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.
Again, I already told you, I have zero problem with Boston. I like the city and if it wasn't for its rather isolated location from the rest of the Northeast Corridor, horrid winter climate, lack of entertainment options that consume my hobbies, and somewhat noticeably "small" city feel then I would like it more the way I do Chicago. Those small towns in the Midwest or New England though? Forget it. Wont ever get a chance from me.
You're free to your opinion, but your logic is truly bizarre.
You claim that Boston has "horrid winter climate", yet Chicago has probably worse winter climate. You say that Boston is "rather isolated" from stuff but Chicago is more isolated. Then you say Boston is too "small" but Chicago is only like 30% bigger than Boston.
I mean, there are plenty of reasons to prefer Chicago over Boston, but never in a million years would I pick the reasons as "winter weather, close to interesting stuff, and size". That's just weird.
Chicago's advantages would be it's cheaper, more laid-back, better for certain industries, that sort of thing. Who the hell moves from Boston to Chicago for the winter weather and Indiana countryside?
You claim that Boston has "horrid winter climate", yet Chicago has probably worse winter climate. You say that Boston is "rather isolated" from stuff but Chicago is more isolated. Then you say Boston is too "small" but Chicago is only like 30% bigger than Boston.
The reference to liking Chicago is in regards to the feel of the city size, which is why the reference trailed directly after I mentioned Boston feels like a smaller sized city. Which it does compared to Chicago. Noticeably smaller, Boston is a small physical city, after walking around for a bit you feel like the city ends relative to either Chicago or Philadelphia, for that matter.
It was not for winter climate, which I don't care for what is available in either in the winter. I don't like the climate in any of these three cities at all. So there isn't anything skewing one way to Chicago or another to Boston on that front.
The reference to liking Chicago is in regards to the feel of the city size, which is why the reference trailed directly after I mentioned Boston feels like a smaller sized city. Which it does.
It was not for winter climate, which I don't care for what is available in either in the winter.
OK, my misunderstanding. I thought you preferred Chicago over Boston for the winter weather, and I was like, huh? Maybe Miami or San Diego would be slightly better choices?
Boston for me, but it is mainly based on my personal circumstances. My field is strongest here out of the three by far and offers the most opportunity to advance further and eventually break out on my own.
Otherwise, when I am looking for a city there are really only a few things I need to be happy: Strong restaurant and bar scene, cultural amenities (theatre and live music), excellent running routes, regular soccer pick up games (with good players, not novice level players), strong direct flight connections to Asia and Europe and a reasonable level of diversity with an International feel. I know I can accomplish all of these in Boston for a fact and even though I have not lived in Chicago and Philly I feel like I can easily tick all those boxes there also.
Two more "wants/necessities" for me though are a vibrant West Indian community and good urban schools. Even though we can afford private schools, I support public education and want to find top notch schools in an urban setting as suburban life is not for us. Places like Cambridge and Somerville offer that to us in Boston, but since I am not familiar with Chicago and Philly I have no idea if it is the same there. Finally I am from the West Indies so I need great Caribbean grocery options, restaurants and music scene. My sister went to Law school in Chicago and said that was a major draw back for her and my Jamaican friends in Philly say they cant find alot of items they need to make dishes they want at home. I know that is not a problem in Boston.
Overall though these are three great cities that no one should turn their nose up at. Definitely three of the best that this country has to offer.
Then you say Boston is too "small" but Chicago is only like 30% bigger than Boston.
Chicago's advantages would be it's cheaper, more laid-back, better for certain industries, that sort of thing. Who the hell moves from Boston to Chicago for the winter weather and Indiana countryside?
30% bigger? How do you figure?
And your points on Chicago are inverse to reality, aside from 'cheaper'.
Chicago's advantages come from its arts, sciences and industry -- all born from its size and history as a major center. Boston has many charms. I love the place. But Chicago wins on all points 'big city', if that's what you're after.
