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.
That is a little strange and funny considering that Boston is really small compare to Chicago. Boston is 575,000-600,000 strong compare to Chicago 2.9- 3 million. If that the case then, Boston will feel like the hicktown. I swear Boston is full of themselves; that little city. Consider the most major midwest cities are larger than Boston when comparing the city alone, not the metro. Boston only feel cosmopolitan because of its metro and not the city its self. Like seriously, what do Boston have that Chicago don't have. In my opinion Chicago have more and better ethnic neighborhoods. I bet Boston don't have no Humboldt park, Pilsen/Little Village, or even a Little India/Devon Ave. It is a little annoying when small east coast cities like Boston call Chicago flyover country, when the only thing that can top Chicago in the east coast is NYC, while the rest of them are just second tier/token cities for NYC. I'm sorry I sound a little harsh, but some of these east and west coast cities need to put in there place.
I grew up in Boston and never once heard anyone use the term "flyover state". This term keeps getting brought up on the board and other than hearing it in a TV show or movie I don't think I ever heard it uttered once until I moved here.
I can say that Bostonians in general don't have a negative view of Chicago at all. It may be a limited view, but not negative. Boston has a serious issue with comparing itself to NYC and the "Second City" moniker for Chicago makes many Bostonians feel that Chicago is dealing with the same thing and feel a weird connection through that. If you ask a typical Bostonian who's never visited Chicago about it they'll probably talk about the Cubs, Sox, Bulls, and Blackhawks with respect (maybe not the Blackhawks, but Bruins fans don't really talk about anything with respect). They'll talk about pizza and hot dogs, say it's a tough city, maybe talk about how huge it looked when they landed at O'Hare for a connecting flight.
I don't see where the insecurity comes from about people going back to the East Coast after graduating - what's strange about someone going somewhere for school and then going back home to get a job?
JohnCU's comment that "After being in Chicago for 2-4 years most will grudgingly concede that it is a pretty cool place" is kind of accurate, but most people I know on the East Coast that have lived in Chicago don't "grudgingly concede" that Chicago is "pretty cool". They speak of it glowingly.
That is a little strange and funny considering that Boston is really small compare to Chicago. Boston is 575,000-600,000 strong compare to Chicago 2.9- 3 million. If that the case then, Boston will feel like the hicktown. I swear Boston is full of themselves; that little city. Consider the most major midwest cities are larger than Boston when comparing the city alone, not the metro. Boston only feel cosmopolitan because of its metro and not the city its self. Like seriously, what do Boston have that Chicago don't have. In my opinion Chicago have more and better ethnic neighborhoods. I bet Boston don't have no Humboldt park, Pilsen/Little Village, or even a Little India/Devon Ave. It is a little annoying when small east coast cities like Boston call Chicago flyover country, when the only thing that can top Chicago in the east coast is NYC, while the rest of them are just second tier/token cities for NYC. I'm sorry I sound a little harsh, but some of these east and west coast cities need to put in there place.
you seem to be really hung up about size, that somehow bigger equals better. I guess that's a conceit people from larger cities tell themselves. if being better solely means that your city is bigger, than yeah, Chicago is better than Boston, and NYC is better than Chicago, and Houston is well on its way to being better than Chicago. of course, other people may want to look beyond population and area size to determine a city's worth.
have you ever been to Boston? Boston has many things that make it unique and great. We have the Emerald Necklace, parts of which puts many Chicago parks to shame. We have crazy close access (less than a 5 minute drive outside city limits in most parts) to the Blue Hills and hiking, something flat-as-a-pancake Chicago can't claim (love ya, but you know it's true). the natural beauty surrounding Boston is different from that surrounding Chicago and for many people, more beautiful. we have a couture deeply rooted in history, architecture that can't be found in Chicago (unless it was brought over there by an East Coaster). there may not has many clubs and bars in Boston, but not everyone needs to define their worthiness by the number of bars they have.
Boston may not have the same number of ethnic neighborhoods as Chicago (it is smaller, as you keep reminding us. plus, it is more integrated than Chicago, which in my mind is a plus), but they do exist. Boston has it's own little enclaves filled with Haitians, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Dominicans, Puerto Ricans, Indian, Irish, Jewish, Catholic, etc. again, Boston is a bit more integrated than Chicago; as a black woman in this day and age, I never got the feeling I couldn't live in certain areas of Boston due to not being welcomed (even Southie as been tamed down, what w/ all the gentrification going on there). you drive down Dot Ave and can find blacks, whites, Asians, and Hispanics all living w/in a few miles of each other.
