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.
This is what I was talking about when arctic air comes down... No it doesn't happen much, but it does happen, and is happening... It will be cold in NYC for sure at 12 degrees that to me is already bone chilling, but in Chicago it will be downright insane at -18 and they are cancelling school b/c of cold temps. It was already -16 earlier on January 6th and has been below zero other days. That's Fahrenheit ... so -28 Celcius (not including any wind chill) which should be around -40.
Boston seems *a lot* smaller than either NYC or Chicago. Boston is certainly not a big town comparatively.
I don't know how you come to this conclusion. NYC has 24 million people in metro area, Chicago has 9.5 million people in metro area, and Boston has 7.5 million people in metro area.
Yet you are claiming that Chicago, which is only 20% bigger than Boston, is somehow "big like NYC", even though NYC is 300% bigger than Chicago.
NYC is a huge city and possibly the greatest on earth; Chicago and Boston are roughly similarly sized cities and roughly similar levels of greatness.
Also, cost of living is not much higher in NYC, because most households don't own a vehicle, while the vast majority of Chicago households own a vehicle. Housing costs, as a percentage of income, are virtually identical in the two cities.
I don't know how you come to this conclusion. NYC has 24 million people in metro area, Chicago has 9.5 million people in metro area, and Boston has 7.5 million people in metro area.
If you look at CSA numbers, which are misleading. Boston's CSA includes a number of smaller cities and their suburbs (Worcester, Providence - all of Rhode Island and half of New Hampshire) mostly unconnected to Boston and don't add to the feel of which city is larger. Urban area population:
NYC - 18.3 million
Chicago - 8.6 million
Boston - 4.2 million
Using MSA numbers gives slightly higher numbers, but about the same ratio.
Visiting both cities, it feels fairly obvious that Chicago is larger, the built up city continues for far longer. Historically, in the early and mid 20th centuries, Chicago was about double Boston's size.
Quote:
Also, cost of living is not much higher in NYC, because most households don't own a vehicle, while the vast majority of Chicago households own a vehicle. Housing costs, as a percentage of income, are virtually identical in the two cities.
Housing costs are partially lower because many renter are under rent control or stabilization. Market rate in NYC is much higher. House prices are much higher as well, including the suburbs. Since the OP seems more interested in the suburbs, saving money by not owning a car is probably irrelevant.
Yeah... not sure what they consider suburbs... You could live across the river in Jersey w/o a car... the only suburb I'd recommend w/o a car in Chicago would be Evanston...
In general prices are definitely higher in NYC overall on going out, there are some exceptions, but...definitely higher. Even things like condoms are pretty high..like 2.5x higher, for some reason. Alcohol definitely higher, even in package stores/grocery stores. Restaurants except ethnic and pizza is noticeably more also. You'd probably save some on transit cost in NYC though if you are in the city as you can basically walk more places w/o paying anything for transit if you needed to. Gas prices actually look to be cheaper in NYC area though.
I don't know how you come to this conclusion. NYC has 24 million people in metro area, Chicago has 9.5 million people in metro area, and Boston has 7.5 million people in metro area.
Yet you are claiming that Chicago, which is only 20% bigger than Boston, is somehow "big like NYC", even though NYC is 300% bigger than Chicago.
NYC is a huge city and possibly the greatest on earth; Chicago and Boston are roughly similarly sized cities and roughly similar levels of greatness.
Also, cost of living is not much higher in NYC, because most households don't own a vehicle, while the vast majority of Chicago households own a vehicle. Housing costs, as a percentage of income, are virtually identical in the two cities.
I think he comes to this conclusion by relying on real world experience and some common sense, instead of looking at inflated and meaningless CSA statistics that bear *no relation* to the actual feel of a city.
If you look at CSA numbers, which are misleading. Boston's CSA includes a number of smaller cities and their suburbs (Worcester, Providence - all of Rhode Island and half of New Hampshire) mostly unconnected to Boston and don't add to the feel of which city is larger. Urban area population:
CSAs are absolutely not misleading; they use the exact same methodology for both Chicago and Boston.
MSAs are a poor comparison for the two cities, because Chicago does not have many nearby cities and job centers and Boston does, so to capture the true size of the Boston area you use CSA. Chicago is similar in either metric, so it doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Visiting both cities, it feels fairly obvious that Chicago is larger, the built up city continues for far longer. Historically, in the early and mid 20th centuries, Chicago was about double Boston's size.
It is obvious that Chicago is somewhat larger, but the fact is that Chicago is close to Boston in size, and NYC is many times larger than either city and a poor relative comparison. In short, Chicago and Boston are in the same general "weight class" (along with SF, Philly and DC) while NYC is in a "weight class" far above and only with LA.
I think he comes to this conclusion by using his eyes and some common sense, instead of relying on inflated and meaningless CSA statistics that bear *no relation* to the feel of a city.
Well call me crazy, but I will use the official Census Bureau stats that shows the cities are similar in size, rather than listen to a random biased claim on the internet.
And no one is actually responding to my point- Chicago is being compared to a city three times the size (and, even stranger being compared in terms of urbanity and transit when NYC has like 10 times the urban neighborhoods and rail passenger counts of Chicago), but then when I compare Chicago to a city with similar official size and rail passenger counts, then people claim "this is a crazy comparison". Huh?
Well call me crazy, but I will use the official Census Bureau stats that shows the cities are similar in size, rather than listen to a random biased claim on the internet.
Statistics are useless if you don't have a clue how and in what context they are meant to be used, which you obviously don't.
I think what he is saying is the "big city" feel in Chicago is quite noticeable in comparison to Boston and not much more, despite their metro similarities. For the OP you'd probably find better and prettier suburban cities with walkable downtowns around Boston than Chicago... if you wanted to consider another city. Better nature access than either NY or Chicago also.
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.
