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.
So you want me to say that Chicago offers more outdoor recreation within driving distance than Boston? If I say Boston offers more variety in outdoor activities and recreation in driving distance..am I wrong?? Can I say you can still hike and ski and jet ski in Wisconsin while at the same time saying Boston offers more?? Can both be true ?? Or will everyone from the Midwest have a fit because where are not giving outdoor recreation in the Midwest enough credit
What is it with people assuming that's what I'm saying? I have said multiple times in multiple posts in this thread that Boston area is better for outdoors.
For the 2nd time, that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm saying that most of America is ignorant to the fact that parts of the midwest actually do have great outdoors things. My statement has absolutely nothing to do with the outdoors offerings of the Boston area. I can mention these things without it having to do with Boston. I mention skiing in Wisconsin and specifically mention that the NE has better skiing and it was addressing the poster who thinks theres no skiing near Chicago. It has nothing to do with Boston. However, when someone who clearly doesnt know what they're talking about is going to make a naive statement, I'm going to reply.
Stop implying things especially when posters have stated numerous times that they think Boston is better for outdoors. I'm addressing the ignorance of many Americans who think the entire midwest is just a bunch of corn fields. My statements about ignorance have absolutely zero to do with Boston.
Some of Boston's neighborhoods have woodsy sections ( Roslindale, Jamaica Plain, etc), but many don't (East Boston, etc). Let's face it--most, if not virtually all of greater Boston's natural advantages aren't in Boston, or aren't even in MA---they're in VT/NH/ME.
Now, if Chicago wasn't on the edge of Lake Michigan, it really wouldn't have any natural attractions to lure people in. But it is, and the Lake makes all the difference. If you have to go out-of-state, WI is the obvious choice, but the woods in WI are a bit further north, way beyond Madison and Milwaukee...
Why is there such confusion? There is more nature in Eastern MA, than in Northeastern IL. It's not even conceivable how that part can be disputed.
It's pretty amazing. I've lived near Chicago and visited many times. I like it a lot and think that the city itself has quite a lot going for it. Outdoor access and natural beauty is emphatically not one of them (and that's okay, by the way). It actually does happen to be one of Boston's strengths.
The perpetual inferiority complex of America's third city is as insufferable as smug coastal elitism, and it bleeds into a kind of insanity that assures us that the natural beauty and appeal of cornfields and the far reaches of neighboring states is comparable to the dynamic and legendary appeal of New England's outdoor scene.
And the most quinessentially and quaintly Chicago thing of all is that Chicago people cannot fathom that many people actually take outdoor life seriously enough to predicate a move on it. Why live in an overpriced bubble of bourgeois if you can drive to a sand dune in Indiana is EXACTLY how Chicago Guy thinks about the world. That characteristically Midwestern insularity is what makes Chicago a warm, welcoming place to live. It's also what makes people crave coastal cities where such small-minded self-satisfaction is ditched in favor of broad-minded self-infatuation. I'm not saying one is better than the other. But at least we should not immerse ourselves in illusion about people and places.
Some of Boston's neighborhoods have woodsy sections ( Roslindale, Jamaica Plain, etc), but many don't (East Boston, etc). Let's face it--most, if not virtually all of greater Boston's natural advantages aren't in Boston, or aren't even in MA---they're in VT/NH/ME.
Now, if Chicago wasn't on the edge of Lake Michigan, it really wouldn't have any natural attractions to lure people in. But it is, and the Lake makes all the difference. If you have to go out-of-state, WI is the obvious choice, but the woods in WI are a bit further north, way beyond Madison and Milwaukee...
...are you forgetting that the Atlantic Ocean exists?
Last edited by Boston Shudra; 01-15-2020 at 12:32 PM..
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,937 posts, read 36,948,491 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by MassVt
Some of Boston's neighborhoods have woodsy sections ( Roslindale, Jamaica Plain, etc), but many don't (East Boston, etc). Let's face it--most, if not virtually all of greater Boston's natural advantages aren't in Boston, or aren't even in MA---they're in VT/NH/ME.
Now, if Chicago wasn't on the edge of Lake Michigan, it really wouldn't have any natural attractions to lure people in. But it is, and the Lake makes all the difference. If you have to go out-of-state, WI is the obvious choice, but the woods in WI are a bit further north, way beyond Madison and Milwaukee...
Yeah, see to me, the nicest natural attractions of Wisconsin are in the southern 40% or so of the state. That's where I spend my outdoor time when I go back.
Have you spent time exploring the bucolic towns in the MetroWest? Have you spent a week in Martha's Vineyard or Nantucket? Have you walked around World's End? Plum Island Beaches? Good Harbor? The cliffs in Marblehead? The Newburyport harborwalk? The waterfalls in the Berkshires, or Monument Mountains? Duxbury Beach Reservation? Crane Beach? Cape Cod National Seashore!?
It's hard to accept, that Chicago is a global city, and Boston is not quite as highly ranked as Chicago. That's just a fact, and I'm guessing that doesn't sit well...or so, it seems. (Ski hills, or no ski hills).
It's hard to accept, that Chicago is a global city, and Boston is not quite as highly ranked as Chicago. That's just a fact, and I'm guessing that doesn't sit well...or so, it seems. (Ski hills, or no ski hills).
Actually many people from Boston area have voted in favor of Chicago overall in this poll. It seems very difficult for chicagoans to accept that Boston offers more in any area at all?? Maybe it’s midwestern insecurity
It's funny, but the lack of access to good skiing is something that's been part of the discussion my girlfriend and I have had about moving to Chicago. We love Boston and will be happy to settle here long term, but we are going to try to go to another city at least for a few years; and Chicago is on the short list (along with Toronto, DC, London, SF, NYC, and potentially Philly). Skiing matters to us (as does the ocean - we boat/beach in the summer and the lake is just not a good substitute). But for the average family, not a young professional couple, City-data geek, trust fund kid, etc., none of this "access to nature" stuff is going to matter nearly as much in a Boston v. Chicago debate as cost of living will. And that piece of the debate easily goes to Chicago.
The thread is about the "metro" area, not ski hills a couple hours away. Neither city has ski hills in the metro. I don't think Martha's Vinyard is in Boston's metro, either. Should we stick to what the OP has asked in this thread?
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.
