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.
So after a while there and going up into some apartments right in the loop and getting the rooftop view. I think the Loop feels sort of like Manhattan. But there are some major differences, large walkable plazas and multi-leveled streets and Generally a slower pace and less hectic and vibrant street life- even for the winter. However, the sheer number of buildings is VERY impressive. The approaches into downtown are not nearly as consulted or daunting as NYC but its on a much different plane than Boston. I also went deep into the South Side with my friend. Down to 73rd street near the East side. It's built out at an average Boston density or someplace in Southern Queens or Southern Brooklyn. The commercial corridors are very weak down there. Also went pretty far North along Lake Shore Drive and then West North of Lincoln Park but South of Wrigley Field then down back to the Loop.
Overall the city seems right down the middle- there's just so much more open space in Chicago and the city is a LOT less populous. But when I pair it with the economic stats Id have to say it slightly leans Boston.
The main reason why the Loop feels "off" compared to Midtown (besides the obvious population density), is the fact that the skyscrapers have parking podiums in Chicago. That is why on ground level the cities do not feel the same as opposed to just looking at the skylines.
The main reason why the Loop feels "off" compared to Midtown (besides the obvious population density), is the fact that the skyscrapers have parking podiums in Chicago. That is why on ground level the cities do not feel the same as opposed to just looking at the skylines.
Yeah I find the skyline in Chicago to be massively bigger than Boston's. Boston's skyline is big but it's pretty similar to something like Dallas, whereas Chicago is bested only by NYC and nobody else is even close.
However, on the ground they are pretty similar and much closer to each other than NYC. Boston is definitely very vibrant and urban itself. Chicago does have better transit, but Boston is a bit easier to walk in my experience. For driving, Chicago is manageable and Boston is hilariously terrible. (But that probably helps it in terms of urban vibrancy).
The main reason why the Loop feels "off" compared to Midtown (besides the obvious population density), is the fact that the skyscrapers have parking podiums in Chicago. That is why on ground level the cities do not feel the same as opposed to just looking at the skylines.
I don't recall many parking podiums in the Loop business district and certainly, vintage buildings would have no such feature. Are you actually thinking of River North, which is primarily hotel and residential?
I don't recall many parking podiums in the Loop business district and certainly, vintage buildings would have no such feature. Are you actually thinking of River North, which is primarily hotel and residential?
There are relatively many buildings with parking podiums. The famous Marina towers have big parking podiums, so is the Trump hotel. You may not have paid much attention to it.
Chicago may pull ahead in certain metrics consistently across the board but I think it still occupies the same space of Boston. At least when it’s between New York, Chicago & Boston.
There are relatively many buildings with parking podiums. The famous Marina towers have big parking podiums, so is the Trump hotel. You may not have paid much attention to it.
Both of your examples are not in the Loop. How well do you know Chicago?
Yeah I find the skyline in Chicago to be massively bigger than Boston's. Boston's skyline is big but it's pretty similar to something like Dallas, whereas Chicago is bested only by NYC and nobody else is even close.
However, on the ground they are pretty similar and much closer to each other than NYC. Boston is definitely very vibrant and urban itself. Chicago does have better transit, but Boston is a bit easier to walk in my experience. For driving, Chicago is manageable and Boston is hilariously terrible. (But that probably helps it in terms of urban vibrancy).
Boston and Chicago may seem similar on a block or 2, but they are very different. Boston is tiny while Chicago is vast. Part of Boston's synergy is because it is tightly confined on a narrowing peninsula whereas Chicago, flat against its lakefront, spreads out over a huge, flat prairie (hence the so-called Prairie School of Architecture emanating from Chicago during the late 19th/early 20th Century era of the Arts & Crafts movement of which local Frank Lloyd Wright was a/the major principal). Obviously, Chicago has much wider, straighter streets, in general, compared to Boston, but has a similar density (OK, a few thousand less), but spread over a much wider area. You could literally fit about 5 Boston's into Chicago, size-wise.
It's kind of similar to the downtown Cleveland v. Pittsburgh comparison. Pittsburgh seems more lively because its Golden Triangle is small and tight (hemmed in by 2 rivers) as opposed to downtown Cleveland which is spread over a larger area -- but which is actually much more active outside the 9-5, weekday hours.
