Future of Boston &(MSA vs CSA) why so different? (Lowell: employment, theater)

[gf2020]

Originally Posted by missionhill

My sense of Chicago is of an empty prairie where urbanization spread from the Loop, rather than a constellation of smaller and larger cities for 100 miles in any direction that has been busy filling in the rural pockets with low-density sprawl.

You would be mistaken.

Chicago suburbs like Joliet and Naperville, both with around 150,000 people, were settled in the 1830s because of their importance as trading centers along the Des Plaines and Du Page Rivers, respectively.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by AlwaysByChance

Boston appears to have massive metropolis potential. Does Boston offer everything that NYC offers, aside from intense sports rivalries?

Boston has improved but no, it doesn't offer everything that NYC offers. The Boston MSA is less than 5 million people. New York is more than 4x the size. The NYC MSA has a GDP of about 1.5 trillion. Boston MSA is a bit less than 400 billion. When you have 4x the affluent people, it supports a lot more world class things. Boston has a number of niche areas where they're world class but it's not big enough to have the breadth of a New York or a London.

Boston is anchored by Harvard and MIT and is a huge college town. Mass General always makes top 10 in the world for hospitals with Brigham & Women's not far behind. It's a high tech and biotech center. In the arts, the Boston Symphony is world class.

[AlwaysByChance]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

Boston has improved but no, it doesn't offer everything that NYC offers. The Boston MSA is less than 5 million people. New York is more than 4x the size. The NYC MSA has a GDP of about 1.5 trillion. Boston MSA is a bit less than 400 billion. When you have 4x the affluent people, it supports a lot more world class things. Boston has a number of niche areas where they're world class but it's not big enough to have the breadth of a New York or a London.

Boston is anchored by Harvard and MIT and is a huge college town. Mass General always makes top 10 in the world for hospitals with Brigham & Women's not far behind. It's a high tech and biotech center. In the arts, the Boston Symphony is world class.

The London metro has 14 million people compared to NYC's 24 million people. Chicago has a GDP larger than London.

[AlwaysByChance]

Originally Posted by AlwaysByChance

The London metro has 14 million people compared to NYC's 24 million people. Chicago has a GDP larger than London.

As of 2017, London may have a GDP that's slightly larger than Chicago. But, it's very close. For most of the 2000's Chicago might have had the larger GDP overall. Chicago arguably still has a larger nominal GDP than London as both are around 700 billion nominal GDP. If you go to Wikipedia it says Chicago has a larger GDP than London as of 2014. But things can change in a short time when it comes to GDP. NYC at 1.5 trillion is only behind Tokyo in GDP.

Check the link of wiki

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP

[scorpio516]

Originally Posted by gf2020

You would be mistaken.

Chicago suburbs like Joliet and Naperville, both with around 150,000 people, were settled in the 1830s because of their importance as trading centers along the Des Plaines and Du Page Rivers, respectively.

And then settlement went along the railroads.
Almost everything made before WWI west of Chicago went through Chicago to get east. First up the rivers, then along the rails.

The Jungle (Upton Sinclair) isn't set in Chicago by chance. All meat grown in the plains went to Chicago - most ranchers drove their cattle into Kansas City, loaded it, then it went to Chicago.

[AlwaysByChance]

But, back to Boston, my mom recently visited the city and its surroundings suburbs/cities like Salem and says it feels to her like it's not to far behind NYC. But, that's her opinion of course but it rubs off on me. Boston has a very large CSA and its still growing in an impressive way every year. Unlike my hometown of Chicago. My hometown of Chicago is essentially a global Megacity as it has a population of roughly 10 million people (9.8 million). Only 37 cities in the world are considered megacities. Yet, Chicago itself shrunk by 200 thousand people in the census from 2000 to 2010. Black Flight is happening on the south side, and some White Flight is still occurring on the north side. People are moving to the suburbs because they can get cheaper property and less crime. Chicago might become the next Detroit. The city of Detroit at one time had nearly 2 million people, and now it barely has 600 thousand people. Chicago at one time had nearly 4 million people (3.6 million) yet now has (2.7 million). Even Boston used to have nearly one million people in the 1950's. But, Boston is smaller in area than just about every other major American city. If you were to take NYC's city area and superimpose it on the the Boston area, Boston would have about 3 million people. I know Boston will become a Megacity and will be in the rankings of NYC, LA, Chicago, San Fran Bay, and D.C.-Baltimore as America's 6 megacities of the 21st century. China will probably have at least twice as many megacities as the USA, but we will still be the strongest and greatest country in the world, and with the greatest cities in the world too.

