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.
Also, while Boston is extremely vibrant during the day, as even several Boston posters have noted the city rolls up its sidewalks early and even the most lively neighborhoods can feel pretty dead by 10pm.
Absolutely true.
The only areas with any type of nighttime buzz on the weekend, are the Faneuil area, the Fenway area, Seaport, Southie, Davis Square, and Central Square. And even still, depending on the time of year, some will be prettttyyyy quiet, and others will have lines around the block. South End has great restaurants, cocktail bars, beer bars that cater to the 30-50 population.. But we can all agree, that's not considered nightlife.
Lincoln Park, especially along N Lincoln and N Clark, has pockets of extreme nightlife. It's less active before 10:00, but far more active than Cambridge after 10:00.
You do know how these areas ARE/WILL provide Chicago with land it is and will utilize right? Just a it pioneered over-them Railroad air-rights development. That extends its downtown/core areas and more plans for more by private investors.
All works in Its favor as land in and around its Core to spread into. It's as simple as that. Just as these warehousing districts provided structures to re-purpose as Loft residential housing in and near the core. Also removed past rust-belt industry areas to new developments.
Valid, as you see what's happened in West Loop/Fulton Market.
To be fair, that's what happened in the Innovation District aka Seaport (on a grander scale), and Kendall/Area 4 in Cambridge. And, that's what will continue to happen in areas like East Boston, and inner suburbs like Chelsea and Everett. So while Boston (itself) cannot continue to grow it's core in the same Chicago could to the West, Boston will see growth across the Charles and the Harbor and an unprecedented clip by it's own standards.
Bit of a tangent, but does apply...
More important than that, though, is what Chicago loses when it gains.. The inter-state migration is devolving the Chicagoland suburbs while evolving downtown. "Doomsdayers" try and compare what's happening in Chicago to Detroit. Well, it's actually the exact opposite of what happened in Detroit, where white flight made way for urban decay, and outer suburbs strengthened as industry moved outside of the city. Downtown Chicago, on the other hand, is seeing a rise in industry as a direct result of suburban flight. Companies are either leaving Illinois, or they are moving downtown Chicago. So what you're seeing are foreclosures, and 50-75% sale prices vs. original purchase prices in the former crown jewel suburbs like Barrington, Inverness, Burr Ridge. They have become discount towns for buyers who cannot afford a good quality of life downtown Chicago or bordering suburbs. Meanwhile, Chicago is steady as she goes, doing just fine, which is funny given that the city and it's governance has only perpetuated the suburban problems discussed with debt burdens around pensions, and tax increased (and, part of the reason why companies are leaving the suburbs in the first place).
In Boston, not so. Suburbs are hot, 95 business is thriving, downtown is booming, and even the outer 495 belt is stable despite the millennial urban preference. While it's creating steep housing costs, and congestion that even Chicago would not recognize, it's a far more stable place to live and work.. And, in my opinion, a nicer area of the country to live.
For those of you that are familiar with the areas.. Think about this for a second... The median home values in Arlington, MA are the same now as Lake Forest, IL. 20 years ago, only Wellesley or Weston would have been in the same league. Now, Wellesley home values are 75%+ more than Lake Forest. Same can be said for Barrington, IL vs. Concord, MA respectively. This is a direct result of what's happened, post recession, downtown and around Chicago vs. Boston. An important footnote for this comparison.
The only areas with any type of nighttime buzz on the weekend, are the Faneuil area, the Fenway area, Seaport, Southie, Davis Square, and Central Square. And even still, depending on the time of year, some will be prettttyyyy quiet, and others will have lines around the block. South End has great restaurants, cocktail bars, beer bars that cater to the 30-50 population.. But we can all agree, that's not considered nightlife.
Lincoln Park, especially along N Lincoln and N Clark, has pockets of extreme nightlife. It's less active before 10:00, but far more active than Cambridge after 10:00.
I'm firmly in the "Chicago has better nightlife by far" camp, so this is kind of a nitpick. But I would say that Boston's biggest issue isn't the lack of activity on the street at night, but the somewhat decentralized nature of it. Apart from Faneuil Hall and, to a degree, the Seaport, most of those are not "downtown" restaurants. So a visitor in a downtown hotel may be inclined to say "Boston's dead!" when walking around at 10pm. But I think the neighborhoods you mentioned (I'd definitely ad Harvard Square and probably Fenway) are not really any less active at night than the more active neighborhoods in peer cities (with some exceptions - i.e. Miami which is generally more nocturnal, and some of the more party-centric towns like Vegas, Nashville, Austin, etc.). But I'd put the places you listed up against most neighborhoods in San Francisco, DC, Philly, Seattle, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, etc. None of which have nearly the same reputation for bad nightlife.
