What is Boston like, compared to Chicago? (co-op, home)

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Tombstoner

Having lived in both, I would say that Boston is MUCH more walkable. I am seriously considering giving up my car--I could never do that in Chicago . . . Again, though, I think the density (and subsequent walkability) is the big difference I feel every day.

Strange observation considering the population densities of the cities are nearly identical. In large parts of Chicago it would indeed be advantageous to have a car, but the portion of Chicago where you could easily live car-free is probably as large as the entire city of Boston.

[Tombstoner]

Originally Posted by Drover

Strange observation considering the population densities of the cities are nearly identical. In large parts of Chicago it would indeed be advantageous to have a car, but the portion of Chicago where you could easily live car-free is probably as large as the entire city of Boston.

Obviously, density statistics will obscure the fact that some areas are denser than others--Chicago certain has areas of density and walkable neighborhoods. In my experience, Boston has more diverse neighborhoods packed into a relatively small area than Chicago does. I have a hard time imagining living in Chicago car-free (maybe a failure of imagination on my part ).

[MassVt]

Originally Posted by eevee

am I the only one that gets the vibe from this post that the OP has already made up his/her mind bout Boston and has deemed it worse w/o research?

I was born and raised in Boston and have been living in Chicago for about 3 years. from my own experience:

crime: Boston is NO WHERE NEAR as bad as Chicago. obviously, Chicago is a much bigger city, but even the crime rates when population is taken into account is lower. I've lived in some rough areas in Chicago, including Pilsen, West Humboldt Park and Back of the Yards, and have visited friends living in Little Village, Englewood, and Garfield Park. Boston has its rough areas, in particular parts of Roxbury, Dorchester, and Mattapan, but nothing that compares to the rough areas of Chicago. Boston doesn't really have blocks of boarded up buildings and bombed out neighborhoods like the worst parts of Chicago does. honestly, the worst parts of Boston are comparable to parts of Logan Sq. regardless, common street sense is important, but as a newbie to the Boston area, it's unlikely you'll find yourself in the roughest area of the city, esp. if you come here w/ a reasonable budget

public transportation: the CTA is obviously larger. the biggest pro it has over the MBTA is that it has a lot of 24/7 options. the red and blue line are 24/7, as are many bus routes. the MBTA shuts down pretty early in comparison. there aren't many connection points between the various train lines outside of the downtown area. for example, if you want to go from the blue to the red line, you'll have to do some switching from red-orange-blue. granted, the CTA isn't much better in this aspect, but you have more options w/ the red and brown line often sharing stops and the number of downtown stops that makes transfers easier. the MBTA is cheaper but, as a college student, it lacks the truly awesome UPass program that full time Chicago area students partake in so you won't get a discount in that regards. not sure which system I can say I truly prefer. the CTA is great b/c of it's reach and hours, but it's showing its age much more than the MBTA and I'm not a fan of the El, above ground system that can be very noisy

East Coast vs. Midwest: no contest, East Coast wins. sorry Midwest. w/ Boston, you'll have SO many options of nearby places to visit. it can be a <$25 bus trip to NYC via the "Chinatown" buses. the Amtrak system on the East Coast is very well developed and gives you the options of hoping down to D.C., Philly, Hartford, etc. you're never more than 6 hour drives from mountains, rivers, quaint little fishing towns, etc. if you're an outdoorsy type, you'll have far more options for hiking, skiing, rafting, etc in Boston. even w/in the Boston area itself, you have the Blue Hills. living in Chicago, I sorely miss hiking (area is flat as heck!).

culture: mixed bag, both have major pluses. Chicago obviously has more stuff to do, due simply to the shear size of the city, but Boston isn't lacking either. as a 19yo, you'll find plenty to do in Boston, esp since Boston has a large college student population. you'll find plenty if indie shops and small local chains to shop in. again, Boston has a large student population and so the vibe is pretty varied in different areas. parts can be very family orientated and parts are like a hipster's paradise

COL: I'm sure you know this already, but Boston is more expensive than Chicago, housing wise. expect a bare minimum of $1k for a so-so 1 bedroom/decent studio and more for nicer apartments in better areas.

