Chicago: Closer in stature to Boston or New York? (crime, bigger, 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.
In terms of arts/culture, Chicago is seen as generic big city for the Midwest kind of setting. For a show to be set in Boston, DC or Miami for example the show has to be about those cities. Something like Mike and Molly or Chicago Med is just a random TV show which Chicago as a backdrop. Compared to Cheers which is about Boston Same thing with Mean Girls vs Good Will Hunting. Chicago got a 3.5 year long run of Wicked while basically every other city gets touring productions it’s not uncommon for their to be a Chicago company. So I think it those ways it’s closer to NYC than Boston. (Not to say Chicago and NYC don’t have shows about them)
In terms of high culture Boston and Chicago are close. Same with sports all the cities have basically top tier teams in recognizability
So it’s pretty close.
Culture is more than where movies are set....fashion? Broadway? Media? Recognition ? Chicago is not remotely close to nyc...neither is Boston..
Chicago was the unequivocal Second City for so long. Then it was blown away by LA.
Starting in 1990 it became the unequivocal Third City where it remains. However, there are many pretenders anxious to knock Chicago from its perch, including Boston.
It will be interesting to see what happens over the next 2-3 decades. Chicago is very cold, very segregated, stagnant and its three layers of government are pretty much insolvent. Is it so big that inertia alone will hold off DC, Dallas, Houston, Boston, Miami, the Bay Area etc, or is it just a matter of time before those other metros catch up and even pass Chi-Town?
Last edited by FalstaffBlues; 04-25-2020 at 03:08 PM..
Chicago was the unequivocal Second City for so long. Then it was blown away by LA.
Starting in 1990 it became the unequivocal Third City where it remains. However, there are many pretenders anxious to knock Chicago from its perch, including Boston.
It will be interesting to see what happens over the next 2-3 decades. Chicago is very cold, very segregated, stagnant and its three layers of government are pretty much insolvent. Is it so big that inertia alone will hold off DC, Dallas, Houston, Boston, Miami, the Bay Area etc, or is it just a matter of time before those other metros catch up and even pass Chi-Town?
Chicago is still America’s second or third city - nobody is knocking it off it’s perch...the question posed here asks is it closer to America’s first city or America’s 5th, 6th, 7th or whatever city
Economy -
Chicago metro gdp - 612 billion
Boston metro gdp 413 billion
Nyc metro gdp 1.5 trillion
Urban footprint
Boston msa - 4.9 million people
Chicago msa - 9.5 million
Nyc msa - 20 million
That’s about 4.5 million more than Boston and 10 million less than Nyc
Culture -
Nyc is a world capital of finance, fashion, retail, media, television...Broadway is one of the worlds premier disctricts for music and actors...
Chicago has lots of retail...Nyc is the epicenter of origin of retail and fashion....Chicago has second city comedians New York has all the late night shows
Chicago is certainly a tier above Boston but closer to America’s next tier of cities than it is to nyc that is America’s number one city
No, it is most certainly not America's second city. Any assertion to the contrary is absurd
Further, the land area that is considered to be the Chicago metropolitan area is nearly 8,000 square miles. Metro-Boston land area is only about 3,500 square miles.
So when you say Boston MSA is 4.9 Million and Chicago MSA is 9.5 million, although these statements are facts, they paint a lousy picture.
Last edited by FalstaffBlues; 04-25-2020 at 04:13 PM..
No, it is most certainly not America's second city. Any assertion to the contrary is absurd
Right. When people say that, they aren't specific. Do they mean second in population? Well that hasn't been true since about 1982.
Second in influence/importance? That's certainly not true either because Chicago isn't even America's third or arguably even fourth city in that regard.
Are they trying to say it's America's second city in urban footprint/character? Well I would actually agree with that, but I would also agree that Philadelphia is definitely #3 in that respect...and I think most people wouldn't agree with that, so what good does ranking cities on urbanity do anyway?
The true and original meaning of "The Second City" refers to Chicago being almost entirely rebuilt literally from the ground up after the fire of 1871.
Chicago was the unequivocal Second City for so long. Then it was blown away by LA.
Starting in 1990 it became the unequivocal Third City where it remains. However, there are many pretenders anxious to knock Chicago from its perch, including Boston.
It will be interesting to see what happens over the next 2-3 decades. Chicago is very cold, very segregated, stagnant and its three layers of government are pretty much insolvent. Is it so big that inertia alone will hold off DC, Dallas, Houston, Boston, Miami, the Bay Area etc, or is it just a matter of time before those other metros catch up and even pass Chi-Town?
Lol at Boston being a Pretender to "Chicago's Perch". I pretty much agree with this post except that part.
In the next 2-3 decades Only Texas (City Proper and Metros) Phoenix (City Proper) or DC/Baltimore (metro) can challenge Chicago's Third Place position
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.