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 is not Chicago. Chicago is not New York. It's pretty simple.
Well, yes. lol. But thats not what this thread is about.
Threads are created to discuss a particular topic. In this case, on the continuum from Boston to NYC, where does Chicago fall? If everyone answered 'Its neither!' then we wouldn't have threads.
Its great to discuss the demographic, economic, financial and social status of each city.
Every metric puts Chicago closer to Boston, and I would agree with the metrics for daytime hours, but night-time Chicago is indeed closer to New York. While both Chicago and New York are less 24 hour cities than they were ten to twenty years ago, they are both MUCH livelier than Boston at night, especially late night. The Red and Blue lines on the L run 24/7, as does almost the entire NY subway. The T shuts earlier and for longer than the other L lines. Last call in NYC is generally 4am, but some places later. Chicago generally 2 am but some places 4am and 5 am on the weekends. Impossible to buy a drink in Boston after 1:30am. Not easy to find food that is not fast food or diner food in Boston after 10pm, not at all a problem in parts of NYC and Chicago. Also quite a few more late night retail options in Chicago than Boston . . .
So for nightlife and architecture, Chicago is closer to NYC, for everything else, closer to Boston . . .
If NYC is 100, Chicago is 90, and Boston is 85. So Chicago is closer to Boston than NYC.
Yea, that's a good measurement.
Chicago is a very influential city, a tier above Boston (IMO), but in the grand scheme, New York is so far out on its own that even Chicago still doesn't come close.
Chicago is a very influential city, a tier above Boston (IMO), but in the grand scheme, New York is so far out on its own that even Chicago still doesn't come close.
Remember it was Chicago's exponential growth and influence that put NY so far out there on its own. After the annexation of Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island it was never close again.
As LINative said, Chicago looks more like New York, with both having an overwhelming mass of skyscrapers and high-rises along with historic architecture of essentially every style. The key difference is the insane mid-rise density that Chicago lacks which was a conscious effort to plan the city to be an anti-NY in many ways and zoning was tailored to bring about a different outcome.
Yea I’m in Chicago for the first time. Been around the west side (Garfield Park, West Loop) came down from O’Hare and the loop.
This doesn’t feel like New York in size.
It feels closer to Boston but a lot bigger than Boston for sure. The land area is big kind of like New York: But the overall height, structure size and average density is more like Boston: traffic is surprisingly light and very navigable I was in the former Cabrini Green area and a lot of its is actually super sparse to be so close to downtown.
The holiday Inn I’m at has little to no foot traffic around it despite a brand new office tower (blocking views of the Chicago river)
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.
