Boston vs. Chicago vs. Philadelphia (population, Los Angeles, life, people)

[roboto]

I say Chicago, but you really cant go wrong among these three. Chicagos nightlife is off the chain, tons of different scenes and places to hang out all over and beyond the downtown area. If you want walkability all three cities have that, but Chicago also has a much larger area of walkable hoods than the other two. Plus Chi is fairly cheap as far as living expenses, which is good if you are younger.

If you prefer the east coast though, Philly or Boston are still excellent choices. They pretty much all offer a similar lifestyle.

[rainrock]

Originally Posted by cdw1084

How do you compare Philly and Boston with Chicago? A better comparison would have been Chicago vs LA or maybe NYC.

Philadelphia is closer to Chicago in stature than Chicago is to NYC.Obviously Chicago is larger than both Philadlephia and Boston but lets not get carried away.


Occupied downtown office space.
Manhattan 440 M sq. ft
Chicago 120 M sq ft.
Philadelphia 50 M sq ft.
Boston 50 M sq ft.



Population

NYC- 8 M
Chicago-2.8 M
Philadelphia- 1.5 M

I have no problem with you proclaiming that Chicago is a notch or two above Bost-Philadelphia in prominence but what I do have a problem with is you then doing the same thing by comparing Chicago with NYC.

[25thHour]

The reason I'm comparing these cities is because me and a group of friends want to go on a trip over the summer and we've narrowed it down to these three. I've been getting a lot of advice personally and heard some good stuff and unfavorable stuff about all three.

Last summer we went to NYC and we absolutely fell in love with it.

For this summer we're looking to go to a city that is "NYC like" but just at a smaller scale.

From what I've heard from my friends are that any of these cities can be a candidate.

I just want to know, from your perspectives which of these cities best matches the type of city NYC is.

Just fyi, the most repeated opinions that I've heard from the dozens I've talked to are the following:

1. Everything in Boston is close together(as far as businesses, shops, restaurants,bars) like in NYC but its not as lively as Chicago or Philly.

2. Chicago is very lively but everything is more spread out and depending on where you are, the city might or might not be very walkable.

3. There is tons of stuff to do in Philly but its just not as walkable as the other two cities and unless if your in city center, everything is pretty spaced out.


In other words what I'm looking for really, is the miniature version of NYC.

[chicken.or.the.nugget]

If you plan on living in downtown or the north side, chicago is very walkable. Plus there's the L and busses. All three seem like nice cities though. Philadelphia is probably the cheapest and is the closest to NYC. Boston and Phillie also have the added bonus of having beaches nearby.

I'd say chicago has the best restaurants.

[roboto]

Chicago also has beaches right in the heart of downtown. Walkability is not a problem in the north and near west sides. I would go with Lakeview or Wicker Park if you are just moving here and are young and like to party - relatively safe and trendy, lots of bars and clubs (not my scene though, I live on the near south side).

If you want to be physically close to NYC and have that NYC-lite feel though, I would go with Philly. That way you can take a trip there anytime you want as well. Philly also has a lot of stuff to do in center city, at least what i could tell when I visited, and is very nice and affordable there.

But each city has its own vibe and you have to learn to like each one on its own merits. To me Chicago is nothing like NYC, but I could see how an outsider might think it is due to its size, and skyline. Boston due to its density and old hoods, Philly for its grittyness and urbanity. But they are all different and all have their own vibe, history, and culture. Good luck.

[tmac9wr]

If you're just planning a visit, I'd probably go to Chicago. I've been there a couple times on visits and I've had a blast both times. I haven't made it out to Wrigleyville before, but I've heard it's an amazing time to go out and watch a Cubs game and then party in the surrounding neighborhood afterwards.

Boston has a good 4th of July party which usually includes a free concert at the Hatch Shell in the Charles River Park. In the summer it's a lot of fun to party in the North End and some of the bars in downtown and Back Bay. The big problem about Boston bars is they close at 2am, which sucks. Catching a game at Fenway Park is sick, and there's great bars along Landsdowne St.

The thing is, you should be 21 if you're going to go to any of these bars...or at least have a fake id.

You should have mentioned you were just planning on visting in your first post...I'm sure tons of posters here were taking a bunch things into consideration like winter weather, job markets, and cost of living.

[Duderino]

Similar to the other views expressed, I don't think you could go wrong with any of them. Since you've also emphasized walkability, they're all also top notch in that department -- all 3 rank in the top 5 most walkable cities in the U.S.

America's Most Walkable Neighborhoods - Walkability Rankings of the Largest 40 U.S. Cities

Good luck and have fun no matter where you choose to go!

[*Sweetkisses*]

All three are great. Any you choose youll be fine.

[grapico]

Originally Posted by 25thHour

The reason I'm comparing these cities is because me and a group of friends want to go on a trip over the summer and we've narrowed it down to these three. I've been getting a lot of advice personally and heard some good stuff and unfavorable stuff about all three.

Last summer we went to NYC and we absolutely fell in love with it.

For this summer we're looking to go to a city that is "NYC like" but just at a smaller scale.

From what I've heard from my friends are that any of these cities can be a candidate.

I just want to know, from your perspectives which of these cities best matches the type of city NYC is.

Just fyi, the most repeated opinions that I've heard from the dozens I've talked to are the following:

1. Everything in Boston is close together(as far as businesses, shops, restaurants,bars) like in NYC but its not as lively as Chicago or Philly.

2. Chicago is very lively but everything is more spread out and depending on where you are, the city might or might not be very walkable.

3. There is tons of stuff to do in Philly but its just not as walkable as the other two cities and unless if your in city center, everything is pretty spaced out.


In other words what I'm looking for really, is the miniature version of NYC.

smaller nyc... go with chicago. as another poster said... most bars are 21+ ... to get in. Chicago is probably best place in the country besides nyc in the summer imo as far as stuff going on ...

[pman]

Originally Posted by 25thHour

I am currently 20 years old.

In which of these would I have the most fun?

Which of these cities has the most number of diverse shops, departement stores, restaurants, bars, parks, clubs, nightlife, cinemas, etc etc. I also like to go camping alot.

In other words I would like to step out of my house/apt and see a line of shops/restaurants lined up sorta nyc style. I would like to have everything close to where I live.

Which of these cities would feel the most vibrant and lively to me?

honestly, all three places are pretty cool. chicago and philly both have great food scenes (boston may too but I haven't been there in a while). They're all worth seeing in their own right. you said you're 20 so unless you're 21 by then, you should also consider montreal or canada where you're legal. both are also pretty cool cities, though they speak french in montreal. toronto is like a smaller, cleaner nyc or a denser (at least it seems that way) chicago. just be aware that center city is a tourist's town july 4th as many of the locals head to the shore.