I'm form Boston and have never heard the term "flyover" be used in connection with Chicago. we aren't ignorant, we know the cultural impact Chicago has, know its a well known and respected city. now, you may have a few people from the east Coast who dismiss states like Iowa as flyover due to the perceived lack of excitement there, but that's no different than people brushing off Mine and New Hampshire as dull states. frankly, I don't think Boston as a whole care about "topping" Chicago. we don't get involved in this whole "my city is better than yours", chest beating nonsense as much as folks from the 3 largest cities, NYC, LA, and Chicago, get into. don't get me wrong, on a sports level, NYC and Boston go at it like crazy, but most Bostonians I know are not worried about competing w/ NYC in many other ways, and we respect it as a world class city. I don't know why any city needs to "be put in there (sic) place", since every city has things about it that makes it great. I'm comfortable enough about my hometown to respect other cities like Chicago and NYC and not feel the need to bash them to make my city look better.
you seem to be really hung up about size, that somehow bigger equals better. I guess that's a conceit people from larger cities tell themselves. if being better solely means that your city is bigger, than yeah, Chicago is better than Boston, and NYC is better than Chicago, and Houston is well on its way to being better than Chicago. of course, other people may want to look beyond population and area size to determine a city's worth.
have you ever been to Boston? Boston has many things that make it unique and great. We have the Emerald Necklace, parts of which puts many Chicago parks to shame. We have crazy close access (less than a 5 minute drive outside city limits in most parts) to the Blue Hills and hiking, something flat-as-a-pancake Chicago can't claim (love ya, but you know it's true). the natural beauty surrounding Boston is different from that surrounding Chicago and for many people, more beautiful. we have a couture deeply rooted in history, architecture that can't be found in Chicago (unless it was brought over there by an East Coaster). there may not has many clubs and bars in Boston, but not everyone needs to define their worthiness by the number of bars they have.
Boston may not have the same number of ethnic neighborhoods as Chicago (it is smaller, as you keep reminding us. plus, it is more integrated than Chicago, which in my mind is a plus), but they do exist. Boston has it's own little enclaves filled with Haitians, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Dominicans, Puerto Ricans, Indian, Irish, Jewish, Catholic, etc. again, Boston is a bit more integrated than Chicago; as a black woman in this day and age, I never got the feeling I couldn't live in certain areas of Boston due to not being welcomed (even Southie as been tamed down, what w/ all the gentrification going on there). you drive down Dot Ave and can find blacks, whites, Asians, and Hispanics all living w/in a few miles of each other.
I'm form Boston and have never heard the term "flyover" be used in connection with Chicago. we aren't ignorant, we know the cultural impact Chicago has, know its a well known and respected city. now, you may have a few people from the east Coast who dismiss states like Iowa as flyover due to the perceived lack of excitement there, but that's no different than people brushing off Mine and New Hampshire as dull states. frankly, I don't think Boston as a whole care about "topping" Chicago. we don't get involved in this whole "my city is better than yours", chest beating nonsense as much as folks from the 3 largest cities, NYC, LA, and Chicago, get into. don't get me wrong, on a sports level, NYC and Boston go at it like crazy, but most Bostonians I know are not worried about competing w/ NYC in many other ways, and we respect it as a world class city. I don't know why any city needs to "be put in there (sic) place", since every city has things about it that makes it great. I'm comfortable enough about my hometown to respect other cities like Chicago and NYC and not feel the need to bash them to make my city look better.
I didn't mean to bash Boston like that. I was replying to the other post that said some people from Boston even refer Chicago(as big as it is) as a midwest hicktown(meaning country, small, backwards, and filled with rednecks) and I got a little insulted by that. Not all of Chicago is segragated and prejudice; you have mix areas here just like every other major city in this country. I even heard on the Boston forum, that Boston have a problem with racism too, and the black community is underrepresented, regardless of it being 25% of the Boston population. Every major city have segregated section including NYC & LA; People forget that there are other boroughs beside Manhattan and LA having issues with tensions between Blacks & Mexicans. I admit that I never heard anyone refer Chicago as fly over country & hickville until I came to these city forums.
