Does Chicago have any areas with Manhattan type density?

[Logsy]

Originally Posted by prelude91

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

Prelude, I must admit that I don't know statistics of density in Chicago, but I believe that earlier you posted that neighborhoods in Chicago's "downtown" area such as Gold Coast, River North, Streeterville have density of 45k/sq. mi That's more than most of central parts of London, so in that respect I don't see that densest parts of London are any more dense than densest parts of Chicago. Even if they are, they are not nearly as dense as the central parts of Manhattan. Even so, the urban streetscape of central London can hardly be challenged by Manhattan.

You say that NYC- Chicago comparison doesn't stand because NYC is a "whole different beast" Do you think that NYC is a whole different beast based on discrepancy of density alone? Do you think that Paris as a city is a "different beast" than London, for this same reason?

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by Logsy

Prelude, I must admit that I don't know statistics of density in Chicago, but I believe that earlier you posted that neighborhoods in Chicago's "downtown" area such as Gold Coast, River North, Streeterville have density of 45k/sq. mi That's more than most of central parts of London, so in that respect I don't see that densest parts of London are any more dense than densest parts of Chicago.

Well the Gold coast, River North, Streeterville (collectively known as the Near North Side) is less than 3 sq miles (less than 2% of the entire city). Those areas of London that I listed are a total of 54 sq. miles. (about the size of Paris and twice the size of Manhattan)

Originally Posted by Logsy

Even if they are, they are not nearly as dense as the central parts of Manhattan. Even so, the urban streetscape of central London can hardly be challenged by Manhattan.

I fully agree. That is the point im trying to make. There are only a few places in the world that can match the urban streetscape of Manhattan, and in my opinion, Chicago is not one of them

Originally Posted by Logsy

You say that NYC- Chicago comparison doesn't stand because NYC is a "whole different beast" Do you think that NYC is a whole different beast based on discrepancy of density alone? Do you think that Paris as a city is a "different beast" than London, for this same reason?

Obviously not. Density is not the only factor that a city is measured by. Who cares if Chicago doesn't compare to Manhattan in density? Density alone does not make a city great

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by 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.

Now, c'mon, Tony, you can't complain about your stretch of suburbia. Think about it, man: you have a ROSATI'S!

thanks for a great post, tony...and for goodness sake, don't make this one your last!!!!

[Logsy]

Prelude,
Thank you for explanation. Just like you, I spent some time in NYC and even though I throughly enjoy the urban experience of living there, I was irked with the notion of NYC being the self proclaimed "center of the world". It is indisputable that Manhattan has a distinct and incredibly developed streetscape, but I do not think it's something that unique or unusual that sets it apart from any other city in the world (as some New Yorkers like to believe). I think that Chicago does not yet have the same level of urban development as Manhattan, but I do think Chicago is a legitimate contender, a city certainly in the same "league" as New York.

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by prelude91

I fully agree. That is the point im trying to make. There are only a few places in the world that can match the urban streetscape of Manhattan, and in my opinion, Chicago is not one of them

[robituss]

"center of the world" - thats funny to me, only locals there would think that i guess. In the most general of terms, NYC is the center of the east coast. While Chicago is the center of the midwest. LA and SF, have their respective centers of the west coast.

The differences between how each of these cities are percieved is in the same vein as the differences in how the entire coasts, and midwest are percieved as regions. The coasts are where its at, and the midwest is, well, flyover country to everyone else. Simply put, the inferiority complex associated with Chicago has as much to do with geographic region, as it does with size , amenities, density, skyscrapers, relative to NYC. Because lets be honest, if Chicago was somehow exactly the same but on the east coast it would have a much stronger rivalry with NYC, and rightfully so.

As far as Chicago-manhattan density comparisons, I think one can only compare the downtown-north lakeshore area to manhattan; instead of entire city of chicago vs manhattan. The latter is not fair anyways.

There was a thread a while ago, 26 densest sq miles of a US cities, to compare with manhattan. If I rememebr correctly, Chicago was found to be about 26,000/sq mile in its densest 26 sq miles, compared to manhattans ~62,000/sq mile. Thats it. San Fran and LA came second and third at around 20,000/sq mile, maybe slightly less i dont remember. So you can compare them, but its not close. Comparing NYC and Hong Kong, is even less close. Chicago and pittsburgh is also a less reasonable comparison. So density/size wise, perhaps its more like Seattle or Twin Cities:Chicago as Chicago:NYC (minus any building height or downtown building density comparison that everyone gets caught up with here).

