Most people really don't pay attention to the core city anymore as the 'end all' but rather the metro area. When I think of "LA", I don't think of just LA proper but all the other stuff around it as well; Long Beach, OC, Pasadena, etc.

Keep in mind that Evanston is really more of a city neighborhood that successfully avoided annexation into Chicago back in the early 20th, than it is a post-war burb, as many people conventionally think of "suburbs".

In fact, if it existed within the framework of annexation-happy Houston, it likely wouldn't even be an independent municipality.

It has a population density of 10K ppsm and its downtown has been organically growing around its metra commuter rail stop for roughly 150 years now.






I didn't post that pic of the Edgewater skyline to demonstrate that Chicago isn't monocentric, I was just trying to show Jman that Chicago's lakefront skyline of residential highrises extends FAR past Lincoln Park. Lakeview, Uptown, and Edgewater all have noteworthy skylines along the lake too, far more noteworthy than Evanston's stubby little skyline anyway.

That lakefront string of highrises doesn't stop until you get up to Loyola U. in Rogers Park, about 9 miles north of the loop. Then there's a roughly 3 mile gap of not much in the way of highrises until you get up to downtown Evanston.

That’s because LA is a polycentric city ;)

I’ll stop. Soon.

I actually got my parks switched around, I was thinking Montrose Beach area which I've been to (and took photos) not the other one named after that nu-metal band.

In CA? The annexation process is ridiculous, so counties have a better chance at growing.

Interesting.

I would be interested by several figures.
The number of jobs in each city.

ohhhhhhhh, you were talking about the actual park named "lincoln park", not the neighborhood named "lincoln park".

sorry for my confusion. in chicago "lincoln park" defaults to the neighborhood 99 times out of 100.

the lakefront park the neighborhood takes its name from does indeed technically stretch MUCH further north, over 5.5 miles north to south from north avenue beach all the way up to hollywood beach.

but when you say "lincoln park" in chicago, most people will simply think you're talking about the neighborhood, not the park, unless you specify (ie. "it's over in lincoln park, the park, not the neighborhood")

That's a good point, it didn't dawn on me that the neighborhood is probably better known than the park which is the first thing I think of when I see 'Lincoln park' as well...since it's such a cool area.

^ yeah, it can be a bit confusing because LP - the park runs so much further north along the lake than LP - the neighborhood.

https://i.postimg.cc/d09kqh9j/LP-map.png

It’s not cool at all. But it’s a desirable neighbourhood for 20- and 30-something college grads.

^^ 20 something college grads can still afford Lincoln Park? That's news to me :haha:

While NY/Philly borders aren’t as geographically distinct as LA/SD, there is substantial spread between the two.

I technically live in central NJ and also lived in SoCal and can tell you going down to Philly seems almost just as much of a trek than say Irvine to San Diego.

Philly is a bit to far, distinct and large enough to be a secondary city in a CSA. Heck, I know quite a few people around Baltimore who would attest there should be no merging with DC(same with Providence and Boston). Fort Worth, St. Paul, Tacoma, Fort Lauderdale, San Jose feel more linked in that respect.

With the right job, yes. They’re not buying townhouses of course, but nowhere in Chicago is really that expensive.

particulalry when you factor in roommates.

after like a 10 second zillow search, i found a 3 bed/2bath 1,450 SF apartment in Lincoln Park currently for rent for $2,100/month (right near Jonquil Park and like 2 blocks from diversey brown line, so car-free would be totally doable)

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2...67934053_zpid/

split between 3 people that's only $700/month per man. i would think that most 20-something college grads in 2022 can swing that (especially without a car). you wouldn't even necessarily need a rockstar job.





yep.

the problem is that too many people equate the CSA definition with some kind of "city without municipal borders" measure, like a metro area or something, when that's not what the CSA really does. it measures economically intertwined "regions", not individual "cities".

DC and Baltimore will never be the same "city". yeah, they're very close to each other, and fairly economically intertwined these days, but there's too much history and critical mass gravity in each of them to ever be one single place.





st. paul, on the other hand, is fully merged with minneapolis, such that more than any other major twin city pair in the nation, they really do exist and function as one single "city" that happens to be divided into two separate municipalities, each with their own downtown. neither one stands wholly on its own, nor are either of them a suburb for the other one. in a de facto sense, it is a single city of 742K people spread across 106 sq. miles.


for starters, they directly abut each other, sharing a 6 mile long municipal border.

their populations and sizes are pretty close; minneapolis: 430K on 54 sq. miles vs. st. paul: 312K on 52 sq. miles.

they were both incorporated very close in time. minneapolis 1867 vs. st. paul 1854.

the two downtowns are only 8.5 miles apart, connected by an intra-city light rail line, not commuter rail or amtrak.

they split major league sports. MLB, NFL, & NBA are in minneapolis. NHL & MLS are in st. paul. (notice how all the major sports teams are named "minnesota", never one city over the other).

the main art museums and convention center are in minneapolis, the main science and history museums are in st. paul.

minneapolis has the flagship university of minnesota, whereas st. paul is the state capital.

and on and on.



they really do function more like one single city with two major downtown nodes than any other large US city pair that i can think of.

Wow, what a cream-worthy pic

Chicago's mass transit rail system is simply gargantuan, and a treasure. We really need to put that system into better & more optimized use. More population, more density.

D.C. and Baltimore are about the same distance from each other as Dallas and Fort Worth or Miami and Fort Lauderdale. Sure, D.C. and Baltimore have more distinct "orbits" than the others, but the grey area is humongous. They are twin cities.

Also, to clarify, I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that Philadelphia is a satellite of New York. Nobody is commuting from Glen Mills to Manhattan or Mineola to Philadelphia. But there's an ambiguous zone between NY and Philadelphia that is definitely bigger in population than the ambiguous area between L.A. and San Diego.

Topography matters here. As does the military base in the latter case. Development coverage (if not intensity) is maximized as it is between San Diego and Los Angeles.

I feel like Chicago needs something like the inter-borough express that is proposed in New York City to connected the heavy rail lines.
https://imgs.6sqft.com/wp-content/up...press-MTA.jpeg
https://www.6sqft.com/hochul-announc...ckson-heights/

some approximate downtown-to-downtown distances (as the crow flies) of commonly cited city pairs:


minneapolis -> st. paul: 9 miles (same MSA)

LA -> long beach: 20 miles (same MSA)

miami -> ft. lauderdale: 25 miles (same MSA)

seattle -> tacoma: 25 miles (same MSA)

dallas -> ft. worth: 31 miles (same MSA)

DC -> baltimore: 35 miles (same CSA)

boston -> providence: 41 miles (same CSA)

SF -> san jose: 42 miles (same CSA)



**** then a big gap ****



SF -> sacramento: 73 miles

austin -> san antonio: 73 miles

tampa -> orlando: 77 miles

NYC -> philly: 80 miles

chicago -> milwaukee: 81 miles

LA -> san diego: 112 miles

there have been various proposals over the years to do just that in chicago, but they've never gone anywhere due to costs.

circle line

mid-city transitway