Does Chicago have any areas with Manhattan type density?

[Northsider]

Kowloon's Walled City
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City

[i_am_hydrogen]

It was the densest human habitation in the world. It's been torn down.

Here are some amazing photos of it:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=55357

[Northsider]

Absolutely insane! lol, great link.

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

It was the densest human habitation in the world. It's been torn down.

Here are some amazing photos of it:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=55357

Someone said it right in that thread, China's urban density is on another level.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by 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.

it may be your opinion and your opinion only...but it was VERY well stated, Tony.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by prelude91

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

sure they're there. in SF though, there are a number of areas within the city where large homes exist in percentages you wouldn't see in Chicago.

[edsg25]

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

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

i find there are numerous areas in the LA basin from downtown to the Pacific that are quite urban and dense in nature. And I think LA has more than admirably acquired urban traits in recent years. You are entitled to your opinion, cb, but there are a lot of us who fully accept LA as the major, urban center it is...and recognize that it contirbutes its own special and unique form of urban density.

LA, IMHO, is a city we should all take very seriously.

[Northsider]

Originally Posted by edsg25

LA, IMHO, is a city we should all take very seriously.

I have grown increasingly fond of LA as a major urban center that NYC and Chicago always were. LA is as urbanly (word?) unique as Chicago, S.F, NYC, Boston, etc is. Parts of LA still surprise me when I see them...they could easily pass off as areas of Chicago or NYC, sans the palm trees. I fully agree that LA is not a city to ignore in terms of urbanity.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by -Akira-

These photos are great, Akira. Thanks for posting them. This above picture freaks me out, though. How many lanes are there?

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by edsg25

i find there are numerous areas in the LA basin from downtown to the Pacific that are quite urban and dense in nature. And I think LA has more than admirably acquired urban traits in recent years. You are entitled to your opinion, cb, but there are a lot of us who fully accept LA as the major, urban center it is...and recognize that it contirbutes its own special and unique form of urban density.

LA, IMHO, is a city we should all take very seriously.

I think of LA as urban sprawl, not urban density. Also all of the beach towns along the coast (Hemosa, Venice, Santa Monica, etc) remind me of sleepy small towns, not urban centers. I did like the Hollywood/Beverly Hills areas, but everything is a 20 minute drive away. Just not density as I define it.

[edsg25]

On this whole Chicago-Manhattan and Chicago-New York density issue, I really take the approach that the two are different but there is no element of better/worse. I do not aspire for my city to be the densest city in America any more than I aspire for it to be the least dense.

While giving New York's its fair due in the departments of density, power, and sheer depth of attractions (and fully admit what a truly great and wonderful city it is), I just can't buy in to Chicago being the "lesser" anything. I like our density. I like our cultural attractions. I like our offerings in restuarant, entertainment, and sports. I know, for example, I could eat at a different ethnic restaurant every night and never exhaust the supply. I know if a city can possibly "accumulate" more than Chicago that accumulation is just a statistic issue that has little bearing on how people use the resources their cities offer. If one city were to have 525 Ethiopian restaurants and another 98, if I'm only going to try, at the most, two of them...who cares?

For me to accept the "ultimate density" that is often supported here, I'd have to wish for some Asian hell where high rises dominate the entire landscape and a 54th floor aprartment gives you a view of the 54th floor of the building next door.

Is there some kind of race that is going on that I don't know about? And, if so, did the charm and scale of Paris actually win it years ago but didn't bother to tell us skyward Americans about it? Am I allowed to appreciate and revel in San Francisco's incredible mix of urbanity and nature more than I do the man-made canyons of Manhattan? Or even to appreciate a city whose densest areas come ready made with parkland followed by beach, followed by the open and sparkling blue waters of one of the world's largest lakes? Since when is bigger better and if it is, does that line even exist that tells us we have gone too far in the density we create?

[Northsider]

The whole "NYC is bigger, better, denser, more populated, more more more" thing certainly has its appeal, and I like it to some extent. For me I'd never want to live on the 35th floor of some highrise in Streeterville, but obviously there is a demand for that kind of lifestyle. For the sake of argument, NYC is Chicago on steroids. Chicago has skyscrapers, NYC has a lot more of them. Chicago has a large CBD, NYC has a lot bigger one. Chicago has some subway lines, NYC has a lot more of them. Chicago has a nice central area park, NYC has a great bigger one. Chicago has some great ethnic neighborhoods, NYC has more of them. To some extent maybe this is where Chicago's perceived inferiority towards NYC comes from?...NYC is just a bigger, better Chicago? I don't know, I'm just throwing it out there.

For me to accept the "ultimate density" that is often supported here, I'd have to wish for some Asian hell where high rises dominate the entire landscape and a 54th floor aprartment gives you a view of the 54th floor of the building next door.

I don't think this is the point. I love for Chicago to become a little bit more dense...but that doesn't have to include building a forest of skyscrapers. Simple things like filling open lots, up zoning some areas, attached vs detached housing, etc. I really don't want Chicago to become a Sao Paulo or any other city with just a sea of mid/high-rises.

[WesternburbsTony23]

Good lord people, realize what you have, not what you don't have.
This will be my last comment on this issue, but Chicago is a tremendous city. The only thing I dislike about the city is the weather.

