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.
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.
This is like most of America. Even Seattle was mostly founded by New England migrants.
More skyline talk. Good lord.
“Divert their attention, quick!!!! Before they see the other nine points that make this even more inarguable!”
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.
I'm reading between the lines of what you are trying to say, which is Chicago is more like Boston and the Boston skyline is catching up to the Chicago skyline. Is this wrong? If it is, I'm not sure what you all are wasting so many digital ink arguing about.
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.
I’ll bump this.
It was a cool little comparison of my two hometowns, before Guineas interrupted.
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”. NYC has a North Shore (LI) and three Gold Coasts (LI, CT and Hudson Waterfront, NJ)
Both have affluent western belts whose towns stack one next to another. - NYC has that and its called NJ. Multiple counties and dozens of affluent towns west of the city.
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. NYC has those and more, to the East and South in parts of LI and Central Jersey.
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.
Good list. NYC has similarities on some of your points. My additions in bold.
I'm reading between the lines of what you are trying to say, which is Chicago is more like Boston and the Boston skyline is catching up to the Chicago skyline. Is this wrong? If it is, I'm not sure what you all are wasting so many digital ink arguing about.
Read between the lines = making stuff up?
I for one didnt even mention Boston's skyline, let's just start there. I said plainly a few days ago- My stance is it's right in the middle. If I had to choose which way it leans I would choose Boston. For objective databased reasons.
EDIT: in regard to buildings that actually exist yes I did say Chicago reminded me more of Boston than NYC. That was a day or two ago so apologies if I forgot. The NYC scale is way more intense and way more areas of high-rise development- like BDowntown Brooklyn has a 1060ft building...not even Manhattan. Still I don't think Chicago is in a league with Boston, its above that. Ive never put them in the same tier anywhere on C-D
Last edited by BostonBornMassMade; 01-25-2023 at 05:33 PM..
Good list. NYC has similarities on some of your points. My additions in bold.
Love it BigCity.
As you said, where the comparisons exist, they’re in droves in NYC. I think that’s kind of the point I am making, on the metro level. Which, is the point of this comparison.
It was a cool little comparison of my two hometowns, before Guineas interrupted.
I don’t think that’s super true about Boston. The North shore is more diverse and blue collar than the South which (other than Brockton) is pretty white and leafy. Compared to say Salem, Gloucester Peabody, Lynn, and Beverly. In terms of actual shore towns only Manchester and Marblehead are really considered “elite” blue chip suburbs. Rt 2 is the equal to the North Shore in Chicago I’d say.
Of course cause metro Boston is very wealthy outside some of the gateway cities (Lawrence, Lowell, Haverhill, Framingham, Brockton) it’s getting to the point where almost any suburb is pretty wealthy and blue chip status is more a legacy/cultural thing than a sort of economic reality. Even “trashy suburbs” like Billerica have like median household incomes near $100,000
I don’t think that’s super true about Boston. The North shore is more diverse and blue collar than the South which (other than Brockton) is pretty white and leafy. Compared to say Salem, Gloucester Peabody, Lynn, and Beverly. In terms of actual shore towns only Manchester and Marblehead are really considered “elite” blue chip suburbs. Rt 2 is the equal to the North Shore in Chicago I’d say.
that's changing.
Most of the more notable demographic change in the Boston area is in the Greater Brockton area and Route 24 corridor. Towns like Avon Stoughton Holbrook Randolph Bridgewater Taunton even Weymouth Dedham and Quincy But I guess you may say that not South "Shore"- The Globe did an article on this demographic shift though.
By North Shore maybe he means Northern suburbs because I do think it's true the Northern suburbs are weather and tonier than the southern suburbs of Boston.
I don’t think that’s super true about Boston. The North shore is more diverse and blue collar than the South which (other than Brockton) is pretty white and leafy. Compared to say Salem, Gloucester Peabody, Lynn, and Beverly. In terms of actual shore towns only Manchester and Marblehead are really considered “elite” blue chip suburbs. Rt 2 is the equal to the North Shore in Chicago I’d say.
Look at an income heat map in Greater Boston. It’s true.
The entire southern part of Greater Boston, as in Fall River and New Bedford up through Randolph and most areas abound Rt. 24, are the most solidly blue collar, middle class, and in some cases conservative belt of Eastern Massachusetts. Also rapidly diversifying. Consider places like Taunton, and Randolph, and Brockton, even parts of Bridgewater and the Rocklands of the world.
As for the North Shore Comparison, you have those. But then you have Manchester by the sea, Marblehead, Rockport, Newburyport. And you have all those suburbs just inland from there - Boxford and Topsfield and whatever other towns (there’s a bunch).
I do agree that the metro west is the most affluent/has the largest expanse of wealth in Greater Boston. Chicago is not too far off, in that way, when you consider the western springs-hinsdale areas up to places like Barrington-Inverness-Long Grove.
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.
