San Francisco vs. Chicago vs. New York

[cheese plate]

Originally Posted by jpdivola

Given NYC's sheer size it will almost certainly have the most good food (and bad food) and cultural activities. QOL is subjective.

But, I do think three are all good choices and the 3 top "big city" options. Chi and SF are closer to Bos, Philly, DC than NYC. But, I think SF/CHI are still solidly above them when it comes to urban amenities (food/shopping, nightlife) and vibrancy.

Nailed it. Only one person disagrees.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by jpdivola

Given NYC's sheer size it will almost certainly have the most good food (and bad food) and cultural activities. QOL is subjective.

But, I do think three are all good choices and the 3 top "big city" options. Chi and SF are closer to Bos, Philly, DC than NYC. But, I think SF/CHI are still solidly above them when it comes to urban amenities (food/shopping, nightlife) and vibrancy.

I agree with this. Though the following is a bit more complicated:

Chi is America's other grand urban city. Much smaller and less dense than NYC, but still on an urban scale unrivaled by any other city. Still very cosmopolitan, but not as a glamorous as the coastal cities. The city isn't as tightly packed as NYC or even SF, so living isn't as crowded and the cost of living is much lower.

On the surface, yeah SF appears denser because of the architecture and there's a lot of people with that. It's a dense city, no doubt about it. Little do people know that there's an area on the north and part of northwest side of Chicago that is continuous in geography, almost the same physical size as SF that's actually denser (has 100,000 or 200,000 more people living in it).

If you look at the number of people living in census block groups of 100,000 people per sq mile density or more, SF has 31,497 people living in those areas while Chicago has 31,011. More detailed and expanded and yes I'm aware this is different than building density which is higher in SF.

100,000 people/sq mi or more
SF: 31,497
Chicago: 31,011

90,000 people/sq mi or more
Chicago: 37,382
SF: 31,497

80,000 people/sq mi or more
Chicago: 54,914
SF: 39,748

70,000 people/sq mi or more
Chicago: 72,246
SF: 50,204

[jpdivola]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I agree with this. Though the following is a bit more complicated:



On the surface, yeah SF appears denser because of the architecture and there's a lot of people with that. It's a dense city, no doubt about it. Little do people know that there's an area on the north and part of northwest side of Chicago that is continuous in geography, almost the same physical size as SF that's actually denser (has 100,000 or 200,000 more people living in it).

Fair point about Chicago having greater aggregate density across a contiguous area. I was talking tightly packed in the SF core neighborhoods (say east of Golden Gate Park and north of 24th street). This area feels more consistently built with tighter structural density. Almost no yards, just a solid mass of low/mid rise buildings built right to the street. Chicago on the had, seems a little more open. It packs tons of density into lakefront high rises. But, when you go away from the lake, area like Lincoln Park west of Clark or Wicker Park seem less urban/densely built than say Hayes Valley or the Mission. Lots of small yards, more strip malls, etc. In practice they probably even out with measured density, but SF feels more consistently built (if that makes sense). Additionally, the broader downtown core has lots of parking lots on it's edges and is cut off from the adjuring residential neighborhoods by freeways, train tracks, etc.. Whereas San Francisco's downtown more effortlessly bleeds into dense mid-rise districts.

Personally, I think long term this is Chicago's great advantage over SF. SF is close to build out and it seems SOMA is the only area left where it is feasible to build tall. Chicago has tons of central areas left to add new housing (West Loop, South Loop, River West, Near North Side West of Clark, rebuild Taylor Street Area, tons of single story commercial and strip malls in Lincoln Park/Lakeview, SHFs can be redeveloped into multifamily.)

Chicago has the grand scale to add tons more housing, SF by contract is a tightly packed and straining to add more housing/height.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by jpdivola

Fair point about Chicago having greater aggregate density across a contiguous area. I was talking tightly packed in the SF core neighborhoods (say east of Golden Gate Park and north of 24th street). This area feels more consistently built with tighter structural density. Almost no yards, just a solid mass of low/mid rise buildings built right to the street. Chicago on the had, seems a little more open. It packs tons of density into lakefront high rises. But, when you go away from the lake, area like Lincoln Park west of Clark or Wicker Park seem less urban/densely built than say Hayes Valley or the Mission. Lots of small yards, more strip malls, etc. In practice they probably even out with measured density, but SF feels more consistently built (if that makes sense). Additionally, the broader downtown core has lots of parking lots on it's edges and is cut off from the adjuring residential neighborhoods by freeways, train tracks, etc.. Whereas San Francisco's downtown more effortlessly bleeds into dense mid-rise districts.

Personally, I think long term this is Chicago's great advantage over SF. SF is close to build out and it seems SOMA is the only area left where it is feasible to build tall. Chicago has tons of central areas left to add new housing (West Loop, South Loop, River West, Near North Side West of Clark, rebuild Taylor Street Area, tons of single story commercial and strip malls in Lincoln Park/Lakeview, SHFs can be redeveloped into multifamily.)

Chicago has the grand scale to add tons more housing, SF by contract is a tightly packed and straining to add more housing/height.

I think SF feels denser (if you aren't counting Chicago's lakefront) because of the building density. However, Chicago on the north side (and some on the west and south) is still dense outside of the high rise areas, but because the buildings aren't as close together as SF on the surface it doesn't look like it. Albany Park for example really has no high rises and is still 27,000 people/sq mile for over 50,000 people. A lot of areas in the more popular neighborhoods will average 25,000 people/sq mi to 40,000 people/sq mi and sometimes more (like this area in Albany Park: Census Block Group 140602-1 in Cook County, Illinois). Not all the lakefront areas are completely high rise either. Once you go north of Division Street, you run into a mix of both low rise and high rise. My ex girlfriend lived on Addison St in Lakeview a half block from the lake in a low rise building, next to many other low rise buildings, but also next to a few high rises. The only places where it's not a mix is in areas like Streeterville and the Loop. Once you get away from that, the high rises are usually only one building, two at most, deep along the lakefront.

It's true though - I think Chicago has more room to build it up and it has been. A lot more coming to areas like River North, Wicker Park, Logan Square, Ukrainian Village, etc. The old cabrini green in the last month or so has started to pick up with its building permits for some nicely sized (medium) things on currently vacant land. In the end, building density has more of a chance of making an impact because these things are constant. When it's cold out in Chicago, things dont' appear as dense as they are because not as many people are walking on the streets as summer. In the end, you can't fault it for having so many high rises. If you do, then you have to fault a good percentage of NYC.

So I totally agree that SF appears more dense, but when you're talking about population density, it's more equal in some areas than people may think. That's all

[stillstuntin2]

Chicago wins this hands down