Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again don't compare super dense Paris in the middle of super dense part of Europe to Chicago in the middle of scarcely populated Midwest.
The Midwest has 67,000,000 people. More than France, the UK, AND the Northeast. You are entitled to your opinions Tard.......but not to your own facts.
The Midwest has 67,000,000 people. More than France, the UK, AND the Northeast. You are entitled to your opinions Tard.......but not to your own facts.
As of the 2010 census, the Northeast has over 55 million people living in it. 20% of the nation's population lives in a place that is 5% of the total area of the US.
You're proud of the fact that a region about twice as big as the Northeast has only about 12 million more people living in it why?
b
I don't disagree with that and I know there are denser parts in Brooklyn and QUeens. But 20,000k/sq mi and higher is not suburban as Tard suggests. The point I was making is that he was touting those numbers, yet there are similar numbers in Chicago, but when it's Chicago, it's suburban, but not for NYC. Tard was making a double standard.
True, though those posts were obviously hyperbole, taking them seriously is silly. Still, there's rather large gap between the just outside of downtown neighborhoods of Chicago and at least half of New York City. This density map makes it clear:
Much of Chicago lies at a density that's not all that common in NYC, it's typical of some of the outer boroughs, but most of the city is denser, and most of the suburbs are less dense. Interstingly, Chicago's dense areas (anything denser than the lightest color) take up almost the same amount of area as New York City, but those areas are much less dense than NYC's; it could be described as Boston levels of density continued for the same area as New York City. The subway seems to cover the denser areas of the North Side, but is hit or miss for the rest of the city.
Being used to NYC, it felt a bit odd that much of the city even near downtown appeared to built up at the same level of central or Queens when downtown was a bit roughly similar scale to NYC. And in fact those from the denser parts of NYC do call parts of Queens "suburban" since it's so different. Take a train ride from the suburbs of NYC to the center and you can watch the building density increase very quickly within a short distance. A similar ride in Chicago is more subtle.
But which is better?
Personal preference, obviously. But the long stretches of packed in buildings does create a unique urban experience compared to almost all of the US, by volume of people on the streets and just variety in a small place. And better transit service. For visiting, I finding NYC's style more interesting to explore. For living, high density can have downsides. Chicago looks leafier, perhaps a pleasant compromise between New York City and the rather low density smaller Midwestern cities, and New York City is noisy and just dirty.
As of the 2010 census, the Northeast has over 55 million people living in it. 20% of the nation's population lives in a place that is 5% of the total area of the US.
You're proud of the fact that a region about twice as big as the Northeast has only about 12 million more people living in it why?
Not proud of it...just pointing out that it is not, as the Tard said, sparsely populated.
And the reason the Midwest is less dense as a whole is largely due to the Dakotas, Nebraska and Kansas.
projects on right, the city's ugliest skyscraper on the left, rotate to the left to the rest of the downtown skyline and the Brooklyn Bridge. Furrther north, the East River is lined with project. Riverfront views! And storm surge from Sandy.
True, but it's still far less dense than the whole BosWash corridor, really. Look at NJ, for example. The entire state is maroon. We're the densest state in the country. I see more of a mix in the midwest, which then fades out dramatically the further west within the midwest you go, if that makes sense. On the other hand, the northeast coast is pretty solidly dense until you get to mid-Maine, even going in a bit west from the coast it's very packed. Overall, the midwest really isn't all that dense - it is in parts. Some states are denser than others, but considering its size relative to its population, density could be a lot higher. You really cannot compare density of the two regions. It's impressive and I bet a lot of people would be surprised to look at that map, but it's still nowhere near the Northeast's overall density.
Old Irving? Are you kidding me? LMAO. You really don't know how to make an argument. Old Irving is 8 miles from downtown. Yeah it's suburban, but it's nowhere near downtown.
Lincoln Park - 20,000/sq mi (and that includes the huge as park). Uhm that is not surburban to me.
Only 8 miles and that's not even half way toward the end of the city. C'mon. Lincoln park is mostly single family houses. What urban about that?
projects on right, the city's ugliest skyscraper on the left, rotate to the left to the rest of the downtown skyline and the Brooklyn Bridge. Furrther north, the East River is lined with project. Riverfront views! And storm surge from Sandy.
On a side note, I'll never get why they put projects right beside water in New York. Same with Red Hook, Brooklyn - those projects got destroyed by floodwaters during Sandy. What a stupid move on the city's part. The area of Coney Island isn't the best, either.
Lincoln Park - 20,000/sq mi
Lakeview - 30,000/sq mi
Uptown - 24,000/sq m
Edgewater - 33,000/sq mi
Roger's Park - 30,000/sq mi
Logan Square - 23,000/sq mi
Albany Park - 27,000/sq mi
Avondale - 20,000/sq mi
I can continue?
So you say outside of Chicago it's suburban, however those stats I have provided have shown that there are neighborhoods just as dense as Queens and Brooklyn. So are you saying Queens and Brooklyn are suburban? Becuase you said everything outside of downtown is suburban and those suburban neighborhoods you speak of have similar density to Brookyln and QUeens.
Continue what? Posting numbers for a handfull of neighborhoods and comparing them to entire Brooklyn that is roughly the size of entire Chicago? How about I quote some numbers for Brooklyn neighborhoods that would blow those Chicago numbers away?
Drive west or south from the loop and it becomes suburban sea of single family houses same as you would find in any Chicago suburb.
Seriously, it's such a flat out lie. Chicago only gets surburan around the edges. Actually the entire northside is very urban and dense.
Definitely not, not on NYC levels. As I said, you can go far out and queens and it is still denser with higher street activity than ANY neighborhood in Chicago.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
