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.
Boston lacks rail coverage in a few places in the city, namely the eastern part of Roxbury, west part of Dorchester, South Boston, Brighton Center and Lower Allston.
I'm sure Chicago has some gaps in coverage as well, I would be curious to see what they are.
It is and it isn't in a way. Boston has a very dense core, but once you go a few miles, you're in single family home ville. Boston could be a neighborhood in a Chicago. Scale-wise it just isn't as urban, IMO. It's arguable though.
It is and it isn't in a way. Boston has a very dense core, but once you go a few miles, you're in single family home ville. Boston could be a neighborhood in a Chicago. Scale-wise it just isn't as urban, IMO. It's arguable though.
I think you are selling Boston short and overselling Chicago. As you know, if places like Cambridge or Somerville (seamlessly part of the city really, I know a river splits em) were part of Boston it would be much larger but still retain a high density.
Boston is the 22nd largest city but the 10th largest metro. I still think Chicago is more urban but its not a large canyon.
I guessed the Boston suburbs or the Philly suburbs would be more urban than the Chicago suburbs because they're older but maybe I'm wrong.
In general the tighter in burbs but Chicago already covers a larger footprint. Extending further Chicgo is more consistent without as many older towns with small pockets of more dense developement overall.
The short answer is they are different enough that it is hard to say definatively
I think you are selling Boston short and overselling Chicago. As you know, if places like Cambridge or Somerville (seamlessly part of the city really, I know a river splits em) were part of Boston it would be much larger but still retain a high density.
Boston is the 22nd largest city but the 10th largest metro. I still think Chicago is more urban but its not a large canyon.
I think people tend to oversell Boston. Cambridge and Somerville are not technically part of the city, so I'm not including them in my analysis. (I actually like Cambridge much more than I like Boston, in any case.) The density Boston conveys in its core is diluted once you leave a small section of the city.
Last edited by theSUBlime; 01-23-2012 at 05:16 PM..
I think people tend to oversell Boston. Cambridge and Somerville are not technically part of the city, so I'm not including them in my analysis. (I actually like Cambridge much more than I like Boston, in any case.) The neighborhoods that actually make up more of Boston city proper tend to be far removed from the core.
Really there are tons of people that never left Dorcester or Eastie there entire lives exept for a few times.
I think people tend to oversell Boston. Cambridge is not part of the city, so I'm not including it in my analysis. (I actually like Cambridge much more than I like Boston, in any case.) City neighborhoods in Boston are a actually a lot less self-sufficient than one might think.
I agree that many aspects of Boston are overrated on this forum.
I just have a hard time separating Somerville and Cambridge because they are so close to the CBD and basically in the middle of the "hub". Same with the most northern parts of Brookline.
I am really familiar with Boston and only slightly familiar with Philadelphia (and what I know is limited to my one downtown experience and Philly posters here ) but I think they would be very comparable.
Philadelphia (I think) is grittier. It also has more rowhouses, while Boston has more of a mix of rowhouses, stand alone apartment buildings and Victorian style double decker duplexes.
Think overall they are very similar with some differences you noted, and yes grittier, though IMHO a little more lively as well overall.
In terms of footprint maintained with 10K density
Boston and SF at ~140 sq miles
Philly at 200 sq miles
Chicago and LA at about 280 sq miles
NYC at about 650 sq miles
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.
) but I think they would be very comparable. 
