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.
Uhhh. First off why compare a CSA to MSA. 2nd Boston's CSA is just over 8 million people. Chicago has 1.5 million more people in a smaller area. Chicagoland technically would be pushing 11 million. If added Milwaukee msa it would be 13+million.
If you added Milwaukee would have to get to Add Hartford-Springfield. Both areas are 90 miles from the principal city and take 1hr40 to get there. And if anything Milwaukee is more indenepend than Hartford-Springfield. That’d put the Boston CSA it at about 10.5 million.
Show me one number that says Chicago economically is in the middle? If you think Chicago is closer to nyc’s urbanity you have not spent much time in nyc..nyc is wayyy more urban than Chicago..Chicago is closer in urbanity to Boston..regardless of what you see when you look up in the loop
Nyc metro - 20 million people
Chicago metro - 11000 square miles and 9.5 million people
Boston metro 3400 sq miles 4.9 million people
Boston csa 9700 sq miles 8.2 million
Nyc has nearly as many people in its 300 sq miles as Chicago does in its entire metro of 11000 sq miles..
Manhattan population - 1.6 million in 22 square miles
Queens population - 2.2 million
Brooklyn population 2.6 million
Bronx population - 1.5 million
Nyc population density - 27000 people per sq mile
Chicago population density - 11900 people per sq mile
Boston population density 13000 people per sq mile
Restaurants -
Nyc - 27000
Chicago - 8000
I wasn't saying Chicago IS NYC, that's you putting words in my mouth. I'm saying it's the second runner up in terms of big city urbanity and expansiveness. Chicago isn't the "second city" for no reason. Boston is what, the 6th city? That's what I was saying.
Chicago is nothing like Boston. Chicago doesn't have the dense narrow street, overall low and smaller skyline, and old east coast building style. Chicago's is far more similar to NYC in layout, skyline, expansiveness, etc. I don't know why this is so hard to grasp. Obviously, Chicago is smaller and not nearly AS expansive as NYC, but it's the closest city you can get in the U.S.
There has long been a historic rivalry between Chicago and NYC through from the 1800's even through now. Chicago has never had a rivalry with Boston, to my knowledge. That alone tells me the two are more similar than you're making it out to be.
Last edited by CCrest182; 04-29-2020 at 02:41 PM..
If you added Milwaukee would have to get to Add Hartford-Springfield. Both areas are 90 miles from the principal city and take 1hr40 to get there. And if anything Milwaukee is more indenepend than Hartford-Springfield. That’d put the Boston CSA it at about 10.5 million.
The distance from Boston to Portland is also only ~20-30 miles greater than the distance between Chicago and Milwaukee.
You’d at least get up to Kennebunkport in that ”Chicago-Milwaukee” radius. So even without Portland, that’s an additional 207,641 from York County (ME).
Last edited by Boston Shudra; 04-29-2020 at 02:44 PM..
I wasn't saying Chicago IS NYC, that's you putting words in my mouth. I'm saying it's the second runner up in terms of big city urbanity and expansiveness. Chicago isn't the "second city" for no reason. Boston is what, the 6th city? That's what I was saying.
Chicago is nothing like Boston. Chicago doesn't have the dense narrow street, overall low and smaller skyline, and old east coast building style. Chicago's is far more similar to NYC in layout, skyline, expansiveness, etc. I don't know why this is so hard to grasp. Obviously, Chicago is smaller and not nearly AS expansive as NYC, but it's the closest city you can get in the U.S.
There has long been a historic rivalry between Chicago and NYC through from the 1800's even through now. Chicago has never had a rivalry with Boston, to my knowledge. That alone tells me the two are more similar than you're making it out to be.
