Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician
Most people who grew up out west just don't understand why eastern cities are the way they are.
Cities like Chicago started at their core and were built up densely for well over a century until the car took over, and almost overnight some very low density suburbs were built. That explains why there is a stark difference.
Most California cities saw a majority of their growth after car ownership was already prevalent, so it's obvious that their towns and cities tend to be more spread out as far as density goes--you just won't see the contrast between city and burbs like you will with older cities; San Francisco being the major exception.
Another thing that makes Chicago's burbs seem artificially less dense than places in California is the fact that the region is geographically flat.
So if I'm in the Bay Area driving on the expressways, for example, I see hills all around me with houses on them. To me, then, it visually seems like there are more homes around me.
Take the same drive along Chicagoland's expressways and you are surrounded by flatlands. Some of that is Forest Preserve Land (hence disallowed from private development), and the rest is low density suburbia that you probably just can't see because these neighborhoods aren't up on hills like they are in many of California's bigger metros.
|
I can see this. But I'm from Northern Virigina, which builds it's denser development near the freeways. So when I moved to Chicago, I didn't see the same development patterns. As you said, alot of forest preserves near the expressways.
LA is somewhere in the middle. It's not like Northern Virigina either. LA built around it's boulevards.