Chicago has 9-10 million and Boston has 7 million. That makes Chicago around 30% bigger. Not exactly some enormous difference. The economies are even closer in scale, around 10% apart. They're pretty comparable cities, in most respects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by compactspace
And your points on Chicago are inverse to reality, aside from 'cheaper'.
Wait, what? You are claiming that actual federally reported weather stats, population stats and economic stats are "inverse to reality"? But some internet dude's opinions are more valid?
You are confused. Your own biases are totally subjective. Measurable things like population, weather and economy are anything but subjective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by compactspace
Chicago's advantages come from its arts, sciences and industry -- all born from its size and history as a major center. Boston has many charms. I love the place. But Chicago wins on all points 'big city', if that's what you're after.
Definitely not true. Boston has a much better economy than Chicago. I don't know what you mean by "arts and sciences" but if you're referring in the educational or cultural spheres you're obviously wrong.
Boston wins in many points for "big city"- it has better transit, more walkable, more historic, and better urban fabric. That's, in part, why it's much more expensive and desirable. Boston has arguably the best urban fabric in the U.S. after NYC, if we're considering neighborhoods like North End and Beacon Hill, which have no Chicago equivalent. Chicago is bigger and has more skyscrapers, monuments, and big corporations, and has more extensive urbanity, but is generally somewhat less desirable overall.
There are a ton of Chicago forumers on C-D, some Philly forumers, and almost no Boston forumers. So we already know the poll results, as people tend to just vote for their city. Boston is guaranteed to finish last, and Chicago guaranteed to finish first, regardless of anything said in this thread.
This is probably true, but there are merits for picking any of the cities on this list first. I love Boston (I picked it and gave my reasons on the first page), but I don't feel Boston is at an unfair disadvantage on these forums very often. I actually think it's pretty well regarded on these forums and in real life. Chicago and Philly probably get more unfair criticism and are more underrated on the whole.
In any case, it's not the poll results, but the logic behind the votes that I find more interesting. I love reading why people choose the cities they chose. There's often some bias and homerism (I'm as guilty as anyone), but it's fun.
If they can serve their purpose to me without any issues occurring, then fine, I guess I would have a serviceable time when going through them. To me a small town serves a functional purpose; a place I stop to fill up gas, stretch my legs and make a phone call or two while walking around, get some food, possibly take a break for half-an-hour, and then get the heck out of there and onto where I need to go.
That is it. Otherwise, I hate small towns, worldwide, hate them. Only have managed to like a few of them from all the ones I have seen throughout the world. Again, I already told you, I have zero problem with Boston. I like the city and if it wasn't for its rather isolated location from the rest of the Northeast Corridor, horrid winter climate, lack of entertainment options that consume my hobbies, and somewhat noticeably "small" city feel then I would like it more the way I do Chicago. Those small towns in the Midwest or New England though? Forget it. Wont ever get a chance from me.
You have a lot of very well thought-out, informative posts, so you are clearly a bright guy, but a few of your posts, I'm thinking . . .
Like you seem to be addressing some other questions entirely.
The poster asked "even if it were a city in the middle of nowhere?" and you responded that you hate small towns. If you don't like small towns that's fine, but it kind felt kind of derailed.
By "middle of nowhere" people refer to Chicagos relative isolation from other large cities of various sizes. No matter where you are on the Bos-Wash corridor, you are within an easy day trip of multiple large important cities (although Boston is on the north end, you are still a potential day trip to NY (although pushing it)).
It seems to be that if you only like large cities, and you want to go visit other large cities, then Philly or Boston should have the edge. If you "small towns" well then, thats almost ALL there is outside Chicago compared to Philly or Boston.
Also, sure Chicago is clearly the larger city with more to do, but yet in many cases people can talk about another city as being more structurally urban. European cities like Paris are still considered very urban, even without having modern skyscrapers in its core. People talk about San Francisco feeling more like a real city than Los Angeles, and that can easily go unquestioned. The same comparison can be made between Boston and Chicago.
In fact I think Bostons relationship to Chicago, can easily be compared to San Franciscos relationship to Los Angeles.
