Indianapolis has a population density of 2500 people per square mile. SF has about 19,000 in the same space. Seattle is about 10,000. Denver and Nashville are around 5k and 1.5k respectively, so you’re getting closer. LA is way back up about about 9k. You see why these things aren’t the same?
Chicago has the density, but its glory days are long past. Its just not able to compete with better placed city centers. Not with the state of rail.
So you’re not a real city unless a 500 sqft apartment is a luxury? Stupid take. Throw it on the pile of other stupid takes.
Edit: Also, I love how your defense of calling it tiny is “yeah, sure, it has a lot of people. But it also has a lot of land too, so… ergo… it’s tiny and irrelevant.”
Indianapolis has a population density of 2500 people per square mile. SF has about 19,000 in the same space. Seattle is about 10,000. Denver and Nashville are around 5k and 1.5k respectively, so you’re getting closer. LA is way back up about about 9k. You see why these things aren’t the same?
Chicago has the density, but its glory days are long past. Its just not able to compete with better placed city centers. Not with the state of rail.
So you’re not a real city unless a 500 sqft apartment is a luxury? Stupid take. Throw it on the pile of other stupid takes.
Edit: Also, I love how your defense of calling it tiny is “yeah, sure, it has a lot of people. But it also has a lot of land too, so… ergo… it’s tiny and irrelevant.”