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

Yeah, that is a great picture, but you think that area has the density of Manhattan?

[Northsider]

Originally Posted by prelude91

Yeah, that is a great picture, but you think that area has the density of Manhattan?

Visually, yes. Population-wise, no.

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by prelude91

Yeah, that is a great picture, but you think that area has the density of Manhattan?

Obviously not all of Manhattan, if thats what you're saying. But sure its comparable to some parts, equal in size. You cant really compare it population wise, because offices do not have populations.

[globill]

The density of the loop during weekdays surely would not be out of place anywhere in manhattan.

[globill]

according to Demographia, the density in the loop is 508,000 people per square mile.

http://www.demographia.com/db-chicbd.htm

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by globill

according to Demographia, the density in the loop is 508,000 people per square mile.

http://www.demographia.com/db-chicbd.htm

nice find, those numbers are from 1990 though, it must be much different now.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Uptown Manhattan alone is difficult to contend with (Midtown + Upper East Side):

[edsg25]

all i know is this:

if being a sidewalk superintendent is a spectator sport and my "season tickets" were to be located on the rising towers' 50 yard line during the next 5 to 10 years....there is not a city I'd rather have my seat that right smack in the middle of Chicago, Illinois.

Bar none.

The exhileration is incomparable.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by edsg25

Now, c'mon, Tony, you can't complain about your stretch of suburbia. Think about it, man: you have a ROSATI'S!

Rosati's has a downtown location now, at LaSalle and Illinois. I walked past it this evening.

[urban_addict]

Hey they used Chicago as "Gotham City" in the past two Batman movies so we must have 'some' comparable density to NYC/Manhattan aka Gotham City. I find it funny that some movies use Chicago in place of New York while a lot of movies use Toronto in place of Chicago!

[globill]

Originally Posted by prelude91

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

The lakefront in Chicago is comparable to these numbers

Belmont Cragin- 20k/sq mi
Avondale- 22k/sq mi
Albany Park- 30k/sq mi
Rogers Park- 35k/sq mi
Lincoln Park- 20k/sq mi
Near North Side- 49k/sq mi
Edgewater- 37k/sq mi
Uptown 20k/sq mi
Lake View 31k/sq mi
Soth Shore and Hyde Park 20k/sq mi

These numbers are for 2000. My guess is for most of these hoods, the density has increased since then.

Chicago proper has a much larger amount of land devoted to industrial purposes than London. Massive chunks of the South Side are more or less unpopulated. And of course, O'Hare doesn't have too many residents either. I'd say most Chicagoans actually live in districts with considerably higher densities than 12k/sq mi.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Rosati's has a downtown location now, at LaSalle and Illinois. I walked past it this evening.

is there a jake's near by? not sure about the city, but out here in the burbs, there is a law that requires that no more than 5.2 miles can separate a rosati's or jake's from each other...with a penalty of having scalding hot mozerella poured on your head if it is violated.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by robituss

"center of the world" - thats funny to me, only locals there would think that i guess.

if Dave Letterman ever ran a top ten link on "What Americans Think", New York being the "center of the world" would have to be well towards the top of the list. It's one of those statements that truely gives insight into how we think under the American bubble.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by globill

The lakefront in Chicago is comparable to these numbers

Belmont Cragin- 20k/sq mi
Avondale- 22k/sq mi
Albany Park- 30k/sq mi
Rogers Park- 35k/sq mi
Lincoln Park- 20k/sq mi
Near North Side- 49k/sq mi
Edgewater- 37k/sq mi
Uptown 20k/sq mi
Lake View 31k/sq mi
Soth Shore and Hyde Park 20k/sq mi

These numbers are for 2000. My guess is for most of these hoods, the density has increased since then.

Chicago proper has a much larger amount of land devoted to industrial purposes than London. Massive chunks of the South Side are more or less unpopulated. And of course, O'Hare doesn't have too many residents either. I'd say most Chicagoans actually live in districts with considerably higher densities than 12k/sq mi.

Yeah, Chicago Peak density can be compared to London peak density. However, the lake front hoods, are not even comparable to low density areas in Manhattan (which is the point of the thread)