One is smaller and less diverse, yet more expensive, educated, and walkable. The other has the larger foreign born population, clearly larger by any definition, yet has a much larger underclass, more people originally from places perceived as "backwater", and generally a little more affordable.
I remember in a previous thread when you were comparing Seattle to Chicago, you kept on talking about how Seattle would be better for families, but you didn't have a family so you didn't care about that. I was thinking: "Chicago and its suburbs have just as many good options for families. Thats a strange reason to prefer one over the other."
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,279,693 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il?
You have a lot of very well thought-out, informative posts, so you are clearly a bright guy, but a few of your posts, I'm thinking . . .
Like you seem to be addressing some other questions entirely.
The poster asked "even if it were a city in the middle of nowhere?" and you responded that you hate small towns. If you don't like small towns that's fine, but it kind felt kind of derailed.
By "middle of nowhere" people refer to Chicagos relative isolation from other large cities of various sizes. No matter where you are on the Bos-Wash corridor, you are within an easy day trip of multiple large important cities (although Boston is on the north end, you are still a potential day trip to NY (although pushing it)).
It seems to be that if you only like large cities, and you want to go visit other large cities, then Philly or Boston should have the edge. If you "small towns" well then, thats almost ALL there is outside Chicago compared to Philly or Boston.
Also, sure Chicago is clearly the larger city with more to do, but yet in many cases people can talk about another city as being more structurally urban. European cities like Paris are still considered very urban, even without having modern skyscrapers in its core. People talk about San Francisco feeling more like a real city than Los Angeles, and that can easily go unquestioned. The same comparison can be made between Boston and Chicago.
In fact I think Bostons relationship to Chicago, can easily be compared to San Franciscos relationship to Los Angeles.
One is smaller and less diverse, yet more expensive, educated, and walkable. The other has the larger foreign born population, clearly larger by any definition, yet has a much larger underclass, more people originally from places perceived as "backwater", and generally a little more affordable.
I remember in a previous thread when you were comparing Seattle to Chicago, you kept on talking about how Seattle would be better for families, but you didn't have a family so you didn't care about that. I was thinking: "Chicago and its suburbs have just as many good options for families. Thats a strange reason to prefer one over the other."
Yes Chicago called being in.... "a inferior, interior of the nation, location"... it rhymes LOL. Being isolated from other large cities? Keep being a EXCUSE that gets OLD. Then Chicago's great Beaches get the.... ole, but no comparison to a ocean Eastern cities have access to. GETS OLD TOO.
Now too with Boston. It's Chicago has a larger poorer class. Well it is a LARGER CITY the city proper's for sure. Perhaps if Chicago's North Half is only compared? Populations would be closer and numbers of wealthier and less poor numbers would give the cities more compatibility perspectives? BUT CHICAGO IS A BIGGER CITY. THATS THE WAY IT IS. Even just using CHICAGO'S NORTH-HALF OR NORTHSIDE. Has considerably more people then Boston Proper. But It would exclude most of the poorest neighborhoods on the cities Southside, to use in comparisons.
Both CHICAGO and BOSTON are GREAT American cites for similar to unique reasons of their own, that make them stand out.
But some just keep acting as if Chicago is in some Island far from other civilization, and its shoreline and beaches don't come close to a city near a ocean? Even in Philly threads vs. Chicago. Philly having DC and NYC hour, hour and half away and NJ beaches hour away..... TRUMPS ANYTHING CHICAGO HAS with beaches along the city itself? I SAY MORE EXCUSES TO JUST LESSEN A CITY THAT HAPPENS TO BE IN THE CENTER OF THE NATION? Having NOTHING to do with the vibrancy and attributes of that city, or its suburbs. We are in the Jet age not horse and buggy.....
As for Chicago and Boston being like LA and SF? As if somewhat competitive with each other? I never saw Chicago and Boston 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.
LOL. Being isolated from other large cities? Keep being a EXCUSE that gets OLD. Then Chicago's great Beaches get the.... ole, but no comparison to a ocean Eastern cities have access to. GETS OLD TOO. 
