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.
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.
You know that Chicago's North Side has a plethora of gangs and shootings as well right? Perptuating the stereoype of everything bad that happens is somehow linked to the South & West Side is very simple minded.
1. About 85% of Boston is multi -family vertical housing. Very very few SFH and things hat look like single family homes usually aren’t. All the way to the southern edge of the city. Neighborhoods close to Center City in Philly are full of attached SFHs aka rowhomes. A neighbor as close to Downtown Boston as Point Breeze is to Center City would not be so one floored. If anything Philly certainly doesn’t have more vertical housing than Boston. This is why Boston has been more dense than Philly even prior to the building boom. In 2000 Boston was still more densely populated because almost everyone lives on top of each other.
2. Boston had a ton of violence on this past Fourth of July. 7/8 shootings and or stabbings and more calls for fights and shots fired. They just occurred where they always do. Boston is safer than Chicago but people don’t feel safe everywhere in Boston that’s why they don’t get mentioned on this board or visited. Unfair to single aChicagonut as being some extraordinarily violent city-it’s really not. And it’s unfair to say shooting or stabbing happened there on Fourth of July as though didn’t happen in Boston.
1. About 85% of Boston is multi -family vertical housing. Very very few SFH and things hat look like single family homes usually aren’t. All the way to the southern edge of the city. Neighborhoods close to Center City in Philly are full of attached SFHs aka rowhomes. A neighbor as close to Downtown Boston as Point Breeze is to Center City would not be so one floored. If anything Philly certainly doesn’t have more vertical housing than Boston. This is why Boston has been more dense than Philly even prior to the building boom. In 2000 Boston was still more densely populated because almost everyone lives on top of each other.
None of the above is true. Boston is overwhelmingly SFH, and Philly is denser than Boston. Boston is actually one of the least dense major U.S. metros.
None of the above is true. Boston is overwhelmingly SFH, and Philly is denser than Boston. Boston is actually one of the least dense major U.S. metros.
Bostonborn is talking about the city and urban suburbs..not metro..the city and urban suburbs are mostly multifamily
None of the above is true. Boston is overwhelmingly SFH, and Philly is denser than Boston. Boston is actually one of the least dense major U.S. metros.
It’s not one to “the least” dense majors metros though. And a lot of it’s lack of density is due to the odd definition of the Boston metro including less dense counties in New Hampshire and ignoring geographically closer and denser counties in MA.
It’s not one to “the least” dense majors metros though. And a lot of it’s lack of density is due to the odd definition of the Boston metro including less dense counties in New Hampshire and ignoring geographically closer and denser counties in MA.
By urban area population (which throws away city proper boarders) Boston is actually the least dense of the big 5 NE cities, and there's about 5-6 other major cities that are more dense by this metric as well
LA - 7,000 people/sq mi (12.2 million people living in 1,736 sq mi)
NYC - 5,318.9 people/sq mi (18.3 million people living in 3,450 sq mi) Chicago - 3,524 people/sq mi (8.6 million people living in 2,443 sq mi)
DC - 3,470.3 people/sq mi (4.6 million people living in 1,322 sq mi)
Baltimore - 3,073.3 people/sq mi (2.2 million people living in 717 sq mi)
Philly - 2,746.4/sq mi (5.4 million people living in 1,984 sq mi)
Boston - 2,231.7/sq mi (4.2 million people living 1,834 sq mi)
These figures are from 2010 mind you, but all their metros have grown by population so they are all densifying
By urban area population (which throws away city proper boarders) Boston is actually the least dense of the big 5 NE cities, and there's about 5-6 other major cities that are more dense by this metric as well
LA - 7,000 people/sq mi (12.2 million people living in 1,736 sq mi)
NYC - 5,318.9 people/sq mi (18.3 million people living in 3,450 sq mi) Chicago - 3,524 people/sq mi (8.6 million people living in 2,443 sq mi)
DC - 3,470.3 people/sq mi (4.6 million people living in 1,322 sq mi)
Baltimore - 3,073.3 people/sq mi (2.2 million people living in 717 sq mi)
Philly - 2,746.4/sq mi (5.4 million people living in 1,984 sq mi)
Boston - 2,231.7/sq mi (4.2 million people living 1,834 sq mi)
These figures are from 2010 mind you, but all their metros have grown by population so they are all densifying
The entire MetroWest is compromised of large lots, country roads, rock walls, preserved forest, wetlands, waterways, quaint town centers. And, the towns govern themselves.. NIMBYism has created this sprawl, though it adds to the uniqueness and beauty of the that area in particular.
Most of the interior of 95 has the density you'd expect. Outside of 95, the density drops off quickly and significantly.
By urban area population (which throws away city proper boarders) Boston is actually the least dense of the big 5 NE cities, and there's about 5-6 other major cities that are more dense by this metric as well
LA - 7,000 people/sq mi (12.2 million people living in 1,736 sq mi)
NYC - 5,318.9 people/sq mi (18.3 million people living in 3,450 sq mi) Chicago - 3,524 people/sq mi (8.6 million people living in 2,443 sq mi)
DC - 3,470.3 people/sq mi (4.6 million people living in 1,322 sq mi)
Baltimore - 3,073.3 people/sq mi (2.2 million people living in 717 sq mi)
Philly - 2,746.4/sq mi (5.4 million people living in 1,984 sq mi)
Boston - 2,231.7/sq mi (4.2 million people living 1,834 sq mi)
These figures are from 2010 mind you, but all their metros have grown by population so they are all densifying
I hate those “technically true” Statements like all the metros are growing. Or all cities have bad neighborhoods as if that makes the cities equal on that front. Would you say Both Chicago and Detroit have Rail systems and leave it at that? Probably not that’s misleading.
Like yes but Boston has gained 323,000 people and Chicago has gained 37,000. The City of Boston has added more people than all of Chicagoland. While you can say they are both growing they are not really like they are equally densities compared to 2000.
Last edited by btownboss4; 09-22-2019 at 07:31 PM..
The idea that the Boston urban area is low density is misleading because the population distribution in New England is incredibly uneven. For example if you add the populations for all the towns and cities that are inside 95/128 the population is about 2.1 million people in 310 square miles (the entire area of all these towns are included in the urban area). That means that about 50% of the population of the Boston urban area lives in just 17% of the land area. This means that the average resident of the Boston urban area does not experience it as a low density place.
I love Boston. I live in Chicagoland. These are two of my favorite cities in the US.
Bostons's history, charming neighborhoods are unmatched IMO. Also they have the best little Italy in the U.S., with the Big Dig the north end is perfect to downtown.
Chicago is a much much bigger citer psyically and population.
In regards to population, Chicago unfortunaly is loosing a ton in its bad neighborhoods on the south and west sides. People rip on Boston for being segregated, but Chicago is worse.
Downtown Chicago and the west loop are booming like never before. Downtown Chicago has never been more vibrant. The opposite can be said for the south and west sides.
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.