[AlwaysByChance]

Originally Posted by scorpio516

And then settlement went along the railroads.
Almost everything made before WWI west of Chicago went through Chicago to get east. First up the rivers, then along the rails.

The Jungle (Upton Sinclair) isn't set in Chicago by chance. All meat grown in the plains went to Chicago - most ranchers drove their cattle into Kansas City, loaded it, then it went to Chicago.

I never read that book, I heard it was good. I should read it. I would also like to mention that chicago's suburb Aurora has over 200,000 people. And, both Illinois' Elgin and Wisconsin's Kenosha have over 100,000 people. Chicago has over a dozen suburbs that have populations over 50,000 people.

[boulevardofdef]

Originally Posted by AlwaysByChance

The MSA usually only measures a cities urban area, while a CSA measures more of the underlying regions population.

I wouldn't say that's quite true. MSA and CSA are based on commuting patterns. In general many parts of a city's MSA aren't part of the city's "urban area." For example, New York's MSA includes the sparsely populated wine-producing region on the North Fork of Long Island. I'm sure I'm oversimplifying here, but Boston's MSA basically comprises the area where most workers are commuting either into Boston proper or to other parts of the MSA. Now, I live in Rhode Island, which is part of the CSA. (Nitpick alert: Another poster said the entire state is part of the Boston MSA, but a single town in the southwest corner, Westerly, isn't.) There are definitely people here who commute to Boston, but most people commute within the Providence MSA. That's why it's in the Boston CSA but not the MSA.

Originally Posted by AlwaysByChance

What defines Greater Boston? Some things I read like to include all of New Englands 15+ million people, but New England is far to large and sparsely populated to be one large metro-area.

"Greater Boston" isn't really a term with a single definition. Sometimes it's the MSA, sometimes it's the CSA, sometimes it's somewhere in between. For example, I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who would consider Swansea, Massachusetts, to be part of Greater Boston but Warren, Rhode Island, not to be, even though they border each other and are both part of the Providence MSA and the Boston CSA -- but in Swansea you get the Massachusetts address, the cable company carries Boston TV stations, etc. I don't think many people would really define all of New England as Greater Boston even though there's definitely a cultural influence throughout the vast majority of the region -- it's more than a six-hour drive from Boston to Presque Isle, Maine.

Originally Posted by AlwaysByChance

Does Boston offer everything that NYC offers, aside from intense sports rivalries?

New York? Nah. Chicago? As far as the MSA goes, I'd suggest Boston offers more than Chicago despite being half the size. I actually don't think the city proper has much less to offer than Chicago, either. I know a few people who have lived in both cities and found them to be roughly equal in terms of lifestyle.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by boulevardofdef

New York? Nah. Chicago? As far as the MSA goes, I'd suggest Boston offers more than Chicago despite being half the size. I actually don't think the city proper has much less to offer than Chicago, either. I know a few people who have lived in both cities and found them to be roughly equal in terms of lifestyle.

Boy, I only lived in Chicago briefly, but visited a lot from Wisconsin, but I don't see this at all. Chicago is an exceptional city. Chicago has a much better nightlife scene, much better food scene, better music scene... for starters.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by boulevardofdef

"Greater Boston" isn't really a term with a single definition. Sometimes it's the MSA, sometimes it's the CSA, sometimes it's somewhere in between.

Greater Boston ends when you walk in the bar and the Yankees game is on.