Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which do you prefer based on the categories listed?
Chicago 103 59.88%
Boston 69 40.12%
Voters: 172. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-20-2019, 03:01 PM
 
Location: Baltimore
21,628 posts, read 12,733,519 times
Reputation: 11216

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MassVt View Post
I'm not completely sure, but it's quite dense if you're traveling in a slightly northwesterly route from Boston-Cambridge-Somereville-Watertown-Waltham . That's a VERY dense area of the Boston metro region...

I tend to look at density as not just people per square mile, but also as buildings per square mile. Thus, in my mind, NYC, Philly and Baltimore are the most dense metro areaa, because much of the housing is attached; Chicago, being younger and having been reconstructed ( 1871 fire), tends to be a little more "spacious"...
but in philly and baltmore there is much less vertical housing than in boston.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-20-2019, 03:04 PM
 
Location: Baltimore
21,628 posts, read 12,733,519 times
Reputation: 11216
Quote:
Originally Posted by iAMtheVVALRUS View Post
Did some quick calcs and found that in 226.34 sq mi, Boston combined with its neighboring towns and cities have a population of 1,861,284: 68.7% of the population of Chicago.

Here's a map showing the towns/cities included. The yellow star shows downtown Boston:
great image! good selection of towns too
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2019, 04:01 PM
 
4,520 posts, read 5,093,240 times
Reputation: 4839
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjimmy24 View Post
The points about Boston are kinda both true and false. Take Cambridge for example, yes you have Central Square, Inman Square, Kendall Square, Harvard Square. But quite a lot of Cambridge is also quite leafy and sleepy (not necessarily bad, but certainly not anything like Central). Large swaths of Brookline are also pretty sparsely populated, and yet are about 7 miles from downtown Boston (think Tom Brady's estate). Quite a lot of territory inside 95 is very small-townish or suburban.
Sleepy, yes, but also very dense. Cambridge's density is 18,503.42/sq mi; considerably more than Boston, itself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2019, 07:21 PM
 
Location: Cleveland and Columbus OH
11,052 posts, read 12,436,723 times
Reputation: 10385
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheProf View Post
Sleepy, yes, but also very dense. Cambridge's density is 18,503.42/sq mi; considerably more than Boston, itself.
Right but that doesn't mean it's 18k/sq mi all over Cambridge. A few areas bring that figure up. Boston covers considerably more territory. The 6.5 square miles (land area of the entire city of Cambridge) of the center of Boston will be a lot more dense than Cambridge.

So yes, Cambridge does have this: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3674...7i16384!8i8192

But also a lot of that: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3864...7i16384!8i8192

Last edited by bjimmy24; 09-20-2019 at 07:30 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2019, 05:15 AM
 
1,393 posts, read 859,409 times
Reputation: 771
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjimmy24 View Post
Right but that doesn't mean it's 18k/sq mi all over Cambridge. A few areas bring that figure up. Boston covers considerably more territory. The 6.5 square miles (land area of the entire city of Cambridge) of the center of Boston will be a lot more dense than Cambridge.

So yes, Cambridge does have this: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3674...7i16384!8i8192

But also a lot of that: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3864...7i16384!8i8192

A good amount of the housing is multifamily and close together which also contributes to the densities. Your second picture is not a great representation of this.
As Kendall square and Cambridge crossing (northpoint) continue to develop including more housing units these densities will increase
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2019, 06:26 AM
 
Location: Cleveland and Columbus OH
11,052 posts, read 12,436,723 times
Reputation: 10385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne999 View Post
A good amount of the housing is multifamily and close together which also contributes to the densities. Your second picture is not a great representation of this.
Yeah but this is a lot of Cambridge. That's my point. It's not a knock, it's just reality. For the record, I am not on the density-worshipping side of this website.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2019, 06:10 AM
 
Location: In the heights
37,127 posts, read 39,357,090 times
Reputation: 21212
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade View Post
but in philly and baltmore there is much less vertical housing than in boston.
Eh, I don’t know about that in regards to Philadelphia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2019, 07:52 AM
 
10,275 posts, read 10,330,601 times
Reputation: 10644
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
Eh, I don’t know about that in regards to Philadelphia.
Yeah, I don't buy that either. I think Philly and Boston have roughly similar amounts of vertical housing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2019, 08:07 AM
 
14,019 posts, read 15,001,786 times
Reputation: 10466
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjimmy24 View Post
Yeah but this is a lot of Cambridge. That's my point. It's not a knock, it's just reality. For the record, I am not on the density-worshipping side of this website.
So a ton of Chicago is similarly “suburban”
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2019, 09:31 AM
 
Location: Boston, MA
14,480 posts, read 11,276,052 times
Reputation: 8996
Chicago is physically a superior city to Boston. The streets and sidewalks in Boston are a minefield of trip hazards and potholes due to old infrastructure. It seems like Chicago learned from all the mistakes of the eastern cities on how to build a livable city.

That being said I feel a lot safer in Boston than I do in Chicago, I was there for Fourth of July and there was a melee on the Navy Pier. Stabbings, a shooting and a stampede is not my idea of fun on the Fourth. The bad element from the west and south of the city invade the safer areas regularly and destroy the sense of safety. Boob tattoos everywhere!

Boston, as has been said, is surrounded by a far superior region than Chicago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top