This is a nice summary;the OP should take this to heart..

One more comment, in regard to weather: Chicago is a little colder in the winter, but Boston gets a little more snow, since the Eastern Time Zone is more "moist"...

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Tombstoner

Obviously, density statistics will obscure the fact that some areas are denser than others--Chicago certain has areas of density and walkable neighborhoods. In my experience, Boston has more diverse neighborhoods packed into a relatively small area than Chicago does. I have a hard time imagining living in Chicago car-free (maybe a failure of imagination on my part ).

A failure of imagination indeed. Plenty of people do it gladly.

Which part of Chicago did you live in?

[Tombstoner]

Originally Posted by Drover

A failure of imagination indeed. Plenty of people do it gladly.

Which part of Chicago did you live in?

Gee, you seem so respectful in your responses...I wonder why I really don't want to engage you in a conversation...

[Drover]

Oh go change your tampon or something. I was echoing your own words and now you're in a snit about it? Get over yourself.

[Tombstoner]

What a classic junior high put-down. Gosh, clever repartee and intellect. You're quite the whole package, aintcha?

[Drover]

Yeah, sure, boo hoo and all that.

So what part of Chicago did you live in again?

[Beantown_mama]

I have lived in both cities, and they are both wonderful, but in completely different ways.

Why Chicago is Better than Boston:
1. Chicago has cheaper, and the apartments are generally much nicer and bigger for the price
2. Chicago has much better restaurants
3. Chicago is much bigger, so there are more neighborhoods, more things to do, much more of a city feel
4. You can live in parts of the city where there are a lot of bars, restaurants, etc, but still live on a nice tree lined street where it can be quiet. To me, the only comparable area like that in Boston like that is Brookline
5. Public transport more extensive
6. Nicer people. Yes, midwesterners are generally much nicer and more down to earth.

Why Boston is better:
1. Smaller, so the city itself is not so overwhelming and it is easier get around. I feel like in Chicago, you can drive for an hour and still be in a Chicago suburb and the only distinguishing feature in that suburb is a water tank with the suburb's name on it
2. Much, much safer in Boston. There is no where near the crime as Chicago. Just watch the Boston news, very little 'exciting" things happen on the news - in Chicago half the news is murders, rapes, arsons, etc
3. Better weather. Yes, it is about 10 degrees warmer in the winters, and about 10 degrees cooler in the summers in Boston. However, it rains here a lot
4. Younger, hipper crowd, helped by the tons of college students
5. Many suburbs of Boston were always their own towns so they are definitely more appealing
6. New England. You cannot beat the location - Boston has beaches, mountains, skiing, weekend getaway spots (Newport, Rockport, Berkshires), close to other big cities, close to Canada/Montreal- there is just so much to do in New England. In Chicago, you drive 4 hours and you are in Detroit. Not exciting.

I love both cities, but I have to say, it is Boston's location, and a little milder weather, that makes me prefer Boston. But I still love visiting Chicago!

[lrfox]

Density and Walkability, while often related, aren't synonymous. The perfect example is New York City's Co-op City (a neighborhood full of high rise apartment towers separated by large, grassy front yards and parking lots. It has a higher density than anything you'd find in Boston (and many far more "walkable" neighborhoods in New York), but is hardly walkable. Walkability is established by having a pedestrian friendly scale (buildings up to the sidewalks, open inviting storefronts, etc) , wall to wall (or close to it) set up (which is often where the density comes from even though you can have wall to wall 1 story buildings), pedestrian friendly surfaces (comfortable sidewalks, crosswalks, narrow streets, etc) and small blocks. Also, great public transit access to these areas enhances how walkable they are.

It's absolutely plausible that Tombstoner experienced Boston's pedestrian scale and found it to be better than Chicago's. Boston is much smaller than Chicago and far more compact. Chicago is on paper, the denser city; but that says nothing about walkability. It's easier to get across Boston without a car (even though Chicago's transit network is more extensive) and easier to reach more key areas of the city on foot (or by public transit) since they're so close together. My experiences in Chicago have been similar.While the city is great (very walkable in places), it's easier to walk or use public transit in a smaller, more compact city like Boston or San Francisco.