On the subject of events (I know we’ve moved past that a bit), a few more of my favorites in Boston are Wake Up the Earth, the Freedom Rally, the Pumpkin Float, HONK!, the JP Lantern Festival, and Oktoberfest in Harvard Square (coincides with HONK!).
Chicago certainly has a lot of strong points, but so does Boston. The notion that this is a slam-dunk for Chicago — which is something I have seen expressed regularly both on CD and in real life — has always been slightly puzzling to me. Seems like it just depends on how you weigh the different pros and cons and what’s more important to you.
My impression (from a more limited, visitor perspective):
Chicago obviously has a much bigger, much taller, more bada***s downtown... It certainly has much more of a “wow” effect from a visitor perspective. I am not a big fan of its neighborhoods though — they’ve always felt to me kinda distant from downtown and each other and way too quiet (so I can totally see how you’d find Cambridge to be more buzzy than Lincoln Park — every time I’ve visited Lincoln Park it was as dead as a doornail).
Boston, on the other hand, has more old world charm, beautiful architecture and intimate historic neighborhoods nestled right up against each other. I love how Boston’s best neighborhoods ring downtown on all sides and seamlessly flow into each other. It has probably the most elegant and polished urban core of any city in the country that’s only getting bigger and better with all the development in Seaport. Boston has always felt to me very human-scale and “bite-sized” without being too small to feel boring... For me it is by far the most European city in the country. Chicago, on the other hand, is the quintessential American city — wide streets and a rigid grid stretching seemingly forever, abrupt transition from downtown skyscrapers to quiet residential neighborhoods and a lot of dead space in between (product of its legacy as a big transportation and industrial center).
I like Chicago’s size and scale, I love it’s skyscrapers, but I also much prefer the European-like intimacy and walkability of Boston.
I don't think there's a right or wrong type here. Both Boston and Chicago have physical environments that are different but appealing in their own ways... I like them both for different reasons.
Yes Boston has that intimate, old world European feel in its close-in districts like Back Bay, the North End, and Beacon Hill (especially Beacon Hill, which is literally London in American, as far as I'm concerned). Like Philadelphia, its downtown maintains an intimate, rowhouse residential feel that blends in with the surrounding districts and is extremely walkable. Outside those areas, with flashes in parts of Cambridge (esp near Harvard) and Brookline, Boston, though tight and intimate, is kind of mundane, with those ubiquitous, wood-frame triples lining street after street.
But Chicago has a different, unique type of charm, which personally I tend to prefer. Growing up in Cleveland, I'm more used to the Midwestern vibe of wide main streets and factories mixed in, in places. To me, Chicago was like Cleveland on steroids and vice versa. Chicago, of course, is much, much more dense with more apartments and tightly-spaced flat apartment homes, along with some row houses here and there. The fact that, although Chicago has some amazingly interesting old residential housing of brick, stone and even wood frame Victorian, it is not Old World stodgy (or charming, depending on your tastes) like Boston can feel. In Chicago, you may have old stone flats or rows then a mid or high-rise right next door. And the hundreds of street retail walking districts can range from old time funky to honky-tonk; you never know and it's full of surprises ... but never dull.
I don't get the comment that the residential streets in Chicago are dead. That's the case in most cities away from the commercial strips... Try walking along residential streets off Broadway on Manhattan's Upper West Side, or Brooklyn or Greenwich Village ... same thing. I don't get the knock on Chicago. Yes Chicago has very large blocks, with mainly straight streets and regular intervals, with some angled main drags thrown in (Milwaukee Ave, Clark, Lincoln, etc.). There's a regular pattern of streets that's comfortable and familiar to me in Chicago. And because of the historical 19th Century planning using its alleys for electrical lines and even behind-the-line L routes (unique in America), its main and residential streets are free of ugly utility lines (sorry, Cleveland, Philly and most large American cities fail re this aspect) and the side streets are loaded with comfortable trees.
Chicago, situated on an open plain/prairie, has a feeling of great size and spaciousness that Boston doesn't being jammed tightly on a peninsula surrounded by a bay and a river. But despite its great size, Chicago is no less a walking city in its own right, thanks to its density, lively Main Street retail districts and excellent mass transit network.
