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.
Chicago is obviously bigger, but is Boston basically as urban just smaller?
NYC is unquestionably bigger and more urban than any other US city. But, with Chicago many argue that it competes with Philly, SF, and Boston in the second tier of US urbanism? All the cites are more or less equally as urban, with size being the only real difference. All are blown away by NY, but are more urban than anywhere else in the US.
Boston is very urban but not as urban overall as Chicago. With Boston the first 120 square miles are highly urban but after that the densities can fluctuate from the core 10,000 + PPSM to as low as 1,000-2,000 PPSM in some outer suburbs. In Chicago the core 300 SM are very urban and the suburbs maintain a higher average density than that of Boston, wouldn't say a lot higher but typically at least double.
All I say is reflective on the UA densities. Boston is one of the most urban cities/cores but one of the least dense UA's. Chicago is both an urban city/core and more urban UA. Only New York surpasses Chicago, LA and Chicago are the true "second tier".
All I say is reflective on the UA densities. Boston is one of the most urban cities/cores but one of the least dense UA's. Chicago is both an urban city/core and more urban UA. Only New York surpasses Chicago, LA and Chicago are the true "second tier".
Good points. I should clarify, when I say urbanism I mean the traditional city type--walkable, busy streets, dense buildings, and so forth. Not necessarily the density of the greater urban area.
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.
I think Boston is more urban than Chicago. Chicago is urban but more cosmopolitan and less gritty. At least the downtown area.
Overall I would think Chicago to be more gritty. Boston is old but maybe one of the cleaner cities in the country actually
On the whole kind of agree with Duderino. Chicago has a larger footprint of urbanity but both are highly urban overall, among the top 5 in the country IMHO
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.
