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.
Yes, in an abstract statistical sense Boston and Chicago are closer than NYC. But in practice, Chicago feels dramatically larger than Boston. They are clearly in different tiers.
How is actual factual data abstract. I would call the statistics real and the “feel” abstract.
They are in different tiers but the question is does chicagos tier fall closer to Boston or nyc
Chicago. Always thought of it as "NY lite" mostly because of its grand scale/built environment. It was always known as the "second city" for a reason.
Chicago…isn’t a valid answer here? Did you vote without reading the thread title?
Assuming you meant to say New York, I’ll point out that being known as #2 doesn’t mean you’re at all close to #1. Birmingham may be the “second city” in Britain, but it’s still more on par with Liverpool and Manchester than it is with London.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwj119
Agreed. If we concentrated simply in the downtown areas of the three cities, I’d easily say downtown Chicago and surrounding neighborhoods are more similar to Manhattan, or even the bordering areas of Brooklyn. It’s not particularly close.
Before visiting, I imagined Michigan Ave to be like 5th Ave in Manhattan, with a mix of old/new buildings and really lux hotel and store brands in the ground floor of all the buildings.
I was surprised that the majority of the buildings along Michigan seemed very new; like post-1940 at least. There were a few exceptions, but not as many as on 5th Ave. There were also a handful of blocks without much street activation, which also sets it apart from the NYC street based on my experience.
Last edited by Boston Shudra; 01-22-2023 at 11:35 AM..
Chicago…isn’t a valid answer here? Did you vote without reading the thread title?
Before visiting, I imagined Michigan Ave to be like 5th Ave in Manhattan, with a mix of old/new buildings and really lux hotel and store brands in the ground floor of all the buildings.
I was surprised that the majority of the buildings along Michigan seemed very new; like post-1940 at least. There were a few exceptions, but not as many as on 5th Ave. There were also a handful of blocks without much street activation, which also sets it apart from the NYC street based on my experience.
I do think visiting Chicago it actually is pretty stunning how many parking podiums there are. Which makes sense if you look at the numbers for like CTA ridership compared to the size of the city in addition to the cost of real estate not justifying underground parking to the same degree Boston does
Chicago…isn’t a valid answer here? Did you vote without reading the thread title?
Before visiting, I imagined Michigan Ave to be like 5th Ave in Manhattan, with a mix of old/new buildings and really lux hotel and store brands in the ground floor of all the buildings.
I was surprised that the majority of the buildings along Michigan seemed very new; like post-1940 at least. There were a few exceptions, but not as many as on 5th Ave. There were also a handful of blocks without much street activation, which also sets it apart from the NYC street based on my experience.
New York, for the reasons I stated in the rest of my post.
Yup. Thought about it for a second, and figured it was just a typo. Added to my post.
Yup, thanks. I just read your addition and fair enough. So many valid points on both sides of this thread that's why I originally said down the middle when I first replied.
However when you ask me gun to my head, I always automatically think New York right away. It could also just be my perspective which obviously is as unique as anyone else.
I grew up as a young teen coming of age in the early 90's when the Bulls-Knicks rivalry dominated the NBA. Add to this that I think Chi-town's height in popular culture (MJ, Sears Tower, Hancock building, Oprah, Ditka, Harry Caray, Family Matters) was around this time as well so these things probably have a good deal of influence on my perspective of this topic. The skyscraper debate, the sports, etc all play a role in my view and as to why I looked at Chicago a "peer" city in many ways.
One note to add on the "second city" moniker that I used. It's different than the example you gave of English cities because the term was given to Chicago as part of its rivalry with NY (it was coined by a NY writer and the term stuck). Whereas the English example isn't as much about a rivalry between London and those other cities.
Last edited by BigCity76; 01-22-2023 at 12:00 PM..
Reason: Add
Yup, thanks. I just read your addition and fair enough. So many valid points on both sides of this thread that's why I originally said down the middle when I first replied.
However when you ask me gun to my head, I always automatically think New York right away. It could also just be my perspective which obviously is as unique as anyone else.
I grew up as a young teen coming of age in the early 90's when the Bulls-Knicks rivalry dominated the NBA. Add to this that I think Chi-town's height in popular culture (MJ, Sears Tower, Hancock building, Oprah, Ditka, Harry Caray, Family Matters) was around this time as well so these things probably have a good deal of influence on my perspective of this topic. The skyscraper debate, the sports, etc all play a role in my view and as to why I looked at Chicago a "peer" city in many ways.
I do really appreciate this perspective, and have to admit, I share some of that. Home Alone, Breakfast Club, Ferris Bueller, the Bulls, the Bears, the Sears Tower, SNL… All hugely popular, and made Chicago feel bigger than life much like NYC. I suppose it didn’t hurt that I lived there, too.
But yeah, I do agree Chicagos cultural relevance, especially then, draws more parallels with NYC.
Tangentially, Bostons comparable run came well into the 90s/2000s.. The whole Patriots reign of terror, Goodwill Hunting, Boondock Saints, The Departed, Red Sox curse ending, etc.
How is actual factual data abstract. I would call the statistics real and the “feel” abstract.
They are in different tiers but the question is does chicagos tier fall closer to Boston or nyc
Sort of like is Boston closer in size to Cleveland or Chicago. Statistically it is Cleveland. But, Boston is clearly in a tier above Cleveland. It's hard to consider them comparable cities.
Nobody is going to spend time in Boston and Chicago and come away unclear which is the bigger city. Maybe that is true with DC, SF, Philly, or Montreal but not Chicago. The gap is just so large.
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.