Now Edge makes good points about how many ethnic restaraunts does one need? Well I live way out in Suburbia now(Sugar Grove). Probably most people on here never heard of it. Anyways, behind my house I walk to a Jewel, Subway, Rosatis, dry cleaner, Gas Station, Chinese restaraunt, bank, etc.. And across the street the area is growing and there will be more. I walk everyday in way for out suburbia. I have more within a 1 mile radius than I did when I lived in Rogers Park in the city. Now with that said, I have to drive to Naperville, St. Charles, Geneva, Wheaton, etc. for fine dining, but for me it is good enough. Also it takes me only 45 minutes to get to downtown Chicago since I am right off 88, I actually hit no stop lights from my house to downtown.


Now with Chicago the city, again it is more dense then 99.9% of the cities in the world. It has the best architecure(IMO) in the world, and the most affordable highrises, best food and restaraunts.
Also it has some of the best downtown for suburbs(i.e. Evanston, Naperville, etc). Also I work in Geneva and I think many would be shocked if they come out to the Fox valley and see al the unique restaruants and shops in Geneva and St. Charles.

[urban_addict]

I like Chicago's scale a lot better than Manhattan's. Sometimes it is nice to see a change from supertalls to greystone walkups in a matter of a 5 minute cab ride. Manhattan's density to me can be overwhelming and filled with too many dark canyons.

[Northsider]

I think many would be shocked if they come out to the Fox valley and see al the unique restaruants and shops in Geneva and St. Charles.

While the suburbs certainly have good restaurants, I find them severely lacking when compared to one in Chicago neighborhoods. They really lack the atmosphere and authenticity. I'll go all the way to Chinatown for dim sum, or Devon for Indian food because the suburbs just don't deliver like they do in the city.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by WesternburbsTony23

Now with Chicago the city, again it is more dense then 99.9% of the cities in the world.

Actually 12K/Sq. Mi is not very dense when compared to cities outside the US

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by -Akira-

The whole "NYC is bigger, better, denser, more populated, more more more" thing certainly has its appeal, and I like it to some extent. For me I'd never want to live on the 35th floor of some highrise in Streeterville, but obviously there is a demand for that kind of lifestyle. For the sake of argument, NYC is Chicago on steroids. Chicago has skyscrapers, NYC has a lot more of them. Chicago has a large CBD, NYC has a lot bigger one. Chicago has some subway lines, NYC has a lot more of them. Chicago has a nice central area park, NYC has a great bigger one. Chicago has some great ethnic neighborhoods, NYC has more of them. To some extent maybe this is where Chicago's perceived inferiority towards NYC comes from?...NYC is just a bigger, better Chicago? I don't know, I'm just throwing it out there.

Great points. I lived in Manhattan for a little over a year, and from my experiences I just don't really see the NYC (Manhattan) / Chicago comparisons. Both Cities have tall buildings. Other than that, they are two different beasts.
There is just no way to compare density in Chicago to density in Manhattan. Density is not a relative measurment like someone else suggested. comparing Chicago to Manhattan in density is like comparing Pittsburgh to Chicago (that is not a knock against either city, just how I see it)

[Logsy]

Originally Posted by prelude91

Actually 12K/Sq. Mi is not very dense when compared to cities outside the US

I disagree with this statement. 12k/sq. mile is objectively speaking very dense. Many of the magnificent European centers have this level of density (or even less). London has a density of 12k.sq. mile yet manages to have arguably better and more sophisticated urban environment than NYC. Now I understand that there are places out there like Mumbai, Kolkata, Karachi, etc. but I don;t think that even the greatest advocates of density in the US would argue those levels of density as being desirable for any American city.

Paris has more than twice the density of NYC. If we accept your analogy that NYC is to Chicago what Chicago is to Pittsburgh, would you agree that Paris is to NYC what NYC is to Chicago?

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by Logsy

Paris has more than twice the density of NYC. If we accept your analogy that NYC is to Chicago what Chicago is to Pittsburgh, would you agree that Paris is to NYC what NYC is to Chicago?

Read my post, this is about Manhattan only, not the entire city of New York.

To answer your question though, I would not agree with that. New York City has 4x the population of Paris, Paris is only 50 sq. mi, which is smaller than Brooklyn.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by Logsy

I disagree with this statement. 12k/sq. mile is objectively speaking very dense. Many of the magnificent European centers have this level of density (or even less). London has a density of 12k.sq. mile yet manages to have arguably better and more sophisticated urban environment than NYC. Now I understand that there are places out there like Mumbai, Kolkata, Karachi, etc. but I don;t think that even the greatest advocates of density in the US would argue those levels of density as being desirable for any American city.

London has a density of 12k/sq mi over an area of 609 sq mi...Chicago has a density of 12k/sq mi over an area of 234 sq mi

Here is a list of the density of Some boroughs in London:

Kensington 38k/sq mi
Westminster 28k/sq mi
Hammersmith 27k/sq mi
Wandsworth 21k/sq mi
Lambeth 26k/sq mi
Southwark 24k/sq mi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London

Fact is London is much more dense than Chicago