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.
Having lived almost equal stints in both, I want to hear what others think about the comparison. The obvious take-downs are the COL in Greater Boston, and the crime in Chicagoland. The COL in Boston is pretty real, but the crime in Chicago is substantiated on CD. Let's try and avoid those unless they pertain to the criteria.
Overall Aesthetics - Boston
Suburb Quality - Boston
Waterfront - Chicago
Economy - Tie
Transportation - Chicago
Cuisine - Chicago
K-12 Education - Boston
College and Universities - Boston
Entertainment - Chicago
Geographic Location - Chicago
Cost of Living - Chicago
Overall Aesthetics - Chicago
Suburb Quality - Chicago
Waterfront - Chicago
Economy - Tie
Transportation - Chicago
Cuisine - Chicago
K-12 - Boston
Colleges - Boston
Entertainment - Chicago
Geographic Locale - Chicago
COL - Chicago
Overall Aesthetics: Boston
Suburb Quality: Boston
Waterfront: Chicago
Economy/Job Market: Boston
Transportation: Chicago
Cuisine: Chicago
K-12 Education: Boston
College and Universities: Boston
Entertainment: Chicago
Geographic Location: Boston
Three waterfront votes for Chicagoland, 0 for Greater Boston. With the exception of downtown, I'm surprised to see the votes for Chicagloand as I find the waterfront far more usable and attractive on the North/South Shores of MA.
Three waterfront votes for Chicagoland, 0 for Greater Boston. With the exception of downtown, I'm surprised to see the votes for Chicagloand as I find the waterfront far more usable and attractive on the North/South Shores of MA.
Interesting to see!
At least in the cities (and to a point places like Gloucester and Hingham harbors) a large portion of the Water front is or was working waterfront, piers and stuff, while the Great Lakes had shipping other than Buffalo pre-St Lawrence Seaway which was a choke point of GL trade, proportionally it was less than seaports (and MS river ports) so they have more recreational waterfront.
Having lived almost equal stints in both, I want to hear what others think about the comparison. The obvious take-downs are the COL in Greater Boston, and the crime in Chicagoland. The COL in Boston is pretty real, but the crime in Chicago is substantiated on CD. Let's try and avoid those unless they pertain to the criteria.
Overall Aesthetics
Suburb Quality
Waterfront
Economy/Job Market
Transportation
Cuisine
K-12 Education
College and Universities
Entertainment
Geographic Location
Other Notes
[*]Overall Aesthetics - Boston - the coastline and the trees, also the hills [*]Suburb Quality - Boston [*]Waterfront - Chicago[*]Economy/Job Market - Boston[*]Transportation - Boston (less traffic and better public transit, especially suburban rail)[*]Cuisine - Chicago[*]K-12 Education - Boston[*]College and Universities - Boston[*]Entertainment - Chicago[*]Geographic Location - Boston by far[*]Other Notes
A number of people vote chicago for geographic location. I don't understand this. The main reason I hear is because it is centrally located and you can fly places more quickly. This is all relative. You can fly to San Fran more quickly but not London. I'd much rather be closer to day/weekend trips. If I want to see friends in New York I can decide now and drive down tonight. I can drive 2 hours to legit skiing for a weekend trip and 45 minutes to open ocean. I enjoy chicago very much as a city but it doesn't win geographic location.
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.