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.
One difference between New Yorkers and Bostonians that is overlooked here is how they view their community.
Bostonians are very possessive of their city, they wouldn't let the Red Sox Build their own stadium with their own money, because they wanted to see the Red Sox Play at Fenway.
In New York, Penn Station and Yankee Stadium met the wrecking ball, in Boston an ad for an Oil Company has Official Landmark Status.
New Yorkers almost accept they live in a big city that will change constantly, Bostonians almost don't want to believe that.
I think Philadelphia is more traditional than both because they have exhibited more reluctance in knocking down older buildings than both. Boston tore down a ton of their history for newer buildings which is sad.
With time it seems Chicago has become more of a Midwest big town. I feel like it used to have more in common with Northeast metros but now it almost feels like a more dense Indianapolis in some parts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirite
I think Philadelphia is more traditional than both because they have exhibited more reluctance in knocking down older buildings than both. Boston tore down a ton of their history for newer buildings which is sad.
That's one of the things I love about Philly. It's been able to retain it's historical look and feel even through it's development boom. It has done a great job mixing the modern with the traditional. I still think Boston has kept a lot of it's traditional look and feel even with the new buildings, but not to the same extent as Philly. Chicago at least at the downtown level, is becoming more modern all the time with it's new buildings, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the new buildings that have gone up recently are mostly sterile glass boxes IMO, which have taken away from some of the character of downtown (seems much more touristy). At the neighborhood level, Chicago has done a pretty good job balancing the modern development with the historic/traditional character.
That's one of the things I love about Philly. It's been able to retain it's historical look and feel even through it's development boom. It has done a great job mixing the modern with the traditional. I still think Boston has kept a lot of it's traditional look and feel even with the new buildings, but not to the same extent as Philly. Chicago at least at the downtown level, is becoming more modern all the time with it's new buildings, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the new buildings that have gone up recently are mostly sterile glass boxes IMO, which have taken away from some of the character of downtown (seems much more touristy). At the neighborhood level, Chicago has done a pretty good job balancing the modern development with the historic/traditional character.
That's exactly true. I remember being in Indy and thinking how much it reminded me of the new redeveloped Chicago, especially the North Side. The South Side has kept more of that gritty Northeast corridor look typical of the heavy industrial Northern cities. But every trendy area just looks and even feels like other Lower Midwestern big cities. Kind of becoming a more cookie cutter city. When I visited up there it kind of was disappointing.
That's exactly true. I remember being in Indy and thinking how much it reminded me of the new redeveloped Chicago, especially the North Side. The South Side has kept more of that gritty Northeast corridor look typical of the heavy industrial Northern cities. But every trendy area just looks and even feels like other Lower Midwestern big cities. Kind of becoming a more cookie cutter city. When I visited up there it kind of was disappointing.
have you been to ny boston or d.c.? D.C. outside of a few black neighborhoods was pretty sterile to me and ny has a ton of new buildings and chain restaurants, gentrification etc etc.
Its just a sign of the times. Cities are becoming more gentrified while losing their character. Its not just chicago lol.
Plus Most trendy hoods in chicago attract big ten mid-western graduates who prefer the cookie cutter atmosphere.
The rest of the city is to total opposite but IMO I'd rather see a place like englewood become a little gentrified than stay what it is now which is bombed out and violent
That's exactly true. I remember being in Indy and thinking how much it reminded me of the new redeveloped Chicago, especially the North Side. The South Side has kept more of that gritty Northeast corridor look typical of the heavy industrial Northern cities. But every trendy area just looks and even feels like other Lower Midwestern big cities. Kind of becoming a more cookie cutter city. When I visited up there it kind of was disappointing.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the South Side of Chicago has kept more of its gritty Upper Midwestern Rust Belt look? I would think the South Side of Chicago would be more comparable to the West Side of Detroit, Cleveland or Milwaukee than it would be to Philly.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the South Side of Chicago has kept more of its gritty Upper Midwestern Rust Belt look? I would think the South Side of Chicago would be more comparable to the West Side of Detroit, Cleveland or Milwaukee than it would be to Philly.
True. But for the sake of this discussion, out of the Midwest Chicago has been more similar to Northeast cities historically but it is now moving away from that at a rapid rate.
For the sake of this discussion, I would say that today, Chicago in the city proper is probably different than Boston and New York and has more in common with Philly. Not in architecture but in general pace and demographic shift that is occurring.
I think even as a Great Lakes city, Chicago slowly is starting to have more in common with the Lower Midwest.
For the sake of this discussion, I would say that today, Chicago in the city proper is probably different than Boston and New York and has more in common with Philly. Not in architecture but in general pace and demographic shift that is occurring.
I suppose in the sense that Philly has more blight (and a higher homicide rate) than NYC and Boston. But those cities aren't as squeaky clean as C-D forumers often think.
have you been to ny boston or d.c.? D.C. outside of a few black neighborhoods was pretty sterile to me and ny has a ton of new buildings and chain restaurants, gentrification etc etc.
Its just a sign of the times. Cities are becoming more gentrified while losing their character. Its not just chicago lol.
Plus Most trendy hoods in chicago attract big ten mid-western graduates who prefer the cookie cutter atmosphere.
The rest of the city is to total opposite but IMO I'd rather see a place like englewood become a little gentrified than stay what it is now which is bombed out and violent
Agreed. DC is very sterile. Too much government presence looms over the city. It steals a lot from it unfortunately. Easily the most sterile of the big four.
Philadelphia is the least sterile.
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.