Last edited by Chicagoland60426; 09-20-2008 at 01:27 PM..
you seem to be really hung up about size, that somehow bigger equals better. I guess that's a conceit people from larger cities tell themselves. if being better solely means that your city is bigger, than yeah, Chicago is better than Boston, and NYC is better than Chicago, and Houston is well on its way to being better than Chicago. of course, other people may want to look beyond population and area size to determine a city's worth.
have you ever been to Boston? Boston has many things that make it unique and great. We have the Emerald Necklace, parts of which puts many Chicago parks to shame. We have crazy close access (less than a 5 minute drive outside city limits in most parts) to the Blue Hills and hiking, something flat-as-a-pancake Chicago can't claim (love ya, but you know it's true). the natural beauty surrounding Boston is different from that surrounding Chicago and for many people, more beautiful. we have a couture deeply rooted in history, architecture that can't be found in Chicago (unless it was brought over there by an East Coaster). there may not has many clubs and bars in Boston, but not everyone needs to define their worthiness by the number of bars they have.
Boston may not have the same number of ethnic neighborhoods as Chicago (it is smaller, as you keep reminding us. plus, it is more integrated than Chicago, which in my mind is a plus), but they do exist. Boston has it's own little enclaves filled with Haitians, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Dominicans, Puerto Ricans, Indian, Irish, Jewish, Catholic, etc. again, Boston is a bit more integrated than Chicago; as a black woman in this day and age, I never got the feeling I couldn't live in certain areas of Boston due to not being welcomed (even Southie as been tamed down, what w/ all the gentrification going on there). you drive down Dot Ave and can find blacks, whites, Asians, and Hispanics all living w/in a few miles of each other.
I'm form Boston and have never heard the term "flyover" be used in connection with Chicago. we aren't ignorant, we know the cultural impact Chicago has, know its a well known and respected city. now, you may have a few people from the east Coast who dismiss states like Iowa as flyover due to the perceived lack of excitement there, but that's no different than people brushing off Mine and New Hampshire as dull states. frankly, I don't think Boston as a whole care about "topping" Chicago. we don't get involved in this whole "my city is better than yours", chest beating nonsense as much as folks from the 3 largest cities, NYC, LA, and Chicago, get into. don't get me wrong, on a sports level, NYC and Boston go at it like crazy, but most Bostonians I know are not worried about competing w/ NYC in many other ways, and we respect it as a world class city. I don't know why any city needs to "be put in there (sic) place", since every city has things about it that makes it great. I'm comfortable enough about my hometown to respect other cities like Chicago and NYC and not feel the need to bash them to make my city look better.
No I'm not hung over with size( bigger is better). I just got a little heated, when some Boston residents refer Chicago(of all places) as a hicktown. I know that Chicago isn't the best city in this country; it does have its flaws, like every other major city in this country. Boston is a great city, it just some residents try to put Chicago in the flyover & hicktown category; I just thought it was a little ridiculous to put Chicago in that level of all places. I honestly admit that I never heard someone put Chicago as flyover country or hickville until I came to these city forums. And not all of Chicago is segregated, we have integrated neighborhoods just like every major city in the country. There is Roger Park, Albany Park, Uptown, West Ridge, and many more on the Northside of Chicago. Even the southside have some integrated neighborhoods, like Hyde Park, Chicago lawn, Back of the Yards; not all of the southside is predominately black. Even New York & LA have segregated neighborhoods to a extent; people forget that there is more to NYC than Manhattan, and LA have racial tensions between Blacks & Mexicans and there are Neo Nazis in some parts of LA. So Chicago is not the only one that have segregated neighborhoods.
Last edited by Chicagoland60426; 09-20-2008 at 01:57 PM..
I didn't mean to bash Boston like that. I was replying to the other post that said some people from Boston even refer Chicago(as big as it is) as a midwest hicktown(meaning country, small, backwards, and filled with rednecks) and I got a little insulted by that. Not all of Chicago is segragated and prejudice; you have mix areas here just like every other major city in this country. I even heard on the Boston forum, that Boston have a problem with racism too, and the black community is underrepresented, regardless of it being 25% of the Boston population. Every major city have segregated section including NYC & LA; People forget that there are other boroughs beside Manhattan and LA having issues with tensions between Blacks & Mexicans. I admit that I never heard anyone refer Chicago as fly over country & hickville until I came to these city forums.
