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 don't think any of those pictures do the waterfront justice, and I mean that in the nicest way.
Good Harbor? Crane? Duxbury? Plymouth? Towns like Newburyport, Hingham, Marblehead. My only point was purely to focus on the folks saying Chicagoland for waterfront. Just trying to understand the vote.. but as someone who started the thread, I should no champion one vs. the other.
Ok here are some more pics. All diff locations 1 or 2ish hours from Boston. The more I look at all the day trip possibilities/weekend the more I think Boston wins location in a runaway and I already thought it had the advantage
Ok here are some more pics. All diff locations 1 or 2ish hours from Boston. The more I look at all the day trip possibilities/weekend the more I think Boston wins location in a runaway and I already thought it had the advantage
It's not Chicago vs Boston, it's Greater Boston vs Chicagoland. I agree, I prefer Chicago as a city (though if you catch me on the right day in Boston, I may take that back). But, you could very easily say that Chicagoland is a very good area, Greater Boston is just better.
I'm curious to hear more specific experiences about the two from folks. Day trips? Green space? Weekend trips? Suburban aesthetics? Schools?
There's criteria as a guideline if needed.
I hate suburbs, everywhere. So for me, it's the City of Boston vs. the City of Chicago and Chicago wins. But Boston is one of my top US cities. Great place.
I hate suburbs, everywhere. So for me, it's the City of Boston vs. the City of Chicago and Chicago wins. But Boston is one of my top US cities. Great place.
Boston in particular, but Chicago also has lots of "Suburbs" that are really cities swallowed by the expanse of sprawl.
Lowell, Salem, and Waltham in particular are basically small cities that got swallowed by Boston sprawl and have lots to do in their own right.
I live in Boston and am electively moving to Chicago, so that tells you where my overall preference lies...but:
Overall Aesthetics: in terms of the city itself, Chicago hands down. Astounding concentration of significant architecture, big bruisy buildings with character and heft. Seriously no competition there, Boston is timid and a bit museum like - preserving the older fabric at the expense of vibrancy. Outside of the city, Boston probably wins. I like the varied landscape and the little towns dotted all over.
Suburb Quality: I don't know that much about the Chicago suburbs, but from those I've visited (Oak Park, Naperville, St Charles...probably fancier ones) I've liked Chicago better. Nicer Boston suburbs are insanely expensive.
Waterfront: Boston. Downtown, there is easier access to the harbor and harborwalk than there is to the lake in downtown Chicago. Both the North Shore and South Shore are delightful. Boston also has the Charles, which is lovely.
Economy/Job Market: Probably Boston tbh, though Chicago is more diversified.
Transportation: Chicago, no competition.
Cuisine: Chicago. Again, no competition.
K-12 Education: Pure quality - I think Boston, but in terms of accessibility - Chicago. I don't understand the school lottery system in Boston, and to buy a house in a suburb with good schools is prohibitively expensive.
College and Universities: I guess Boston for sheer number. But Boston does not have as solid a public offering as UIC.
Entertainment: Chicago. Seriously. Boston is a bit provincial culturally.
Geographic Location: Boston - ease of travel to all of the East Coast via Amtrak, beautiful vacation spots within a couple hours drive (The Cape, Maine etc), really quite impressive airport for the size of the city in terms of destinations (you really can get almost anywhere) and travel to Europe is a breeze.
Other Notes: weather - Boston (near perfect climate for me), Chicago is just a tiny bit too cold.
Waterfront: Boston. Downtown, there is easier access to the harbor and harborwalk than there is to the lake in downtown Chicago. Both the North Shore and South Shore are delightful. Boston also has the Charles, which is lovely.
Both have great waterfronts and in Chicago it completely depends on where you are for access. Chicago is extremely easy to access though - and there are many parts of Chicago which do not have Lake Shore Drive next to the water. There are buildings in Chicago in areas like Edgewater and Rogers Park on the north side and South Shore on the south side where the back yard is a beach and/or the lake directly.
With that being said, access to the lakefront in Chicago is extremely easy and the vast majority of it in the city is public land.
Quote:
Other Notes: weather - Boston (near perfect climate for me), Chicago is just a tiny bit too cold.
Maybe it's because you haven't lived in Chicago yet but Chicago and Boston winters are very similar. The difference in average temperature in winter is only a few degrees and Boston gets more snow than Chicago per year. Since you're moving to Chicago though, you'll eventually figure this out for yourself....
I live in Boston and am electively moving to Chicago, so that tells you where my overall preference lies...but:
Overall Aesthetics: in terms of the city itself, Chicago hands down. Astounding concentration of significant architecture, big bruisy buildings with character and heft. Seriously no competition there, Boston is timid and a bit museum like - preserving the older fabric at the expense of vibrancy. Outside of the city, Boston probably wins. I like the varied landscape and the little towns dotted all over.
Suburb Quality: I don't know that much about the Chicago suburbs, but from those I've visited (Oak Park, Naperville, St Charles...probably fancier ones) I've liked Chicago better. Nicer Boston suburbs are insanely expensive.
Waterfront: Boston. Downtown, there is easier access to the harbor and harborwalk than there is to the lake in downtown Chicago. Both the North Shore and South Shore are delightful. Boston also has the Charles, which is lovely.
Economy/Job Market: Probably Boston tbh, though Chicago is more diversified.
Transportation: Chicago, no competition.
Cuisine: Chicago. Again, no competition.
K-12 Education: Pure quality - I think Boston, but in terms of accessibility - Chicago. I don't understand the school lottery system in Boston, and to buy a house in a suburb with good schools is prohibitively expensive.
College and Universities: I guess Boston for sheer number. But Boston does not have as solid a public offering as UIC.
Entertainment: Chicago. Seriously. Boston is a bit provincial culturally.
Geographic Location: Boston - ease of travel to all of the East Coast via Amtrak, beautiful vacation spots within a couple hours drive (The Cape, Maine etc), really quite impressive airport for the size of the city in terms of destinations (you really can get almost anywhere) and travel to Europe is a breeze.
Other Notes: weather - Boston (near perfect climate for me), Chicago is just a tiny bit too cold.
I always scratch my head when people say Boston has better weather. Having lived in Mass., I remember snow in May. Chicago does not have Nor'easters terrorizing the city, has never had anything near 100 inches of snow like Boston has, has never had coastal flooding like Boston has this year, and is spared much of the snow of Boston. Chicago might be slightly colder in winter, but the summers in Chicago are just plain wonderful for the most part. The good people of Boston must just forget about their bad weather, or just compartmentalize and store it in a spot that is not easily reachable.
I always scratch my head when people say Boston has better weather. Having lived in Mass., I remember snow in May. Chicago does not have Nor'easters terrorizing the city, has never had anything near 100 inches of snow like Boston has, has never had coastal flooding like Boston has this year, and is spared much of the snow of Boston. Chicago might be slightly colder in winter, but the summers in Chicago are just plain wonderful for the most part. The good people of Boston must just forget about their bad weather, or just compartmentalize and store it in a spot that is not easily reachable.
Haha agreed.
I like the summer weather in Boston a bit more. A little less humid but with similar highs, especially inland. Either way, I think the winters are at the very least equally as bad in Boston. West of the city, the winter highs/lows are the same as in Chicagoland, with a good bit more snow. The only positive is Boston does not seem to see the same amount of overcast spells as Chicago. Think Boston gets more precipitation, but it seems to be sunnier more frequently for sure.
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.
