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.
To me, Chicago doesn't seem like much more than a degraded version of NYC. It just has a similar downtown to NYC except smaller and doesn't have any natural beauty better than New York's.
To me, Chicago doesn't seem like much more than a degraded version of NYC. It just has a similar downtown to NYC except smaller and doesn't have any natural beauty better than New York's.
I think that downtown Chicago is on a lake that looks like an ocean, is better.
Truth is the terms of this comparison are deeply flawed. Boston, NYC and Chicago are singular cities. I like NYC and Chicago but Boston, while quaint, kinda bores me to tears. YMMV. It shuts early and is parochial in ways that the other two are not, while it has more historical layers than either of the other places. While the closest thing to NYC in the U.S. in terms of urbanity, Chicago stands on its own terms. It remains the quintessential modern and modernist city: its relative newness means that its urban planning is way more modern and modernist than either NYC or Boston - its grid is almost totally rational. It is the birthplace of the skyscraper. It is the first city in the world to build the steel and glass buildings that dominate the 20th century built urban environment.
While both Boston and NYC have better natural environs, they scorn what they have. Chicago embraces its natural asset, its waterfront, like no other city in the continent. Lakeshore Drive IMO is the most beautiful urban highway in North America in terms of the combination of natural environs and architecture.
There are very few things you can do in NYC, that you cannot do in Chicago for half the price, an eighth of the hassle and none of the attitude. Boston really cannot compare. Of course, there is way more in NYC, and the hassle and the attitude are part of the glamor, but bang for your buck, Chicago is the best urban environment in the English speaking world. Except for those awful winters, it would be my favorite city in North America.
Boston and Chicago seem to be complete opposites in how there set up. Chicago focuses on the big, the tall, and the wide. In that sense, Chicago follows more in NYC's footsteps than in Boston's. Boston takes pride in the fact that it can squish all the amenities of a big city into a small and manageable space.
And at the same time, good luck finding any neighborhood in Chicago that feels as urban as the North End of Boston. Boston's small size doesn't stop it from being incredibly urban in its core area.
And the poster above who claims that Boston doesn't take advantage of its natural environs has obviously never set foot in the city. Or at least if he (or she) has, then he obviously didn't spend time on the harbor islands or the esplanade, he didn't walk through the public gardens, the common, or the commonwealth ace mall, and he certainly didn't see the greenway or the fens or the Northpoint park.
Boston is one of the best cities in the country in terms of integrating park space into the urban fabric of the city, and taking advantage of its natural setting. I'm sure the Chicago lake front is nice, but to my knowledge Chicago has nothing that could compare with the Boston common, or public gardens.
That might be another thing that sets it apart from NYC as well. New York at least has its Central Park. Is there anything similar in Chicago?
Boston and Chicago seem to be complete opposites in how there set up. Chicago focuses on the big, the tall, and the wide. In that sense, Chicago follows more in NYC's footsteps than in Boston's. Boston takes pride in the fact that it can squish all the amenities of a big city into a small and manageable space.
And at the same time, good luck finding any neighborhood in Chicago that feels as urban as the North End of Boston. Boston's small size doesn't stop it from being incredibly urban in its core area.
And the poster above who claims that Boston doesn't take advantage of its natural environs has obviously never set foot in the city. Or at least if he (or she) has, then he obviously didn't spend time on the harbor islands or the esplanade, he didn't walk through the public gardens, the common, or the commonwealth ace mall, and he certainly didn't see the greenway or the fens or the Northpoint park.
Boston is one of the best cities in the country in terms of integrating park space into the urban fabric of the city, and taking advantage of its natural setting. I'm sure the Chicago lake front is nice, but to my knowledge Chicago has nothing that could compare with the Boston common, or public gardens.
That might be another thing that sets it apart from NYC as well. New York at least has its Central Park. Is there anything similar in Chicago?
Have you ever been to Chicago? It's full of beautiful park space intertwined with the urban fabric of the city. Grant Park? Millennium Park?
Chicago CSA, which to me is all that really matters because its a measure of how many people live in the "Functional Unit" that shares cultural, geographic, logistical and economic ties (as opposed to the city proper which is overrated as a measure of "size"), has 9.4 million people and I think Boston has something like 8.2, as compared to New York which is what 21 million. Chicago has bigger buildings and a way better skyline, whereas Boston has a more European type feel and is the world capital of education and medicine. I think Boston has more culture. Chicago has more commerce (though they are both world class in that regard) Both have great buzz and energy. On a recent trip to Chicago I said that it has all the good aspects of NYC, with way less of the down sides. Id take either Boston or Chicago either day over NYC, because they each have so much to offer in terms of world class amenities (as NY does I mean honestly who has more to offer than NYC...No one) but on a much more human, manageable scale.
So to answer the question I guess it has a bit of both, but to me Chicago was like Boston with more skyscrapers.
Truth is the terms of this comparison are deeply flawed. Boston, NYC and Chicago are singular cities. I like NYC and Chicago but Boston, while quaint, kinda bores me to tears. YMMV. It shuts early and is parochial in ways that the other two are not, while it has more historical layers than either of the other places. While the closest thing to NYC in the U.S. in terms of urbanity, Chicago stands on its own terms. It remains the quintessential modern and modernist city: its relative newness means that its urban planning is way more modern and modernist than either NYC or Boston - its grid is almost totally rational. It is the birthplace of the skyscraper. It is the first city in the world to build the steel and glass buildings that dominate the 20th century built urban environment.
While both Boston and NYC have better natural environs, they scorn what they have. Chicago embraces its natural asset, its waterfront, like no other city in the continent. Lakeshore Drive IMO is the most beautiful urban highway in North America in terms of the combination of natural environs and architecture.
There are very few things you can do in NYC, that you cannot do in Chicago for half the price, an eighth of the hassle and none of the attitude. Boston really cannot compare. Of course, there is way more in NYC, and the hassle and the attitude are part of the glamor, but bang for your buck, Chicago is the best urban environment in the English speaking world. Except for those awful winters, it would be my favorite city in North America.
Have you ever been to Chicago? It's full of beautiful park space intertwined with the urban fabric of the city. Grant Park? Millennium Park?
No it's high on my list of places to go.
And note I didn't say that Chicago didn't have good parks, I was stressing that Boston DOES.
I did say that Chicago doesn't seem to have a Boston common/ central park equivalent. From looking at a map, neither grant nor millenium seem to be in the middle of the city....
And note I didn't say that Chicago didn't have good parks, I was stressing that Boston DOES.
I did say that Chicago doesn't seem to have a Boston common/ central park equivalent. From looking at a map, neither grant nor millenium seem to be in the middle of the city....
sort of yes and sort of no
Both Milenium and moreso the parks along the lakeshore sort of butt up to the residential and are pretty intertwined - esp above the Mag mile - biggest difference is they have the lake on one side. In some ways a plus and others a minus but function pretty well or similar - are really great parks and assets.
I like Boston common and Central - wish Philly had a larger centrally located park - Fairmont s more diffuse. And Independence mall doesn't really deliver the same way, with Rittenhouse or Washington Sq (both tremendous assets) being smaller and more similar to union in NYC
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.
