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.
never been to chicago but back-bay seems to be more in the center of things.
i think downtown chicago would be a better comparison ?
Actually, this is a pretty good comparison. Both represent the quintessential moneyed intown neighborhood in their respective cities, just as the Upper East Side does for NYC and Pacific Heights does for San Francisco.
Personally, I find it a very tough choice...but ultimately would go with Lincoln Park to be contiguous to what is arguably the best downtown in the USA.
Architecture: Back Bay
Shopping: Back Bay
Dining: Lincoln Park
Nightlife: Lincoln Park
Parks: Lincoln Park
Transit: Back Bay (commuter rail and Amtrak give it the edge)
I’ve lived in both cities and while I love Chicago and hate Boston, I think I like The Back Bay more than Lincoln Park. Then again, I was forced to spend a lot of time in the Back Bay because I lived three blocks away, in the South End. My Chicago axis tilted around West Town, and I had very little use for LP.
Actually, this is a pretty good comparison. Both represent the quintessential moneyed intown neighborhood in their respective cities, just as the Upper East Side does for NYC and Pacific Heights does for San Francisco.
Personally, I find it a very tough choice...but ultimately would go with Lincoln Park to be contiguous to what is arguably the best downtown in the USA.
Beacon Hill and the Gold Coast are the quintessential moneyed in-town neighborhoods in Boston and Chicago, but Back Bay and Lincoln Park are fairly comparable. The only thing that makes comparison difficult is the dramatic difference in size. Lincoln Park is larger than the Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Bay Village and the South End, combined.
Architecture: Back Bay
Shopping: Back Bay
Dining: Lincoln Park
Nightlife: Lincoln Park
Parks: Back Bay
Transit: Back Bay
If I had all of the money in the world, I'd choose Back Bay. But, the ppsqft is probably 75%-125% more in Back Bay than it is in Lincoln Park, so I'm not sure they're as comparable in that way as you think. Frankly, I actually like the mixed use space on the Charles more than the park/beaches from North to Belmont. And, I prefer the Garden/Common to Lincoln Park itself. As far as foot traffic, Back Bay has more buzz. And, Newbury/Boylston is going to offer more in a particular area as compared to Lincoln Park, though LP is far far larger. Armitage is the closest area to the feel of the Back Bay, but on a very small scale.
In general, everything in a side by side comparison between Boston and Chicago can come down to size. And for that reason, it's hard for me to ever choose Boston over Chciago. I prefer the architecture of the mid-rise/low-rise neighborhoods in Boston, while I far appreciate the architecture of the downtown/financial district in Chicago. The vibrancy is greater throughout Chicago, though Boston has it's days. Nightlife in Chicago is far better. As far as food, Chicago simply has more.. And to me, that means better in this particular circumstance.
Battle of the neighborhoods would all look very similar to this comparison in my eyes, and I'd choose Boston's neighborhoods over the Chicago counter parts. But overall, Chicago wins in an overarching side by side comparison. Way, way more to choose from.
Actually, this is a pretty good comparison. Both represent the quintessential moneyed intown neighborhood in their respective cities, just as the Upper East Side does for NYC and Pacific Heights does for San Francisco.
Personally, I find it a very tough choice...but ultimately would go with Lincoln Park to be contiguous to what is arguably the best downtown in the USA.
Seaport and Beacon Hill are probably the quintessential moneyed/elite areas of Boston, not Back Bay. And for Chicago, I'd say Gold Coast would take that title.
Regardless, it's a good comparison. They're more alike than they are different.
EDIT: I guess Back Bay is more expensive than Beacon Hill- Apologies there. A bit surprised, though I suppose much of the new money would prefer Back Bay/South End to Beacon at this point. https://boston.curbed.com/2018/6/11/...ices-june-2018
Lincoln Park is much bigger than Back Bay and offers more depth and options across the board, in particular for restaurants and nightlife (and of course it has a zoo and a beach). However, Back Bay is a great compact urban neighborhood with great shopping, well-integrated urban green space and a lot of other amenities very close together. It also has more interesting and historical architecture. I'd rather live in Lincoln Park but as a visitor I'd find Back Bay easier to navigate and I do think it's the neighborhood better suited for tourists.
These are all pretty minor quibbles though - overall, these are two outstanding urban neighborhoods and it's hard for me to say which one is better.
Not when you have two Great Urban tree-lined and green neighborhoods in two Great Northern cities. One still coastal and the other clearly takes on that look of a coastal city with its attributes. Even though being 1000-miles inland on a virtual inland sea that the neighborhood has frontage on.
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.
