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 any major cities that don't border smaller cities that resemble the core city? Chicago obviously has them along with everywhere else.
I can't be the only one that found it a bit odd that Boston's population had to be inflated to an arbitrary number that's not recognized as any kind of statistical area while Chicago and NYC kept their actual city populations.
Nyc and other cities annexed surrounding areas Boston didn’t. Cambridge has its own cbd that is essentially a direct extension of downtown Boston. Cambridge and somerville are directly tied to downtown. Cambridge is 2 subway stops from the heart of downtown. 3 minutes. It functions in reality on the ground as if as it’s a functional extension of the downtown core not just the city. Pretend queens wasn’t nyc, university city isn’t Philly etc.. that’s the difference
I'd hardly count famous comedians based out of Los Angeles/NYC making the odd reference to their hometowns "exporting culture."
Chicago is known for major league comedy, Boston isn't. Yes they fell off but they were a major player up until the 1990's, which goes back to my point about Chicago having more (and more recent) "Big three" feathers in their cap than Boston.
Yes Chicago *was* in the big 3. But isn’t anymore. Philly was once the most important city in Ameruca but isn’t anymore. And most people would dismiss out of hand the idea Philly is a top 2 US city anymore because things change.
For example May Day is a celebration of the Haymarket strike in Chicago. (Which is Why Chicago is referenced in the UK Labour Party song) and is basically Labour Day across Europe. But that happened 137 years ago. Not exactly relevant to the status of the cities currently. And is not still some major center of international socialism.
New York City is an agglomeration of 5 boroughs. You could absolutely tailor the conversation to say Manhattan is only 1.6 million people and smaller than Chicago, but why not include Brooklyn? Queens? Bx? Si?
And, you have to understand what is the core of the Boston area. Yea Cambridge is a different city, but its a functional extension of the core. The river that separates the two cities, doesn’t impact the economy or production of the region. The Boston core is an agglomeration of squares, whether they are in the city limits or not. New England is just a different beast when it comes to cities/towns/counties. Very very different. If you reported on an office market report of The Boston area and didn’t include Cambridge/Somerville, you would be missing nearly 50 million square feet of offices/labs. Its like just looking at Midtown Manhattan and omitting Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn. Yes, it falls just outside the city limit… but in New England, that doesn’t matter. We chop up our cities like mad in the northeast and especially so in New England + New Jersey + Pennsylvania. You could make the argument “well in DC they dont include Arlington.. or what about Jersey City!” Which is true, but Boston has other cities in the metropolitan area that serve as satellite cities. An argument could be made to include Arlington into DC core since DC is chopped up. But its not as interconnected as Boston/Cambridge are. Cambridge isn’t a Tysons Corner or Parsippany.
Our understanding of cities/towns/counties are very different than someone from California or Orlando. The relationships are very different.
This all sounds a lot like the threads where San Francisco gets reinterpreted to work it into comparisons with top cities.
A non-made up tallying of a city's urban footprint is urban area, which shows Chicago being twice as populated (8.5 million to 4.3 million) and considerably denser (3500 ppsm to 2300 ppsm).
If one had to pick which of these cities exists in the shadow of NYC, would it be a) Boston, or b) Chicago?
This all sounds a lot like the threads where San Francisco gets reinterpreted to work it into comparisons with top cities.
A non-made up tallying of a city's urban footprint is urban area, which shows Chicago being twice as populated (8.5 million to 4.3 million) and considerably denser (3500 ppsm to 2300 ppsm).
If one had to pick which of these cities exists in the shadow of NYC, would it be a) Boston, or b) Chicago?
The argument is not whether Chicago and Boston are peers (they are not, there is no real argument for that). It is if Chicago is more like New York or Boston.