Boston may have had a history of intense racism, and some of it may still exist now, but it's not as bad as others make it out to be. as a black woman, there isn't a single neighborhood in Boston I'd feel completely out of place in. South Boston, once considered the most white-Irish-Catholic, most anti-black area, is rapidly gentrifying to the point where I wouldn't feel uncomfortable living in the majority of it (though I'd admit my level of comfort may be higher than others since it is my hometown. but I still wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to another non white person if it fit their needs). whereas, I've been living in Chicago for over a year and I still have other blacks telling me to stay out of Bridgeport, that I'd stick out (negatively from their tone) in certain areas.
In my entire lifetime in Boston, I've never heard anyone refer to Chicago as a flyover city. I'm sure there are people out there that think this, and I don't doubt someone claiming to be a Bostonian said as much here (I need to read over this thread again), but the views of one ignorant person doesn't represent an entire city. you get pissed off when people refer to Chicago as "hicktown" yet go right around to refer another city as "full of themselves", so don't be surprised to find some people as pissed off by the latter as you were by the former
there has been so many threads on here completely bashing other cities and deriding their residents. yeah, I've been active in a few of them, but now it's just tiresome
Boston may have had a history of intense racism, and some of it may still exist now, but it's not as bad as others make it out to be. as a black woman, there isn't a single neighborhood in Boston I'd feel completely out of place in. South Boston, once considered the most white-Irish-Catholic, most anti-black area, is rapidly gentrifying to the point where I wouldn't feel uncomfortable living in the majority of it (though I'd admit my level of comfort may be higher than others since it is my hometown. but I still wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to another non white person if it fit their needs). whereas, I've been living in Chicago for over a year and I still have other blacks telling me to stay out of Bridgeport, that I'd stick out (negatively from their tone) in certain areas.
In my entire lifetime in Boston, I've never heard anyone refer to Chicago as a flyover city. I'm sure there are people out there that think this, and I don't doubt someone claiming to be a Bostonian said as much here (I need to read over this thread again), but the views of one ignorant person doesn't represent an entire city. you get pissed off when people refer to Chicago as "hicktown" yet go right around to refer another city as "full of themselves", so don't be surprised to find some people as pissed off by the latter as you were by the former
there has been so many threads on here completely bashing other cities and deriding their residents. yeah, I've been active in a few of them, but now it's just tiresome
Yeah Bridgeport is the most anti black neighborhood in Chicago, but even that neighborhood change some over the years. Bridgeport is not even majority white (Irish) anymore; over 30% of the neighborhood is hispanic(mostly Mexican) and over 25% is Asian(mainly Chinese), but it still have a low black population(around 2 percent). You see some blacks walk around in the day time, but I'm not sure at night.
Yes I heard chicago is cheaper than the coasts. Its more isolated and more open land in the Midwest along with the slower pace of life
cute town though
Yes Chicago is a little isolated, but there is two other major cities that is only a 1 n half- 3 hours drive; Milwaukee & Indianpolis is close to Chicago like San Diego is close to LA.
Chic's LF and Winnetka lakefront are more costly than NYC's Greenwich/SF's Woodside...but Chic's GoldCoast is much cheaper than Manhattan and SF's PacHts
Chic's (and NYC's) nasty weather and boring topography are anathema to any guy who enjoys commuting daily via cars like Mercedes CL65...and seeks interesting twisty mountain roads on wkends (SF and LA are paradise for car guys)
Grub at Chic's best restaurants is only rivaled (not beaten) by best stuff in NYC/LA/SF....Bos is a joke of a little town in terms of finding edible grub
Chic's (and NYC's) nasty weather and boring topography are anathema to any guy who enjoys commuting daily via cars like Mercedes CL65...and seeks interesting twisty mountain roads on wkends (SF and LA are paradise for car guys)
COMMUTING is anathema to any guy who likes driving. I can't think of any urban area in the country I would enjoy the commute by car. Maybe if you live around Glacier in Montana you can have a good commute. I had a month long job in San Jose where I got WRX rental and had a commute from Santa Cruz and was looking forward to a great commute on 17 - it just sucked. Doing a back route along 35 to 9 was better, but took twice as long and still could get screwed up by traffic. I was burnt out by both routes within a week or so.
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.
