Greater Boston vs. Chicagoland (largest, Los Angeles, people, cons)
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 is what I would vote in all categories with the one change being waterfront. I would argue that in the city proper, Chicago wins. I think Chicago's waterfront (River and Lake) are more accessible and more scenic than the waterfront in Boston. I've always enjoyed it more. But outside of the city, I think Boston wins by a good margin. Metro Boston has chalk full of great beaches from oceanfronts with surfable waves to family beaches in harbors and inlets. I think there's far more recreational opportunities in Metro Boston's coast as well - from deep sea fishing and whale watching to rowing, and stand up paddleboarding the harbors, bays, rivers and streams that are protected from the ocean. I think the Lakefront in Chicagoland is great - wildly underrated. However, I would take the Boston area's waterfront any day.
I would also argue that the overall geographic location is debatable and I'd lean toward Boston personally. I think Chicago wins in a couple of categories, but mostly with respect to air travel. Chicago is an EASY flight from almost anywhere in the country because it's so centrally located. That's why ORD is the hub that it is. This means that flight times and prices from Chicago to pretty much anywhere in the world are better than what you'll get out of BOS.
That said, I like that depending on the winds, Boston to Dublin or London is the same flight time (or less than) Boston to San Francisco. Pretty cool to be able to comfortably do a long weekend in Europe. Especially with all of the Low Cost Carriers coming out now. I did a weekend in London a few months ago for $300 round trip. That's awesome.
Boston also wins for proximity to New York and the rest of the Bos-Wash megalopolis. Chicago doesn't have the same quality of city within 6-7 hours driving that Boston does (especially when you add Montreal to the list). Seriously, you can drive to Washington, Philadelphia, New York, and Montreal in that time. Boston also has greater weekend getaways nearby. I've already hit on the cities, but you have the White Mountains, Cape Cod, the Maine coast, Green Mountains and Vermont, the Hamptons, The Adirondacks, Poconos, etc. Not to mention the amazing small and mid-size cities in between like Newport RI, Portland ME, Burlington VT, Providence RI, Portsmouth NH, etc. There is much more to see/do outside of the city center in Boston than in Chicagoland.
Yeah, Boston and any other Northeast city blows away chicago or another Midwestern city in terms of geographic location. You can go to the mountains (real skiiing), the beach, or many other world-class cities (including arguably the best city in the world - NYC). You can also go to Montreal, which is gorgeous and has a European/French culture. Also, rural New England is always beautiful. The lakes and hiking are great in the summer, the fall foliage, and the winter skiing. The hills, the trees, and the architecture DESTROY the cornfields of the Midwest. New England is filled with quaint, historic towns versus the Midwest’s bland flat plains. I understand the Plains importance to our country, but they are no fun to visit. There are also many vineyards in the rural Northeast. Geographic location is really no contest! It is laughable that people are saying Chicago has a better location. And I forgot to mention that Dublin or London are only a six hour flight from Boston. Chicago is not that close to Europe nor Asia. Even Toronto is about equidistance. Not to mention the Maritimes, which are closer to the Northeast.
There is a variety of reasons why someone may prefer one geographic location over another, and proximity to other destinations is only one of those reasons. The other posters merely noted that they preferred Chicago's geographic location -- you are inferring the reasons for that choice and based on that inference challenging that choice, but there may be other valid reasons too.
What destinations, Boston is 4 hours from NY and Montreal Chicago is 4 hours from St Louis and Indianapolis. Chicago is an hour and a half from the real resort town on Lake Michigan while Bostok is similar distance from Laks, mountains the Cape and Maine's coast.
I don't see how in terms or urban or natural destinations Chicago wins.