Most stats point to Chicago being significantly bigger than Boston but more significantly smaller than New York
Nyc and other cities annexed surrounding areas Boston didn’t. Cambridge has its own cbd that is essentially a direct extension of downtown Boston. Cambridge and somerville are directly tied to downtown. Cambridge is 2 subway stops from the heart of downtown. 3 minutes. It functions in reality on the ground as if as it’s a functional extension of the downtown core not just the city. Pretend queens wasn’t nyc, university city isn’t Philly etc.. that’s the difference
Yeah but I don't think this makes Boston special in any way.
As a kid I lived in Dormont, PA, which straddles the Pittsburgh border, has a light rail station, and is more densely populated than Pittsburgh. I've never heard anyone suggest that its population needed to be added to Pittsburgh's, who hasn't annexed anything since 1907.
You can do this anywhere-we have cities south of San Diego where it would be impossible to know you left San Diego unless someone told you.
When Chicago got passed in population by Los Angeles, I doubt anyone was saying "hold on, you have to count Evanston and Cicero...we're still number 2!"
Yeah but I don't think this makes Boston special in any way.
As a kid I lived in Dormont, PA, which straddles the Pittsburgh border, has a light rail station, and is more densely populated than Pittsburgh. I've never heard anyone suggest that its population needed to be added to Pittsburgh's, who hasn't annexed anything since 1907.
You can do this anywhere-we have cities south of San Diego where it would be impossible to know you left San Diego unless someone told you.
When Chicago got passed in population by Los Angeles, I doubt anyone was saying "hold on, you have to count Evanston and Cicero...we're still number 2!"
Have you ever met people from Chicago? They will say exactly that. That LA isn’t really number 2 it’s just a big fat collection of Suburbs. Chicago is the real 2nd city. (They also preemptively say this about Houston to have excuses when it passes them up)
Plus like people absolutely brag about their region? The only people who would say New shirk doesn’t have an NFL are from Buffalo. Not NYC.
Similarly people from Chicago will absolutely claim Northwestern as a great (Chicago) School. Despite not being in Chicago.
I also don’t think anyone believes London England is smaller than Great Barrington MA, Despite what the city limits say.
Yeah but I don't think this makes Boston special in any way.
As a kid I lived in Dormont, PA, which straddles the Pittsburgh border, has a light rail station, and is more densely populated than Pittsburgh. I've never heard anyone suggest that its population needed to be added to Pittsburgh's, who hasn't annexed anything since 1907.
You can do this anywhere-we have cities south of San Diego where it would be impossible to know you left San Diego unless someone told you.
When Chicago got passed in population by Los Angeles, I doubt anyone was saying "hold on, you have to count Evanston and Cicero...we're still number 2!"
Evanston is an extension of the northern neighborhoods
Cambridge is a direct extension of downtown
Exaggerating to make a point but Considering proximity to downtown It would be more like if river north weren’t chicago
Not Evanston
You don’t have an understanding for how Boston, Cambridge, somerville etc interact functionally day to day
Have you ever met people from Chicago? They will say exactly that. That LA isn’t really number 2 it’s just a big fat collection of Suburbs. Chicago is the real 2nd city. (They also preemptively say this about Houston to have excuses when it passes them up)
Plus like people absolutely brag about their region? The only people who would say New shirk doesn’t have an NFL are from Buffalo. Not NYC.
Similarly people from Chicago will absolutely claim Northwestern as a great (Chicago) School. Despite not being in Chicago.
I also don’t think anyone believes London England is smaller than Great Barrington MA, Despite what the city limits say.
Guess the law and medical schools are not in Streeterville anymore?
Guess the law and medical schools are not in Streeterville anymore?
Harvard is literally 1/2 in Boston (actually by land area, it’s more in Boston than Cambridge)
From what I can tell is Northwestern has 1 building in Streeterville. Really not the same
But regardless Northwestern is basically in Evanston yet Chicagoans will say they have two elite Universities not one. Which is reasonable because Northwestern is a product of Chicago even if it’s Evanston because they couldn’t find a cohesive plot of land technically within city limits to build a University
Guess the law and medical schools are not in Streeterville anymore?
I saw.this and was wondering about that.
Thought they were branch campuses or something.
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.
