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.
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?
And nyc urban area is over 18 million
8 is closer to 4 than 18
I’m not sure how your question is even relevant to the thread topic
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?
Again, it really just comes down to Downtown Boston is at the northern edge of the city just about as far north as you can get in the city and separated from most of the Southern 4/5ths of the city by a major instrestate highway (I-90) this is not the case in Chicago where it is centrally located in between north and south or New York or Philadelphia or DC.
Therefore all the development North of downtown Boston that would normally be included as part of the city boundaries where your are from is not. It's not like Chicago where Again, it really just comes down to downtown. Boston is at the northern edge of the city just about as far north as you can get this is not the case in Chicago where it is centrally located in between north and south or New York or Philadelphia or DCssmaller municipalities ring the residential neighborhoods. That are miles and miles from downtown.
I get people get frustrated by Boston always being a special snowflake but it's reality, idk not much else that can be said. Where I lived in Bosotn people have told me I'm not as much in Boston as towns outside of Boston like Cambridge Somervile Brookline or even Watertown!Which rubs me the wrong way entirely but I can't pretend not to understand their reasoning.
But I find it funny how when describing Boston and its culture or demographics, the suburbs and the adjacent cities they all count, right? to make it whitewashed or what have you and then when it comes to situations like this—the suburbs and adjacent cities don’t count all of a sudden and the city is small again…
There are areas within Los Angeles city limits that have very little cultural cache with the brand of the city, and there are places outside the city such as Beverly Hills and Compton that figure prominently in defining the brand of the city.
I think this is pretty common, plenty of cities have unknown neighborhoods next to prominent suburbs.
There are areas within Los Angeles city limits that have very little cultural cache with the brand of the city, and there are places outside the city such as Beverly Hills and Compton that figure prominently in defining the brand of the city.
I think this is pretty common, plenty of cities have unknown neighborhoods next to prominent suburbs.
Beverly Hills and Compton aren't next to downtown or a away. Cambridge is as are other parts of the area.
Los Angeles has tons of communities it completely engulfs and surrounds-Boston does not.
Much of LA was developed after the fair housing act- little of Boston was.
LA has long corridors ofcintinius commercial development bounded by SFH tract- Boston has next to none of this.
Los Angeles County has much more uniform residential density, demographic diversity, and economic integration - Boston does not.
Los Angeles has county government(s)- Boston does not.
Los Angeles has weaker home rule protections than the Boston area.
There's too many differences that effects pretty much everything. You never addressed the geographic position of Boston (relative to LA or other cities) and the role that plays and its central to what we're saying.
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.
I have met people from Chicago, people who have spent a lot of time in Chicago, as well as people who currently live in Chicago. I think it's a mixed bag of responses you get about LA, which comes up because that's where I'm from, and even more importantly, that take on LA being a large collection of suburbs isn't remotely close to exclusive to Chicagoans. You hear this in New York City even more since there's a lot more back and forth between those two cities. Hell, you'll hear that in Los Angeles itself.
I think if there was any argument for Chicago being closer to New York City from someone in the 21st century, it'd probably stem from the central business districts and how prominent and imposing they seem to be in Chicago and New York City. There's a part of it is on the surface and visible that has a lot to do with the era of when a lot of the skyscrapers first came up and all the subsequent eras afterwards and the somewhat similar layout of the streetscapes, but probably also due to Chicago / Chicagoland seemingly putting a lot of its shiniest and biggest eggs concentrated in that Loop / Greater Loop basket. This seems much less so the case for Boston and its downtown for numerous reasons.
I have met people from Chicago, people who have spent a lot of time in Chicago, as well as people who currently live in Chicago. I think it's a mixed bag of responses you get about LA, which comes up because that's where I'm from, and even more importantly, that take on LA being a large collection of suburbs isn't remotely close to exclusive to Chicagoans. You hear this in New York City even more since there's a lot more back and forth between those two cities. Hell, you'll hear that in Los Angeles itself.
I think if there was any argument for Chicago being closer to New York City from someone in the 21st century, it'd probably stem from the central business districts and how prominent and imposing they seem to be in Chicago and New York City. There's a part of it is on the surface and visible that has a lot to do with the era of when a lot of the skyscrapers first came up and all the subsequent eras afterwards and the somewhat similar layout of the streetscapes, but probably also due to Chicago / Chicagoland seemingly putting a lot of its shiniest and biggest eggs concentrated in that Loop / Greater Loop basket. This seems much less so the case for Boston and its downtown for numerous reasons.
The difference though is New York is actually radically different than LA in its transit share, SFH composition, car ownership rates etc on a metropolitan level. While Chicago is truly only marginally different. It’s like 11% vs 7%. https://www.transitchicago.com/cta-p...dership%20jump.
The CTA had 860,000 riders/day in September. LA metro had 822,000. Yes LA vs Chicago is 12.4 vs 9.2 million people but it’s really not this huge chasm. The MTA has ~6M daily riders. Or 3x the per capita ridership Chicago has. While Chicago is like 35-40% more than LA.
The Gap on per capita metrics is actually similar between Chicago and LA as it is between Chicago and Boston. But nobody considers Boston has some level beyond Chicago on its urban credentials. (especially when you factor in Boston has nearly double the walk commuters per capita and more bikers as well)
And please by metro area. I know their CSA’s have a clear winner but Providence isn’t Boston, Laconia isn’t Boston. And while pretty much irrelevant to NYC’s overall size, New Haven isn’t New York.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne999
And nyc urban area is over 18 million
8 is closer to 4 than 18
I’m not sure how your question is even relevant to the thread topic
Chicago, like NYC and Los Angeles, culturally dominates its respective large region of the country.
This is news to me. Probably because I was born in 1994. From where I'm sitting? its been the opposite.
It's a pretty important distinction.
Chicago clearly belonged to an improv peer group in which the only other members were NYC and L.A. for decades.
In terms of having a brand as big as The Comedy Store, Second City may actually eclipse any single institution in NYC.
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.
