicago?

Google Highland Park, Illinois, and take a look at the map. When calculating its population density, do we remove the ample golf courses and country club property from the equation? It is off limits to residential development, after all.

I guess what I'm saying is I don't know a better way to compare the population density of a city than by taking the population of the city proper and dividing by the land area of the city proper. If anyone does, and can present actual figures, that'd be awesome; otherwise, I'll stick with the basic formula, which places New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Philadelphia and Boston well ahead of Los Angeles in terms of the population density of the city proper.

[Northsider]

There was a thread a long time ago and someone posted Chicago's density in terms of land that has residential units. That canceled out all of Chicago's vacant land, which arguably occupies a large chunk of the city, as well as golf courses, forest, etc.

[Northsider]

Kowloon's Walled City.

[Northsider]

Kowloon's Walled City

[Phoenix10123]

Originally Posted by bluto

Kowloon's always worth a look when talking about density.

Um This Scares Me.... What is it?