Where in the criteria does it talk about rivalries? Skylines? Chicago has a rivalry with nyc maybe..nyc doesn’t have a rivalry with Chicago...people voting nyc on this thread are not basing it off the original criteria bottom line...urban footprint, economy, culture...based on these criteria even if Chicago is the second city and Boston is the sixth city Chicago’s urban footprint and economy are closer to 6 than to 1. If the criteria mentioned skylines you’d have an argument..I would love to see how many people voting nyc are from around Chicago and have zero understanding of the vastness of nyc...maybe you could say in the middle but even that’s a stretch
Where in the criteria does it talk about rivalries? Skylines? Chicago has a rivalry with nyc maybe..nyc doesn’t have a rivalry with Chicago...people voting nyc on this thread are not basing it off the original criteria bottom line...urban footprint, economy, culture...based on these criteria even if Chicago is the second city and Boston is the sixth city Chicago’s urban footprint and economy are closer to 6 than to 1. If the criteria mentioned skylines you’d have an argument..I would love to see how many people voting nyc are from around Chicago and have zero understanding of the vastness of nyc...maybe you could say in the middle but even that’s a stretch
Nyc>>>>>>>>>>Chicago>>>Boston
In the criteria OP included culture, economy, urban footprint etc. But this thread is titled is "Chicago closer in stature to Boston or New York?" meaning of importance/rank. And my overall opinion remains the same; it's in the middle, closer to Boston in some respects, closer to NYC in others. Sure, it might lean slightly towards being closer to Boston in terms of raw numbers, but it's still the second runner up to NYC. It's also not blanket closer to Boston or New York in all regards as you seem keen on saying. There's much more worth comparing here than just OP's initial post.
In the criteria OP included culture, economy, urban footprint etc. But this thread is titled is "Chicago closer in stature to Boston or New York?" meaning of importance/rank. And my overall opinion remains the same; it's in the middle, closer to Boston in some respects, closer to NYC in others. Sure, it might lean slightly towards being closer to Boston in terms of raw numbers, but it's still the second runner up to NYC. It's also not blanket closer to Boston or New York in all regards as you seem keen on saying. There's much more worth comparing here than just OP's initial post.
Cities that are much closer to nyc in stature (London, Paris) also don’t have nyc skyline..in the USA Chicago may be the second runner up to nyc in many urban criteria - but it’s a distant second...la is the second runner up to nyc on overall stature economy etc...if you picked in the middle I can at least remotely understand where you’re coming from but still disagree... the whole point of this thread is to ask is Chicago closer to the next group of cities or to number 1...if anyone’s being honest with themselves it’s closer to the next group...nobody’s denying its place as 3...
Chicago also has about 8.6 million people in 2300 sq miles. Like sure technically it’s MSA is large in land area but it’s like 30% Chicago and 70% soybeans.
(This is even more true for western Metros)
Funny. Chicago's urban make up is still more dense than Boston's tho...
In the criteria OP included culture, economy, urban footprint etc. But this thread is titled is "Chicago closer in stature to Boston or New York?" meaning of importance/rank. And my overall opinion remains the same; it's in the middle, closer to Boston in some respects, closer to NYC in others. Sure, it might lean slightly towards being closer to Boston in terms of raw numbers, but it's still the second runner up to NYC. It's also not blanket closer to Boston or New York in all regards as you seem keen on saying. There's much more worth comparing here than just OP's initial post.
I didn’t read everything here but what things in your opinion put Chicago closer to New York City?
[/b][quote=Ne999;57963492]Show me one number that says Chicago economically is in the middle? If you think Chicago is closer to nyc’s urbanity you have not spent much time in nyc..nyc is wayyy more urban than Chicago..Chicago is closer in urbanity to Boston..regardless of what you see when you look up in the loop
Nyc metro - 20 million people
Chicago metro - 11000 square miles and 9.5 million people
Boston metro 3400 sq miles 4.9 million people
Boston csa 9700 sq miles 8.2 million
Nyc has nearly as many people in its 300 sq miles as Chicago does in its entire metro of 11000 sq miles..
Manhattan population - 1.6 million in 22 square miles
Queens population - 2.2 million
Brooklyn population 2.6 million
Bronx population - 1.5 million
Nyc population density - 27000 people per sq mile
Chicago population density - 11900 people per sq mile
Boston population density 13000 people per sq mile
Wrong. Greater Boston CSA is 15,000sq miles not 9,700
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.
