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.
No, but Philly, Boston, and SF are looking more and more like Chicago with their projects.
I don’t understand his pointing out Chicago is the slowest growing large metro (other than Detroit) is some sort of baseless attack and not a simple observation that Chicago is losing ground against every large metro except Detroit. That doesn’t mean Chicago and Phoenix are peers but the gap between them is smaller than in 1995
No, but Philly, Boston, and SF are looking more and more like Chicago with their projects.
None of those cities look like that picture of Chicago, not even close. Chicago's skyline is on another level and always has been. Runaway winner in this category over those 3.
None of those cities look like that picture of Chicago, not even close. Chicago's skyline is on another level and always has been. Runaway winner in this category over those 3.
Can we just remember that that "picture" of Chicago isn't a picture its an image containing a bunch of buildings that don't exist.
Its in a different league no doubt but lets also stay grounded in reality.
Here’s an interesting one, since the only thing Chicagoans can talk about is the skyline (which, based on another active thread, both Boston and Chicago are building nearly the same amount at the current time).
You can map out the suburban areas of both Boston and Chicago and find some interesting similarities (beyond size/scale that are inarguably close to each other than to NYC).
Both have a North Shore/“Gold Coast”.
Both have affluent western belts whose towns stack one next to another.
Both have a large college city that borders the north of the cities itself.
The highest levels of affluence in each are concentrated in the north and west suburbs, with the further flung northwest and west suburbs delivering the bucolic-mansion and horses type of environment.
The southern reaches of each suburban region are more solidly blue collar and diverse (the exception being Bostons South Shore itself).
Both have spillover into the two bordering states, one north and one south.
Both have a population density, across the MSA, between 850-900 ppqsm.
Many of Chicagos beloved suburbs, were first incorporated/developed under Boston (and NY) migrants, even based on suburbs that were established back east.
Are there seriously provincial fools out here arguing that Boston has a skyline that looks remotely like Chicago's? I mean I'm a huge Seattle homer, and I don't even go out there saying Seattle's skyline is catching up to Chicago. And Seattle's skyline is way more impressive than Boston's (even the new and better Boston that all the Boston homers here keep panting about).
They make Batman movies in Chicago for a reason, because its skyline and downtown feels like Gotham.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwj119
Many of Chicagos beloved suburbs, were first incorporated/developed under Boston (and NY) migrants, even based on suburbs that were established back east.
Pulling deep into the hat I see. This is like most of America. Even Seattle was mostly founded by New England migrants. Means the opportunity was better elsewhere.
Are there seriously provincial fools out here arguing that Boston has a skyline that looks remotely like Chicago's?
You gotta stop. Stop saying stuff people did not say. Your looking at a post and trying to figure out how to say what we did not say.
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.