Lincoln Park, especially along N Lincoln and N Clark, has pockets of extreme nightlife. It's less active before 10:00, but far more active than Cambridge after 10:00.
Eh, I've lived in Cambridge and Lakeview (next to Lincoln Park) and would disagree. Harvard Square area is, generally speaking, more active at night than anywhere in Lincoln Park, which is actually rather quiet excepting a few blocks around Clark. Lincoln Park, these days, is rich, residential and quiet.
It's kind of a weird comparison, though. Why would you compare LP to a University town like Cambridge?
Eh, I've lived in Cambridge and Lakeview (next to Lincoln Park) and would disagree. Harvard Square area is, generally speaking, more active at night than anywhere in Lincoln Park, which is actually rather quiet excepting a few blocks around Clark. Lincoln Park, these days, is rich, residential and quiet.
It's kind of a weird comparison, though. Why would you compare LP to a University town like Cambridge?
To the bolded- Well, besides having a large portion of Lincoln Park surround DePaul? Because there is no LP equal in Boston, but both sit north of downtown and interact in the same way to their respective downtowns.
Having said that, what you are saying is patently false. N Lincoln is more lively than N Clark on any given night (until you get into Lakeview), but both are more active at night than Harvard Square. Then you have all of the pockets of bars on Webster, Armitage, Halstead, up to Diversey. I mean, even Wells St., which is considered Old Town, may as well be south Lincoln Park.
What bars/nightlife is truly active in Harvard Square past 11:00 pm? Maybe you're thinking Central? I have lived smack dab in the middle of both, and this is not close.
I don't think there's a right or wrong type here. Both Boston and Chicago have physical environments that are different but appealing in their own ways... I like them both for different reasons.
Yes Boston has that intimate, old world European feel in its close-in districts like Back Bay, the North End, and Beacon Hill (especially Beacon Hill, which is literally London in American, as far as I'm concerned). Like Philadelphia, its downtown maintains an intimate, rowhouse residential feel that blends in with the surrounding districts and is extremely walkable. Outside those areas, with flashes in parts of Cambridge (esp near Harvard) and Brookline, Boston, though tight and intimate, is kind of mundane, with those ubiquitous, wood-frame triples lining street after street.
But Chicago has a different, unique type of charm, which personally I tend to prefer. Growing up in Cleveland, I'm more used to the Midwestern vibe of wide main streets and factories mixed in, in places. To me, Chicago was like Cleveland on steroids and vice versa. Chicago, of course, is much, much more dense with more apartments and tightly-spaced flat apartment homes, along with some row houses here and there. The fact that, although Chicago has some amazingly interesting old residential housing of brick, stone and even wood frame Victorian, it is not Old World stodgy (or charming, depending on your tastes) like Boston can feel. In Chicago, you may have old stone flats or rows then a mid or high-rise right next door. And the hundreds of street retail walking districts can range from old time funky to honky-tonk; you never know and it's full of surprises ... but never dull.
I don't get the comment that the residential streets in Chicago are dead. That's the case in most cities away from the commercial strips... Try walking along residential streets off Broadway on Manhattan's Upper West Side, or Brooklyn or Greenwich Village ... same thing. I don't get the knock on Chicago. Yes Chicago has very large blocks, with mainly straight streets and regular intervals, with some angled main drags thrown in (Milwaukee Ave, Clark, Lincoln, etc.). There's a regular pattern of streets that's comfortable and familiar to me in Chicago. And because of the historical 19th Century planning using its alleys for electrical lines and even behind-the-line L routes (unique in America), its main and residential streets are free of ugly utility lines (sorry, Cleveland, Philly and most large American cities fail re this aspect) and the side streets are loaded with comfortable trees.
Chicago, situated on an open plain/prairie, has a feeling of great size and spaciousness that Boston doesn't being jammed tightly on a peninsula surrounded by a bay and a river. But despite its great size, Chicago is no less a walking city in its own right, thanks to its density, lively Main Street retail districts and excellent mass transit network.
I don’t want to derail this thread with NY comparisons but i’ll just say it’s apples and oranges. The UES and Greenwich Village are like 10x more vibrant than any neighborhood in Chicago... Also the buildings are bigger and more tightly packed, the blocks are shorter (so the retail corridors are much closer to each other and have more spillover to residential streets) and there is a lot more vehicular traffic — all of which contributes to a magnitudes more vibrant and congested feel not just on the retail corridors but also on the side streets.
