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.
I said "BY BOSTON". Having to drive or fly a few hours to get to mountains isn't "by Boston". Saying "somewhat close" to Boston is more like it. You guys rip on Chicago and AZ because we say "in a few hours we can be in....", yet here you guys are guilty of doing the same thing.
Boston has no mountains in the immediate vicinity. It has hills. So do areas of Chicagoland. We have rivers. We have beaches. We have forests. We have lakes. We have quaint villages. We have urban burbs. We have everything Boston burbs have and probably more. You cant look at me with a straight face and think that Chicagoland, which has 3 MILLION MORE PEOPLE THAN ALL OF MASSACHUSETTS, "cant compare to Boston's burbs". Get real.
It's not a few hours. Ocean beaches (multiple) are within 1 hour and legit skiing within 2. Within 2 hours of Chicago you cannot be on an ocean or skiing on a legit mountain. Both of those facts are important to many people and one reason I couldn't live in Chicago. I ski in the winter several times. I'm not going to fly to Colorado twice a month. If you don't care about oceans or mountains being within driving distance you'll be perfectly fine in chicago. Boston's drivable surrounding areas offer more. they just do. I'm plenty objective and give Chicago its due as a city.
It's not a few hours. Ocean beaches (multiple) are within 1 hour and legit skiing within 2. Within 2 hours of Chicago you cannot be on an ocean or skiing on a legit mountain. Both of those facts are important to many people and one reason I couldn't live in Chicago. I ski in the winter several times. I'm not going to fly to Colorado twice a month. If you don't care about oceans or mountains being within driving distance you'll be perfectly fine in chicago. Boston's drivable surrounding areas offer more. they just do. I'm plenty objective and give Chicago its due as a city.
Ask anyone in Boston their opinion of Chicago, and they will talk about it romantically almost as if they're from there. It's an incredible place, we all know that. It doesn't mean that Chicagoland and broader Illinois have to compete in every category. So, objectively soeaking and as someone who has lived equal time in both, there is not contest for me when it comes to certain things.
I can be in the white mountains, Lake Winnipesaukee, Newport, Portland, Portsmouth in under two hours. If you live in Naperville, you can be in... Lake Geneva? Rockford? Wilmette's private beach? So, sure, you can fly in the same amount of time we can drive. If that's your value prop, I guess we know who can't look at someone with a straight face.
As for the latter comment, Chicago certainly does have more people. But the delta between the MSAs have more to do with the cities themselves and their 2M population difference. Regardless, if having more people is the criteria, you must love Los Angeles, yea? Is Mumbai a top 10 city in the world too? If you broaden this conversation to CSA, the population delta decreases to ~1.5M difference. Anyways, if you want an indicator of desirability of those Boston suburbs (who don't seem to be on Chicagoland's level based on your narrative), is it fair to talk about cost? Surely, we all believe in supply & demand.
To me, if we are talking about proximity and location to alternative areas, Greater Boston is a runaway. Adversley, if we're talking about the city, or the mass amount of consolidated entertainement and offerings toward/in the city, it's Chicago in a runaway.
In two hours we can be in places with limestone canyons, the Driftless Zone, beaches, sand dunes, hills that are plenty large enough for the novice skier to enjoy, and the worlds largest freshwater lakes, etc. You guys are acting like there is nothing naturally beautiful within a short drive of Chicago, which is absolutely incorrect.
In two hours we can be in places with limestone canyons, the Driftless Zone, beaches, sand dunes, hills that are plenty large enough for the novice skier to enjoy, and the worlds largest freshwater lakes, etc. You guys are acting like there is nothing naturally beautiful within a short drive of Chicago, which is absolutely incorrect.
I'm from Chicago. I know it's not a barren wasteland. It doesn't mean it's apples to apples to other areas.
In my personal breakdown, I find some things in Chicago to be more desirable. Also included in my breakdown are things about Boston that I consider to be more desirable. The latter largely being location and proximity to other desirable areas for pleasure, weekend getaways, day trips, outdoor activity.
In two hours we can be in places with limestone canyons, the Driftless Zone, beaches, sand dunes, hills that are plenty large enough for the novice skier to enjoy, and the worlds largest freshwater lakes, etc. You guys are acting like there is nothing naturally beautiful within a short drive of Chicago, which is absolutely incorrect.
Nobody said that. Boston has more desirable day trips within driving distance for most people. Boston has novice trails plus double black trails within 2 hours. It has lakes plus an ocean within an hour. I can make your argument on a diff topic.. You’re acting like Boston doesn’t have a nice skyline...it’s got the Hancock and Millenium tower which are both iconic. Nice but Chicago has more. Chicago May have some nice drivable day/weekend trip options just not as many nor with the same variation.
Ask anyone in Boston their opinion of Chicago, and they will talk about it romantically almost as if they're from there. It's an incredible place, we all know that. It doesn't mean that Chicagoland and broader Illinois have to compete in every category. So, objectively soeaking and as someone who has lived equal time in both, there is not contest for me when it comes to certain things.
I have to agree on this. Everyone loves CHicago in MA
Nobody said that. Boston has more desirable day trips within driving distance for most people. Boston has novice trails plus double black trails within 2 hours. It has lakes plus an ocean within an hour. I can make your argument on a diff topic.. You’re acting like Boston doesn’t have a nice skyline...it’s got the Hancock and Millenium tower which are both iconic. Nice but Chicago has more. Chicago May have some nice drivable day/weekend trip options just not as many nor with the same variation.
Using the term "iconic" might only apply to Bostonians, definitely not to the rest of the world.
Using the term "iconic" might only apply to Bostonians, definitely not to the rest of the world.
No s***..you get the point. Boston’s iconic is more focused on history abs neighborhood architecture certainly not skyscraper gems. So Chicago wins there and Boston wins on superior drivable destinations.
This is a tough one - I think both are among the best cities in the US. Despite obvious differences, both are culturally rich, have pretty good transit for the US, some of the very best architecture in the US (I'd say Boston wins for the old, more neighborhoody buildings, Chicago wins for skyscrapers/skyline), and of course share a populous which is highly proud of their respective cities, as they should be.
I think I have to give this one to Boston, although it's pretty close. Boston has more cool day trips at its doorstep, I prefer the forested, hilly terrain, and I do prefer the ocean even though the Great Lakes are the next closest thing. Chicago could beat Boston in other respects, but my interests have to give Boston the slight lead.
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.
