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.
Boston has two unofficial ones in Cambridge and Allston. My CHinese friends who are PhDing in Boston like Allston's and Cambridge's better than the official one.
they're pHD of course they'll prefer Cambridge over Chinatown. The asian population of chinatown are mostly low-income overcrowded families and recent immigrants. Especially compared to Cambridge the housing look horrible from the outside and the entire area feels really foreign and different than Boston. TIs awesome one of my favorite places in New England.
Boston has1 chinatown. Cambridge isnt that asian (18%) and Allston is too collegiate to be Chinatown but I get it.
North Quincy feels like a urban/suburban Chinatown
they're pHD of course they'll prefer Cambridge over Chinatown. The asian population of chinatown are mostly low-income overcrowded families and recent immigrants. Especially compared to Cambridge the housing look horrible from the outside and the entire area feels really foreign and different than Boston. TIs awesome one of my favorite places in New England.
Boston has1 chinatown. Cambridge isnt that asian (18%) and Allston is too collegiate to be Chinatown but I get it.
North Quincy feels like a urban/suburban Chinatown
Yeah I have to constantly correct them when they call Central Square Chinatown, but thats what the Chinese Students call it. So il go with that. I like the emerging Asian culture in/around/near Central Square. I went in 2018, and again before the COVID19 crap, and its changed so much in just 18 months. Lots of Asian cuisine (Not just from China, but Nepal, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, Japan, Korea, etc) has opened. I wonder if in 10 years Central Square will become a further locale of Asian Culture.
Yeah I have to constantly correct them when they call Central Square Chinatown, but thats what the Chinese Students call it. So il go with that. I like the emerging Asian culture in/around/near Central Square. I went in 2018, and again before the COVID19 crap, and its changed so much in just 18 months. Lots of Asian cuisine (Not just from China, but Nepal, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, Japan, Korea, etc) has opened. I wonder if in 10 years Central Square will become a further locale of Asian Culture.
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
NYC may not have a rivalry with Chicago today but it certainally did historically. Chicago's growth is what led to the annexation of Brooklyn into NYC from fear of being surpassed. Chicago was out building NY in the late 1800's/early 1900's and was the more innovative city as far as planning and engineering. Chicago enacted height limits of 150' in 1893 that lasted until the 1960's. 7-8 story multi-family tenemnet style walk-ups were banned in Chicago and the ones that were built were demolished. Density was always kept in check specifically to not replicate the conditions in NY. Chicago was building taller and taller earlier than NY and it wasn't until widespread public panic forced building heights to become stagnant while NY kept experimenting and finally surpassed Chicago and never looked back. It would be like these super-skinny towers today causing widepread outrage in NY and a limit on construction is imposed for half a century as Chicago then goes on to build them in droves until reaching mega-tall status repeatedly while NY sits idly by.
This mindset of the public is why Chicago wasn't first to build, or have an answer for an Empire State or Chrysler building out of self-imposed restrictions. This is also why their urban forms are much different. Chicago's inner ring and core neighborhoods aren't crammed with hyper-dense mid-rises and the core didn't even have residential towers until well into the mid/late 1900's and they were few and far between. NY took the exact opposite stance on housing.
Chicago carved out an anti-NY approach to layout and zoning and throughout history usually used NY as a model for how not to shape the city's future. Even then Alderman had a stranglehold on policy and zoning approvals which still to this day creates an extra layer to development that vastly reduces Chicago's scale and volume of development. NY'ers being so braggadocious about beating Chicago in a race of urbanity until being orders of magnitudes beyond Chicago in scale is hilarious considering Chicago's officials made sure there was never a race being ran to begin with. Chicago could have easily set out to have an arms race with NY and essentially duplicate the landscape but it went a very different route and the result is a city that breathes, doesn't overwhelm or intimidate because of manageable density, offers sweeping vistas, a lot of greenspace, alleys, multi-layered streets and mostly detatched/semi-detatched housing.
Last edited by IronWright; 05-04-2020 at 10:35 PM..
NYC may not have a rivalry with Chicago today but it certainally did historically. Chicago's growth is what led to the annexation of Brooklyn into NYC from fear of being surpassed. Chicago was out building NY in the late 1800's/early 1900's and was the more innovative city as far as planning and engineering. Chicago enacted height limits of 150' in 1893 that lasted until the 1960's. 7-8 story multi-family tenemnet style walk-ups were banned in Chicago and the ones that were built were demolished. Density was always kept in check specifically to not replicate the conditions in NY. Chicago was building taller and taller earlier than NY and it wasn't until widespread public panic forced building heights to become stagnant while NY kept experimenting and finally surpassed Chicago and never looked back. It would be like these super-skinny towers today causing widepread outrage in NY and a limit on construction is imposed for half a century as Chicago then goes on to build them in droves until reaching mega-tall status repeatedly while NY sits idly by.
