Map Shows Chicago with World Population in Backyard

wow, some strangely irritated responses here. Remember that you're essentially overhearing a snippet of a conversation between me and Andrew and a couple of other folks.

As Andrew noted, I was aligning it with the pattern of the other six maps in the set, although I realized right after I shared it that it wouldn't have been hard to go north to Illinois. I was doing it as a throw-away, so I wasn't motivated to change it at that point.

Whether you found it interesting or pointless, have a nice day.

Actually I think the irritation had much more to do with the (lack of) context. The irritation with the map itself is minimal.

Joe, we Chicagoist commenters like to get irritated over stupid things.  It's how we kill the day :-)

It would be interesting to see the Chicago map juxtaposed with the L.A. and NYC map, just for the sake of comparison. 

Pointless

I suspect the choice of the Southeast is the result of the creators of the map just looking for a contiguous set of states that together comprise the requisite square mileage.

I find it difficult to believe that there wasn't a better set of states, closer to Chicago, that would work better. I also think a shaded blob of space, emanating from Chicago now would be more demonstrative of the point, but... whatever.

The write up explaining what this map actually is is poor.

Part of the problem is Chuck left out the context the map was created within. As I posted on Gapers Block, the map is in keeping with the style of other in the Per Square Mile project, which left out Chicago in its maps. It's meant to demonstrate how many states would be taken up by this theoretical city; it's not clear exactly why Per Square Mile opted to show them all emanating from the South, but this map keeps the convention.

That clears it up. Thanks.

Note to self, just look at Gaper's Block instead.

I don't understand why I'm the only one NOT confused by this map. Sure, I don't know why it has to be in the South and not the Midwest, but it's not a big deal.

All it's saying is that Chicago has a certain density (approx 11.8K/sq mi). If the entire world's population of about 6.7 billion people lived at a density of 11.8K/sq mi, then the land area of the states highlighted in purple at this map (about 583K sq mi) would be sufficient to contain the world's 6.7 billion people.

Am I missing something here?

this does make perfect sense, but i guess the description with the map kind of puts a more confusing twist on it, instead of just wording it the way you did :)

I think you must be the only one who clicked on the link, rather than relying on the Chicagoist write-up to explain the map.

The density part makes the map make sense.  I still don't know that I'm wowwed by the map, but at least I see what it's doing now.

@twocee, very fair point. I looked at the write up here and it is rather confusing.

No that sounds right.  I was confused by this article first, then a friend posted the NYC version (fits in Texas) and it made more sense.  I think if the article would have actually mentioned "population density" then it would have been easier to figure out.

And by 583 sq mi, I mean 583K sq mi, of course. Woops!

Thanks for clearing it up! Slow day in Chicago news, I guess.

And you thought Retro on Roscoe was crowded enough already! /tugs collar

What does Chicago have to do with any of this? It should be retitled: Map Shows World Population Concentrated in a Random Area of the World.

This makes absolutely zero sense.

is this land mass assuming chicago's density to fit into the gray land mass?  packed like sardines seems a little vague of a scale... 

So, is the purple part supposed to be Chicago? Why does transplanting the world's population to Chicago require that Chicago be moved to a Confederate state? And what kind of density are you talking her, anyway? Is this intended to show how much space the world's population would take up if it all lived in one spot, or just if it all stood in one spot? This really makes no sense.

Thank you!  I thought I was the only one not getting the point of this map.  

Wait, what? Shouldn't the shaded part be, you know, in the Midwest? Maybe centered around . . . Chicago? How is this different from the other speculative piece entitled "What if the Whole World Were in Atlanta" and its companion piece "What if the Whole World Were in Miami, New Orleans, Charlotte, Washington, Baltimore, Memphis, Paducah, or Columbia, SC"?

The point is that it's different from the other pieces because Chicago's density differs from the other cities. I think it's because people find it hard to conceptualize what a density of 11K/sq mi versus 5K/sq mi versus 20K/sq mi means, but when you put the whole world's population of 6.7 billion people at any of these densities, the amount of space required is surprisingly small. It's a way to visualize what that density "means".

Thanks. The density issue (apparently something other than "packed sardine tight") makes clear what the map was trying to accomplish.

Now I just think it is a terrible way to convey information, but that is the mapmaker's decision.