These two cities can't really be compared justifiably. The very DNA of a Chicago and LA are fundamentally different. Chicago and the eastern cities were formed during the "horse and buggy" days. While LA and the western cities(w/ the exception of SF) were built and came to life mostly during the auto-centric revolution. But what is truly surprising to me is how LA hold s that kind of density for 50 miles flat. And I wasn't quite aware at how close LA's inner core was to Chicago's. LA is a potential density monster! It really has to work on its infrastructure NOW if any of us are going to want to live here in the next 25 years.yoyoniner said:Is this a joke?
Do you really think if you live 50 miles from New York City you are still in the city?
What you see in those numbers is that NYC blows LA out of the water, it's not even close really, UNTIL you drive 50 miles away from center city, in which you aren't even near the city anymore and are way out in the suburbs! So LA's far flung suburbs are more dense than New York City's, and NYC as a city is several times more dense than Los Angeles. That's the only way you can interpret those numbers.
Chicago is also a clearly denser city when you look at those numbers. Metro Chicago is more dense until you drive 30 freaking miles away from center city! And I can tell you with certainty that if you are 30 miles from center city, you are NOT in the city of Chicago any longer and you are in good ole suburbia.