This mindset of the public is why Chicago wasn't first to build, or have an answer for an Empire State or Chrysler building out of self-imposed restrictions. This is also why their urban forms are much different. Chicago's inner ring and core neighborhoods aren't crammed with hyper-dense mid-rises and the core didn't even have residential towers until well into the mid/late 1900's and they were few and far between. NY took the exact opposite stance on housing.
Chicago carved out an anti-NY approach to layout and zoning and throughout history usually used NY as a model for how not to shape the city's future. Even then Alderman had a stranglehold on policy and zoning approvals which still to this day creates an extra layer to development that vastly reduces Chicago's scale and volume of development. NY'ers being so braggadocious about beating Chicago in a race of urbanity until being orders of magnitudes beyond Chicago in scale is hilarious considering Chicago's officials made sure there was never a race being ran to begin with. Chicago could have easily set out to have an arms race with NY and essentially duplicate the landscape but it went a very different route and the result is a city that breathes, doesn't overwhelm or intimidate because of manageable density, offers sweeping vistas, a lot of greenspace, alleys, multi-layered streets and mostly detatched/semi-detatched housing.
Chicago had a rivalry with nyc on skylines in the early/mid 1900s got it...skylines dont define stature.... London and Paris compete on stature...
NYC may not have a rivalry with Chicago today but it certainally did historically. Chicago's growth is what led to the annexation of Brooklyn into NYC from fear of being surpassed. Chicago was out building NY in the late 1800's/early 1900's and was the more innovative city as far as planning and engineering. Chicago enacted height limits of 150' in 1893 that lasted until the 1960's. 7-8 story multi-family tenemnet style walk-ups were banned in Chicago and the ones that were built were demolished. Density was always kept in check specifically to not replicate the conditions in NY. Chicago was building taller and taller earlier than NY and it wasn't until widespread public panic forced building heights to become stagnant while NY kept experimenting and finally surpassed Chicago and never looked back. It would be like these super-skinny towers today causing widepread outrage in NY and a limit on construction is imposed for half a century as Chicago then goes on to build them in droves until reaching mega-tall status repeatedly while NY sits idly by.
This mindset of the public is why Chicago wasn't first to build, or have an answer for an Empire State or Chrysler building out of self-imposed restrictions. This is also why their urban forms are much different. Chicago's inner ring and core neighborhoods aren't crammed with hyper-dense mid-rises and the core didn't even have residential towers until well into the mid/late 1900's and they were few and far between. NY took the exact opposite stance on housing.
Chicago carved out an anti-NY approach to layout and zoning and throughout history usually used NY as a model for how not to shape the city's future. Even then Alderman had a stranglehold on policy and zoning approvals which still to this day creates an extra layer to development that vastly reduces Chicago's scale and volume of development. NY'ers being so braggadocious about beating Chicago in a race of urbanity until being orders of magnitudes beyond Chicago in scale is hilarious considering Chicago's officials made sure there was never a race being ran to begin with. Chicago could have easily set out to have an arms race with NY and essentially duplicate the landscape but it went a very different route and the result is a city that breathes, doesn't overwhelm or intimidate because of manageable density, offers sweeping vistas, a lot of greenspace, alleys, multi-layered streets and mostly detatched/semi-detatched housing.
Thank you for the most cogent explanation of skylines, yet. Some very interesting points.
[quote=Enean;58026275]No one said it did. Nor, can Boston compete with Chicago, on stature.[/]
People from Chicago really think they are “close” to ny? Nyc more than doubles Chicago’s economic output..Boston’s output is more comparable..culture?
Chicago has retail stores...nyc is retail
Chicago has fashionable stores...nyc is the fashion capital
Chicago has theatres...nyc has broadway
Chicago has news stations..Nyc is media
Chicago has the bean..nyc has the Statue of Liberty
Chicago has second city...nyc is late night tv
No one said it did. Nor, can Boston compete with Chicago, on stature.[/]
People from Chicago really think they are “close” to ny? Nyc more than doubles Chicago’s economic output..Boston’s output is more comparable..culture?
Chicago has retail stores...nyc is retail
Chicago has fashionable stores...nyc is the fashion capital
Chicago has theatres...nyc has broadway
Chicago has news stations..Nyc is media
Chicago has the bean..nyc has the Statue of Liberty
Chicago has second city...nyc is late night tv
LOL...don't you think people know this, already? I don't think anyone from Chicago, thinks it's on NYC's level. It is a level above Boston, though.
LOL...don't you think people know this, already? I don't think anyone from Chicago, thinks it's on NYC's level. It is a level above Boston, though.
You’re finally starting to make sense...it’s a level above Boston and 3 levels below ny..which is why even if Boston (as it should be) is the correct answer in this poll..nobody is bringing Boston to Chicago’s level
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.