As for the L vs. the T, again Boston's is going to seem more crowded because it carrying large numbers over much shorter lines/distances, as opposed to Chicago's much longer, and more numerous L train lines.
Boston and Chicago may seem similar on a block or 2, but they are very different. Boston is tiny while Chicago is vast. Part of Boston's synergy is because it is tightly confined on a narrowing peninsula whereas Chicago, flat against its lakefront, spreads out over a huge, flat prairie (hence the so-called Prairie School of Architecture emanating from Chicago during the late 19th/early 20th Century era of the Arts & Crafts movement of which local Frank Lloyd Wright was a/the major principal). Obviously, Chicago has much wider, straighter streets, in general, compared to Boston, but has a similar density (OK, a few thousand less), but spread over a much wider area. You could literally fit about 5 Boston's into Chicago, size-wise.
It's kind of similar to the downtown Cleveland v. Pittsburgh comparison. Pittsburgh seems more lively because its Golden Triangle is small and tight (hemmed in by 2 rivers) as opposed to downtown Cleveland which is spread over a larger area -- but which is actually much more active outside the 9-5, weekday hours.
As for the L vs. the T, again Boston's is going to seem more crowded because it carrying large numbers over much shorter lines/distances, as opposed to Chicago's much longer, and more numerous L train lines.
The thread is about stature including size, economy, culture
Boston is about 1.3 million in 130 square miles including urban suburbs ie Cambridge
Chicago is 2.7 mill in 228 sq miles. Nyc is 8.5 million in 300 sq miles
Economy chicago way closer to Boston
Even the subway - the l covers 100 miles the t covers 70 miles (not including the silver line) and nyc subway covers 248 miles
Chicago and Boston closer to 150 subway station while nyc is pushing 500
Boston and Chicago may seem similar on a block or 2, but they are very different. Boston is tiny while Chicago is vast. Part of Boston's synergy is because it is tightly confined on a narrowing peninsula whereas Chicago, flat against its lakefront, spreads out over a huge, flat prairie (hence the so-called Prairie School of Architecture emanating from Chicago during the late 19th/early 20th Century era of the Arts & Crafts movement of which local Frank Lloyd Wright was a/the major principal). Obviously, Chicago has much wider, straighter streets, in general, compared to Boston, but has a similar density (OK, a few thousand less), but spread over a much wider area. You could literally fit about 5 Boston's into Chicago, size-wise.
It's kind of similar to the downtown Cleveland v. Pittsburgh comparison. Pittsburgh seems more lively because its Golden Triangle is small and tight (hemmed in by 2 rivers) as opposed to downtown Cleveland which is spread over a larger area -- but which is actually much more active outside the 9-5, weekday hours.
As for the L vs. the T, again Boston's is going to seem more crowded because it carrying large numbers over much shorter lines/distances, as opposed to Chicago's much longer, and more numerous L train lines.
In terms of Dense, Transit rich/Walkable neighborhoods As per 40% Walk/Transit commute share and above 10,000 PPSM Boston is 67% the size of Chicago while Chicago is like under 1/4 of New York (22%)
So Boston is way more like Chicago than Chicago like New York in scale of urbanism.
Of course there are other ways to measure urbanism but Boston typically outside Chicago on a per capita basis and NYC outdoes them both on a Per Capita basis which typically puts Chicago closer to Boston.,
The thread is about stature including size, economy, culture
Boston is about 1.3 million in 130 square miles including urban suburbs ie Cambridge
Chicago is 2.7 mill in 228 sq miles. Nyc is 8.5 million in 300 sq miles
Economy chicago way closer to Boston
Even the subway - the l covers 100 miles the t covers 70 miles (not including the silver line) and nyc subway covers 248 miles
Chicago and Boston closer to 150 subway station while nyc is pushing 500
By most every metric chicago is closer to Boston
Except the metric where Boston needed extra cities tacked on to almost be half the size of Chicago.
Also, what about intangible metrics? Has Boston ever beat NYC in any civic achievement?
Chicago has multiple times (World's Fair, ORD busiest airport for large chunk of 20th century, Sears Tower tallest building for multiple decades).
Yes, those are historical things but they show Chicago has the capacity to be a peer to NYC in ways that Boston hasn't proven itself with either NYC or Chicago.
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.
