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.
Did you read the OP? That's what is being compared.
Chicago is not 3 times the stature of DC, SF or Boston based on the above, and definitely not as a metro area. Maybe it used to be, but not now. DC has 2 million people inside the 495 beltway at 255 sq mi. Chicago is more urban still and more populated but it's 2.7 million people in about 230 sq mi. That's not 3x's in stature. The SF MSA GDP is knocking on the door of Chicago MSA's economy with 4 million less people. Just trying to confine the others to their limited city proper boundaries is impossible and not practical. Because SF, DC, Boston each have expanded influence or boundaries outside of their city proper.
Yes, I read the OP and referenced it a few posts ago.
The fact that the OP specified the metro area doesn't really help SF.
This thread seems to be going around in circles, everyone can agree that on paper Chicago is closer to Boston, but its cultural cache and massive achievements place it closer to NYC in the minds of many, and the poll results reflect that.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,552,695 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco
Yes, I read the OP and referenced it a few posts ago.
The fact that the OP specified the metro area doesn't really help SF.
This thread seems to be going around in circles, everyone can agree that on paper Chicago is closer to Boston, but its cultural cache and massive achievements place it closer to NYC in the minds of many, and the poll results reflect that.
Well going back to the beginning of the thread I personally voted in the middle of Both. I do not think that Boston and Chicago are on the exact same tier, but NYC is by far tiers ahead of both and on God level tier with London, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Paris. etc.
Yes, I read the OP and referenced it a few posts ago.
The fact that the OP specified the metro area doesn't really help SF.
This thread seems to be going around in circles, everyone can agree that on paper Chicago is closer to Boston, but its cultural cache and massive achievements place it closer to NYC in the minds of many, and the poll results reflect that.
Well going back to the beginning of the thread I personally voted in the middle of Both. I do not think that Boston and Chicago are on the exact same tier, but NYC is by far tiers ahead of both and on God level tier with London, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Paris. etc.
I’m not sure if you agree but Chicago has that Midwest sensibility that makes it seem far above its actual station in life. Like St Louis, Cleveland and Detroit there is a grand plan the city has that older cities like Boston don’t have. Downtown Chicago, Detroit Cleveland and St Louis are curated to give you a certain idea about the cities grandeur. While Boston, Providence, New Orleans, and even early industrial/river cities like Pittsburgh and Cincinnati do not. For example, Public Sq and Fountain Sq, not the same. One was very purposely designed to make you feel a certain way. While Fountain sq is just kind of there.
The Art Institute of Chicago being in Grant Park/Millennium park and Buckingham fountain is suppose to imitate those Royal Palaces and Gardens on imperial capitals. (Like Buckingham Palace or the Louvre) While Boston common, was a cow pasture some people play softball on now. Michigan Avenue was designed as a grand boulevard like 5th Ave. Newbury Street, was not.
Cleveland and St Louis do the same thing as Chicago with their Art Museums.
All the Midwest is generally the most “put together” of the regions ss they’re products of their time and I think it gives them a certain aura.
Worlds' Fair in 1893 (that NYC, Philly, and D.C. all wanted)
What's Boston's answer to the stockyards, Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Board of Trade, etc?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade
Except Chicagos been losing population for like 30 years and Boston been gaining that whole time?
If it’s so appealing why is Chicagos population barely treading water ?
one big issue here is you’ve ignored every impartial metric there is.
Boston is gaining population now, but had a post-1950 population loss arc similar to Chicago proportional to its city population.
If you're looking at this post 2000, that's one thing, but for the entire arc of history Chicago is the significantly more dominant city and the poll is showing that.
Except Chicagos been losing population for like 30 years and Boston been gaining that whole time?
If it’s so appealing why is Chicagos population barely treading water ?
one big issue here is you’ve ignored every impartial metric there is.
Chicago's a bit uneven in the last thirty year. From the 1990 to 2000 census it gained a pretty decent amount of population, had a larger drop from 2000 to 2010 and then a slight gain from 2010 to 2020. Chicagoland as in the MSA gained population in each census.
This is a better answer than Bill Burr or biotech.
Harvard University, Mass General, Boston Children's are all best in the world in their niche
Also it’s kind of weird that you favor a worlds Fair 130 years ago over “Boston solved a global pandemic” maybe two if Moderna’s HIV vaccine gets approved too
Last edited by btownboss4; 10-31-2023 at 07:32 PM..
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.