Overall Aesthetics: Boston
Suburb Quality: Tie
Waterfront: Chicago
Economy/Job Market: Boston
Transportation: Chicago
Cuisine: Tie
K-12 Education: Idk
College and Universities: Boston
Entertainment: Chicago
Geographic Location: Boston
Skyline: Chicago
Airport: Chicago
People: Boston
COL: Chicago
Sports fan base: Tie
So elites must come on the coasts? Gee, in that case, I sure am happy Chicago is inland. And if our elites....from Boston to Washington, from Los Angeles to San Francisco rule the roost and everything in-between is Flyover Country, then I've got to ask you: what type of dysfunctional and aristocratic nation is this that, first, we even have elites and second, that our elites are two narrow strips along the Atlantic and Pacific with 3000 miles of nothingness between? Seems to me that's a recipe for disaster...and a threat to all those "elite" cities, even New York which hardly benefits from being in nation so constructed. Everyone would pick their own time as to when any city was its greatest. To me for NYC, it would be the 1950s....when everything seemed to be zooming on all cylinders....you know, the time that elite, white collar New York was very much enriched by elite, blue collar Detroit.
But I'm getting the feeling you must be playing us on this one, Wizard, because I don't anyone could come up with something as crazy as "Boston is an elite coastal city. Chicago is not." which is about as absurd as saying "Chicago is an elite interior city. Boston is not."
Of course, as a Chicagoan, we being a fairly sophisticated lot, we hardly would ever look to Boston as a joke, or even suggest it isn't in the same "league" as we are. And we do share a lot with Boston: for example, Chicago and Boston are, by far, the most Sox-est cities in America. Besides, what you wrote says very little about Boston, which is a great city by any measure....but it does say a lot about you.
Interesting world we're moving into, Wizard, where The Greatest And Most Exceptional Nation The World Has Ever Known is pretty much melting down and imploding and has become an international joke, a laughing stock. The world's focus seems to be going back to the so called old world and the elite portion seems to form a line that goes from the Far East to western Europe, all the while we Americans duke it out in our small bubble, our cities taking pot shots at each other.....while truthfully, they're all in the same boat (and that boat has sprung a leak). Globally speaking, the Americas are kind of like turning into a backwater. It's kind of like this: London and Hong Kong are elite Eurasian cities. New York, out in the fly-over country that is the Americas, in not.
So me close by asking you to tell me the truth......Is your comment a joke?
So elites must come on the coasts? Gee, in that case, I sure am happy Chicago is inland. And if our elites....from Boston to Washington, from Los Angeles to San Francisco rule the roost and everything in-between is Flyover Country, then I've got to ask you: what type of dysfunctional and aristocratic nation is this that, first, we even have elites and second, that our elites are two narrow strips along the Atlantic and Pacific with 3000 miles of nothingness between? Seems to me that's a recipe for disaster...and a threat to all those "elite" cities, even New York which hardly benefits from being in nation so constructed. Everyone would pick their own time as to when any city was its greatest. To me for NYC, it would be the 1950s....when everything seemed to be zooming on all cylinders....you know, the time that elite, white collar New York was very much enriched by elite, blue collar Detroit.
But I'm getting the feeling you must be playing us on this one, Wizard, because I don't anyone could come up with something as crazy as "Boston is an elite coastal city. Chicago is not." which is about as absurd as saying "Chicago is an elite interior city. Boston is not."
Of course, as a Chicagoan, we being a fairly sophisticated lot, we hardly would ever look to Boston as a joke, or even suggest it isn't in the same "league" as we are. And we do share a lot with Boston: for example, Chicago and Boston are, by far, the most Sox-est cities in America. Besides, what you wrote says very little about Boston, which is a great city by any measure....but it does say a lot about you.
Interesting world we're moving into, Wizard, where The Greatest And Most Exceptional Nation The World Has Ever Known is pretty much melting down and imploding and has become an international joke, a laughing stock. The world's focus seems to be going back to the so called old world and the elite portion seems to form a line that goes from the Far East to western Europe, all the while we Americans duke it out in our small bubble, our cities taking pot shots at each other.....while truthfully, they're all in the same boat (and that boat has sprung a leak). Globally speaking, the Americas are kind of like turning into a backwater. It's kind of like this: London and Hong Kong are elite Eurasian cities. New York, out in the fly-over country that is the Americas, in not.
So me close by asking you to tell me the truth......Is your comment a joke?
I think that comment was meant to rile people up. Not worth responding to.
Chicago as a city offers superior amenities to Boston although Boston is no slouch. I personally prefer Boston's geographic location. Most of places below are within 2 hours and some less than1. This is just a glimpse. There's much more. Didn't include cities. Obviously NYC and Montreal within 4 hours and philly within 6.
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.
