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.
Huh? I was stating that the roughly 4 square mile area of downtown Chicago has around 1,000,000 people working, walking around and going to school there every day. Almost none of those people live downtown, they live in outlying areas of the city and other cities in the Chicago metro.
I'm not sure what the 626,000 people represents. According to stats Boston's daytime population increases by around 240,000 people to a total poulation of 950,000 people in the 50 square miles.
Your stats are wrong. The 626,000 is sourced from the Boston Redevelopment Authority, but I've seen similar numbers from other sources. What is your source?
Quote:
Chicago has around 975,000 people living in its central 50 square miles as a nighttime population, although almost none of them live in that central downtown area that swells by 1,000,000 during the daytime. Many of those people downtown during the day will come from north side neighborhoods, but hundreds of thousands come from the suburbs, and hundreds of thousands from elsewhere in the huge city of Chicago.
I guess I don't see how Boston has any edge over Chicago in the daytime unless you're counting density of the entire 240 square miles of Chicago to the 50 square miles of Boston. Apples to apples Chicago packs a lot more people into the downtown area as well as the core 50 square miles of Chicago compared to Boston.
There are a ton of buildings in the central area to squish people
Most of the employment in Boston is also in downtown areas, representing a smaller and more concentrated area, so the 626,000 aren't spread evenly across 50 square miles. Also, note that this is in addition to Boston residents who work in the city. The point of this comparison is that the daytime population doubles. It doubles in a city that already has a higher population density to begin with. So when you bring up daytime population, Boston has a greater percentage increase. It takes the density argument, and augments Boston's lead.
I'm not trying to promote this as evidence that wins the argument, it's only one more metric among many. And I agree with the people who have pointed out that gross numbers matter. Boston is a smaller city, but it does have a fairly large, uniformly dense and urban core, one that is comparable to Chicago's. I give some weight to Chicago's overall larger size. But I also give some weight to Boston's higher density. When I consider these and other factors, I don't find any compelling evidence that Chicago is more urban.
Your stats are wrong. The 626,000 is sourced from the Boston Redevelopment Authority, but I've seen similar numbers from other sources. What is your source?
Most of the employment in Boston is also in downtown areas, representing a smaller and more concentrated area, so the 626,000 aren't spread evenly across 50 square miles. Also, note that this is in addition to Boston residents who work in the city. The point of this comparison is that the daytime population doubles. It doubles in a city that already has a higher population density to begin with. So when you bring up daytime population, Boston has a greater percentage increase. It takes the density argument, and augments Boston's lead.
I'm not trying to promote this as evidence that wins the argument, it's only one more metric among many. And I agree with the people who have pointed out that gross numbers matter. Boston is a smaller city, but it does have a fairly large, uniformly dense and urban core, one that is comparable to Chicago's. I give some weight to Chicago's overall larger size. But I also give some weight to Boston's higher density. When I consider these and other factors, I don't find any compelling evidence that Chicago is more urban.
Boston's higher density is negligible though, especially when Chicago has densified towards the core while losing population on the southside. It's what 11,864 for Chicago, vs 12,752 for Boston? That is a negligible difference. Manhattan for instance is 70,000 and why other cities aren't close. You need about a 5000k density difference to notice much, such as the case with San Francisco around 17k. But in actuality, Chicago's core 50 sq miles is around 22k... so, FWIW.
Yes, downtown, near south and west sides, then the core residential areas up directly north of downtown.
I just made sure to pick a solid 50 square miles and not jump around. There are other areas on the northwest and southwest sides of the city with 23,000 people per square miles and a few hundred thousand people, but they have areas surrounding them that are heavily industrial for miles and miles.
Try extending it South 7 Miles and west 7 Miles from downtown, and see what you get, because that is Boston city Limits, not 7X7 with Downtown in the center.
Boston's higher density is negligible though, especially when Chicago has densified towards the core while losing population on the southside. It's what 11,864 for Chicago, vs 12,752 for Boston? That is a negligible difference. Manhattan for instance is 70,000 and why other cities aren't close. You need about a 5000k density difference to notice much, such as the case with San Francisco around 17k. But in actuality, Chicago's core 50 sq miles is around 22k... so, FWIW.
Boston is very urban but not as urban overall as Chicago. With Boston the first 120 square miles are highly urban but after that the densities can fluctuate from the core 10,000 + PPSM to as low as 1,000-2,000 PPSM in some outer suburbs. In Chicago the core 300 SM are very urban and the suburbs maintain a higher average density than that of Boston, wouldn't say a lot higher but typically at least double.
All I say is reflective on the UA densities. Boston is one of the most urban cities/cores but one of the least dense UA's. Chicago is both an urban city/core and more urban UA. Only New York surpasses Chicago, LA and Chicago are the true "second tier".
The whole city of Boston only covers 48 square miles counting water so i dont know what you mean by first 120 square miles.
A lot of the video in this post shows the suburbs closest to Boston along with Boston. Obviously even a lot of the suburbs are urban.
IMO it is a misnomer to call places like Cambridge and Somerville 'suburbs'. They are just separate municipalities that are extremely close to Boston. I think even Brookline is iffy on whether it is a suburb of Boston. Places like Quincy, Everett, Chelsea, Newton - those are closer to being true suburbs... though they are very dense as well in places.
That being said I don't think this comparison would be fair if Cambridge and Somerville are not included in the discussion - the are an intrinsic part of everyday Boston life.
That being said I don't think this comparison would be fair if Cambridge and Somerville are not included in the discussion - the are an intrinsic part of everyday Boston life.
Cambridge and Somerville are closer to, more tied into, and better connected via public transportation to downtown Boston than many neighborhoods that are actually part of the "City of Boston."
Chicago is a bigger city and it absolutely feels like a bigger city. When you're downtown along the river, in The Loop, Streeterville, and River North, Chicago ABSOLUTELY feels more "urban." It's probably the most urban section of the country outside of Midtown and Lower Manhattan (and people could argue the latter). It's chalk full of wall to wall buildings, towering high-rises, and is pretty active. There's nothing in Boston even close to that scale. Nothing in Boston feels anywhere near that urban.
That said, the tide changes quickly outside of those central commercial sections of Chicago. It's a fairly quick transition from the towering skyscrapers to the low rise buildings (with the obvious exception of Gold Coast and the condo/apt. towers on the lakefront) and non wall-to-wall buildings that make up most of Chicago's neighborhoods. Cambridge, Somerville, Fenway, Beacon Hill, South End, North End, Charleston, Back Bay, etc. feel every bit as urban (if not more so) that most residential neighborhoods in Chicago. Those urban neighborhoods in Boston don't extend nearly as far from the city center as they do in Chicago, but that's a function of the size of the city... not the urbanity.
In a nutshell, nothing in Boston feels as strikingly urban as the center of Chicago. However, many of Boston's more urban non-downtown neighborhoods are just as urban as what you'll find in Chicago (more so in some cases). The biggest factor, though, is the scale of the cities. Chicago is just MUCH bigger and it feels that way.
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.
