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 physically bigger on every level. Bigger downtown, wider streets, more buildings with more square footage, more households, substantially larger media market, more transit commuters, much larger overall airport traffic, and O&D traffic. There's more room to move more people around etc. etc. etc. I mean Chicago wins this against most cities not named NY/LA.
It’s bigger, but it’s not anywhere as big as NY. If LA were the other city being compared, that’d be a different matter altogether.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,552,695 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boston Shudra
It’s bigger, but it’s not anywhere as big as NY. If LA were the other city being compared, that’d be a different matter altogether.
Correct. On size, Chicago is on a tier of it's own. I don't think it's close to LA either, but the downtown is the 2nd most urban scale after NYC which is something to hang it's hat on. If this is by metros though Chicago begins a new tier after NY/LA.
I visited NYC for the first time in my life this past Thanksgiving. I was expecting a Chicago'ish feel, and there was some of that in certain areas of Manhattan and Brooklyn, mainly in the aspect of urbanity, transit, food options.. ..but when you get outside of those areas it feels vastly different. Chicago suburbs are gridded and more consistent than NYC after you leave the denser urban areas, but also come off as very midwestern where as NYC's suburbs are structured more like what you see is most eastern suburban areas. Forested, winding roads, scenic parkways, ect...
Brooklyn, in a silo, has the same population as Chicago.
Yet posters are pulling out all sorts of tricks, like using $500k+ earner statistics to compare Chicago and Manhattan?
I mean… What are we really talking about here?
The right answer is it’s somewhere in the middle, or skews closer to Boston. On nearly every metric and indicator. No matter what kind of crazy gymnastics you try and do.
Brooklyn, in a silo, has the same population as Chicago.
Yet posters are pulling out all sorts of tricks, like using $500k+ earner statistics to compare Chicago and Manhattan?
I mean… What are we really talking about here?
Perhaps the fact that if you're comparing Chicago and Brooklyn, Chicago is a bit more relevant. I never see Brooklyn ranked as one of the top cities in the country.
Perhaps the fact that if you're comparing Chicago and Brooklyn, Chicago is a bit more relevant. I never see Brooklyn ranked as one of the top cities in the country.
Because it’s not a city. It’s a neighborhood / borough.
I know that. Can't speak for everyone. I'm not the one who started the ridiculous comparisons of Chicago to Brooklyn. Look back in the thread if you must...it sure wasn't me.
I just realized the OP specifically said metro level.
Chicagoland is - in every single possible way - More comparable to Greater Boston than NYC Metro. That’s in size, output, IP. You name it.
I’d assume most have been comparing cities alone, and although I still think Chicago skews more towards Boston than NYC, I understand the difference of opinion. Metro level? Come on now.
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.