But it’s not just the residential blocks in Chicago that seem very quiet. To be honest, I have never found its retail corridors to be spectacular either. Maybe I always caught them at a bad time, I don’t know. My last visit to Chicago was last summer — we stayed in a Gold Coast hotel for a week, and almost every evening around 8 I would walk up towards Lincoln Park and Lake View. Wells, Clark, Fullerton, Lincoln and everything in between. What I found was buzzing bars and restaurants - yes - but also sidewalks that were always eerily quiet and empty (even on a Thursday night in June). On my prior visits, I’d also been to Wicker Park, Ukrainian Village, Southport area in Lake View, West Loop and had a similar experience. Heck, I’ve even been to Wrigleyville during an away game and it was dead. The only neighborhood I found with a decent buzz was Wicker Park.
Is this uncharacteristic? I realize that my experience is still very limited so I’d love to hear from someone with proper experience and an objective view. Because so far, hard as I’ve tried, I have not been able to discover the great and vibrant Chicago neighborhoods I’ve heard so much about.
To the bolded- Well, besides having a large portion of Lincoln Park surround DePaul? Because there is no LP equal in Boston, but both sit north of downtown and interact in the same way to their respective downtowns.
I don't see why you wouldn't compare LP to wealthy in-town Boston neighborhoods like Back Bay or Brookline. Cambridge doesn't really function like LP; it isn't a neighborhood for Boston's wealthiest. DePaul isn't a major university and it's surroundings aren't analogous to Harvard Square.
If a typical Lincoln Park family moved to Boston, where would they most likely live? I think Brookline is the best answer. Wealthy, in-town, quiet, family oriented, great schools, public and private.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwj119
Having said that, what you are saying is patently false. N Lincoln is more lively than N Clark on any given night (until you get into Lakeview), but both are more active at night than Harvard Square. Then you have all of the pockets of bars on Webster, Armitage, Halstead, up to Diversey. I mean, even Wells St., which is considered Old Town, may as well be south Lincoln Park.
This is all nonsense. N. Clark is much more active than N. Lincoln, and none of these areas are more active than Harvard Square. Harvard Square is pretty much THE archetypal university town crossroads for the most famous university on earth. I attended Kennedy for grad school and it was very active 7 days, as late as 2 AM. Harvard students don't get up at 6 AM, like normal adults.
Also, not sure what you're referring to re. bars or Central Square. College students don't hang out in bars these days. Smartphones/social media ended the "let's first all meetup at Bar X" phenomenon. Almost all the college bars around my undergrad institution (not Harvard) have closed, but nighttime activity is as busy as ever.
Central Square is much quieter than Harvard Square, and is mostly older working folks, with a small sketchy area.
I don’t want to derail this thread with NY comparisons but i’ll just say it’s apples and oranges. The UES and Greenwich Village are like 10x more vibrant than any neighborhood in Chicago... Also the buildings are bigger and more tightly packed, the blocks are shorter (so the retail corridors are much closer to each other and have more spillover to residential streets) and there is a lot more vehicular traffic — all of which contributes to a magnitudes more vibrant and congested feel not just on the retail corridors but also on the side streets.
Yeah, I don't think NYC belongs in the conversation. A "quiet" block in NYC is a different thing than a "quiet" block in Boston or Chicago. A super-sleepy NYC neighborhood, say Park Slope, would be considered very vibrant in the context of Boston or Chicago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzrovian
But it’s not just the residential blocks in Chicago that seem very quiet. To be honest, I have never found its retail corridors to be spectacular either. Maybe I always caught them at a bad time, I don’t know.
Chicago has decent neighborhood vibrancy along Milwaukee in Wicker Park, and even moreso around Broadway/Belmont in Lakeview. That's the busiest non-downtown El stop in the city, so it's always fairly active. But Lincoln Park and Gold Coast are generally quiet. Chicago, generally speaking, has pretty good activity for U.S. standards, but not good for global standards. Good bar scene, but people aren't "strolling" like you see in Europe or NYC or Montreal.
Also, keep in mind that Chicago is VERY centralized. Michigan Ave. has great pedestrian activity. But there are no other remotely equivalent corridors.
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.
It's as simple as that. Just as these warehousing districts provided structures to re-purpose as Loft residential housing in and near the core. Also removed past rust-belt industry areas to new developments.
