Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This comparison is very reminiscent of the past "Philadelphia v. Chicago - Which is More Urban" thread, which created a conundrum of perception of the built environment.
Chicago is the prototypical "American" city -- based off of wide boulevards and a vast collection of skyscrapers, whereas Boston was built with strong European influences and strongly emphasizes its low-rise density and rowhomes.
Chicago would look more urban from afar and technically may be due to its plethora of high-rises, but Boston is very dense at the street level. I'd imagine if you controlled all residential buildings in both cities for the same median height, Boston would definitely win out for density.
Boston is only about 1/5 the physical size of Chicago though. If you go pound for pound and look at the core 48 square miles of Chicago from south of downtown up through the north side, you get 970,000 people. The city of Boston has 617,000 in that same amount of area.
To get Boston's population in Chicago, you would just take the areas south of downtown up through Edgewater and get 615,000 people in 27.5 square miles. That area also includes the entire financial district, the Mag Mile, and Lincoln Park, which is around 2 square miles itself.
Boston is only about 1/5 the physical size of Chicago though. If you go pound for pound and look at the core 48 square miles of Chicago from south of downtown up through the north side, you get 970,000 people. The city of Boston has 617,000 in that same amount of area.
To get Boston's population in Chicago, you would just take the areas south of downtown up through Edgewater and get 615,000 people in 27.5 square miles. That area also includes the entire financial district, the Mag Mile, and Lincoln Park, which is around 2 square miles itself.
That includes the airport among other things. Adding in places like Cambridge the number is closer to 860K in the core 48 sq miles based on some calculations from another thread; the city and dense part of Boston doesnt end at the borders on many fronts
Agreed...though for such a bustling city, Boston tends to go to sleep a little early.
Yeah it was a bummer trying to figure out how to get from Cambridge / Somerville back to Brighton after 1 AM. Especially the way the cabbies in Boston seem to find the longest way to any destination.
Wouldn't Boston be more urban in its core? I've never been to either but from what I've learned the streets are wider in Chicago and that's a big point in defining urban here.
Wouldn't Boston be more urban in its core? I've never been to either but from what I've learned the streets are wider in Chicago and that's a big point in defining urban here.
I think the biggest difference is that Boston is a whole lot of effin concrete. Whether you're driving from Logan through the Ted Williams Tunnel, or taking the Silver Line from the airport to South Station, there's just a lot of steel and concrete. Boston, imo, comes closest to NYC in the sense that it really has a very well-developed infrastructure (tunnel networks, bridges, public transit). And the tightly-packed neighborhoods like the North End give it a more urban feel as well.
But Chicago's really big, so I could see how one might say it's the more urban of the two based on its sheer size.
I think the biggest difference is that Boston is a whole lot of effin concrete. Whether you're driving from Logan through the Ted Williams Tunnel, or taking the Silver Line from the airport to South Station, there's just a lot of steel and concrete. Boston, imo, comes closest to NYC in the sense that it really has a very well-developed infrastructure (tunnel networks, bridges, public transit). And the tightly-packed neighborhoods like the North End give it a more urban feel as well.
But Chicago's really big, so I could see how one might say it's the more urban of the two based on its sheer size.
I don't know half of what you just said.
But that would be the other perspective, Chicago has sheer size on Boston.
I think the biggest difference is that Boston is a whole lot of effin concrete. Whether you're driving from Logan through the Ted Williams Tunnel, or taking the Silver Line from the airport to South Station, there's just a lot of steel and concrete. Boston, imo, comes closest to NYC in the sense that it really has a very well-developed infrastructure (tunnel networks, bridges, public transit). And the tightly-packed neighborhoods like the North End give it a more urban feel as well.
But Chicago's really big, so I could see how one might say it's the more urban of the two based on its sheer size.
Remember though Some cities like Chicago or Los Angeles don't really need Bridges/tunnels because there is no large body of water to cross (thats Bridgeable)
This one is a little interesting albeit limited voting in the polls. To me Boston and Philly are virtually identical on urbanity in many ways, maybe with Philly covering 50% more area with city like build. To that end in a Philly versus Chicago thread the numbers were 3 to 2 in favor of Chicago with seemingly a concensus that the larger footprint was the biggest difference.
I wonder how Boston and Philly would fare. CD is always interesting on these and sometimes A>B and B>C doesnt always mean A>C...
This one is a little interesting albeit limited voting in the polls. To me Boston and Philly are virtually identical on urbanity in many ways, maybe with Philly covering 50% more area with city like build. To that end in a Philly versus Chicago thread the numbers were 3 to 2 in favor of Chicago with seemingly a concensus that the larger footprint was the biggest difference.
I wonder how Boston and Philly would fare. CD is always interesting on these and sometimes A>B and B>C doesnt always mean A>C...
I am really familiar with Boston and only slightly familiar with Philadelphia (and what I know is limited to my one downtown experience and Philly posters here ) but I think they would be very comparable.
Philadelphia (I think) is grittier. It also has more rowhouses, while Boston has more of a mix of rowhouses, stand alone apartment buildings and Victorian style double decker duplexes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) but I think they would be very comparable. 
