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.
Much bigger? Or much more reliant. Very different things.
Chicago's economy - doesn't matter how you want to break it down - is far closer to Boston than it is NYC in scale and magnitude. As of 2018, GDP of NY MSA 1,772,319, Chicago MSA 689,464, and Boston MSA 463,570.
Now, if we do a p/capita debate, Boston is 84,682, New York 76,689, and Chicago 64,393. So, Chicago and NYC are closer in p/capita numbers.
So, yes, Chicago would be above Boston, but under NY...no matter how any parses it, that's what it is.
In terms of arts/culture, Chicago is seen as generic big city for the Midwest kind of setting. For a show to be set in Boston, DC or Miami for example the show has to be about those cities. Something like Mike and Molly or Chicago Med is just a random TV show which Chicago as a backdrop. Compared to Cheers which is about Boston Same thing with Mean Girls vs Good Will Hunting. Chicago got a 3.5 year long run of Wicked while basically every other city gets touring productions it’s not uncommon for their to be a Chicago company. So I think it those ways it’s closer to NYC than Boston. (Not to say Chicago and NYC don’t have shows about them)
I still think it's closer to Boston here. Chicago serves as the setting for more shows than probably every city that's not NYC or LA, but it's similar to the rest of the cities in America in that it lacks a daily studio show that draws millions of eyeballs on a nightly basis. NYC has NBC Nightly News, the Today Show, Trevor Noah, Seth Meyers, SNL, etc. LA has NBC Nightly News (sometimes), Ellen, Kimmel, Corden, etc. The only other city that has this constant media presence is DC with NBC Nightly News (sometimes) and the Sunday morning shows like Meet the Press. Chicago had Oprah, but that's been off the air for nearly a decade now.
So while it's true you're more likely to see Chicago than Boston in a TV show, neither has an entrenched media presence like NYC, LA and to a far lesser extent, DC. I can't ever recall being in an airport or some public place with TVs and hearing "This is Lester Holt from our studios in Chicago" or "This is Katie Couric reporting from our studios in Boston." IMO this lack of media stature makes Chicago a lot more similar to Boston in terms of media influence.
First, I want to say these are my 3 favorite American cities, in this order:
1. Chicago
2. NY
3. Boston
Also, I'm not gonna talk about arts, I don't know anything about that.
As far as urbanity goes, all 3 are obviously very urban, but I would say the bigger drop is between NY and Chicago. NY is just on another level, no American and actually very few world cities compare. I mean, if NY was what it is minus Manhattan, it would still probably be the most urban. A couple of cities have an answer for BK, the Bronx and whatever, but no city has anything even remotely close to what Manhattan is, the closest thing probably being Chicago's immediate north shore, but even that is 2 levels below.
1 point for "closer to Boston".
Economically, I would say Boston again. NY is #1 GDP, Chicago #5 on CSA level, #3 on MSA (I think?). Boston is #6 on CSA and probably the same on MSA level. But the difference between Chicago and NY is way larger, something like 3x iirc?
1 point for "closer to Boston".
And now...culture. I think I said it in another thread already, but I think many of you guys are overrating Chicago's recognition outside of the US, and I admit it painfully, it being my favorite city (obviously there are some guys here who do the opposite and pretend something like Seattle or even San Diego are more influential than Chicago, but they are, fortunately, a minority). Also, you underrate LA's stature. As a non-American, I assure you, NY and LA are on a different level. These 2 and London are the big 3 when it comes to "popularity". People here know more about NY and LA than they do about Berlin, Madrid or, yes, believe me, Paris. And I'm in EUROPE. As far as Chicago and Boston, yeah, they are very well known, you'd have to be close to illiterate not know what and where (approximately) they are and most could say few facts about each, maybe a couple more about Chicago. On a side note, Chicago Bulls are by far and away the most popular American sports team here, not the Yankees, not the Cowboys, Lakers or whatever. My mom knows about them. Then again, there is a difference between being popular and what an average person would say if you ask them "which of these is more important?". In that case, I believe at least 90% would still know Chicago is bigger and has a larger economy than Boston.
This one is close, but still, 1 point for "close to Boston".
So, 3-0. No matter where the art thing goes, I think it's closer to Boston in stature. Also, I believe art is the least important here.
Just an interesting thing, not that it proves anything, the other day me and my friends were playing that stupid 5 second guess game where you have to name 3 of something in 5s and my friend drew a card that said "3 American cities". The weirdest thing, he is actually an American citizen and has been to the US many times (never lived though) and he had some brain freeze and all he could stutter was Chicago and New York in that order. It surprised me. He obviously knows more lol.
First, I want to say these are my 3 favorite American cities, in this order:
1. Chicago
2. NY
3. Boston
Also, I'm not gonna talk about arts, I don't know anything about that.
As far as urbanity goes, all 3 are obviously very urban, but I would say the bigger drop is between NY and Chicago. NY is just on another level, no American and actually very few world cities compare. I mean, if NY was what it is minus Manhattan, it would still probably be the most urban. A couple of cities have an answer for BK, the Bronx and whatever, but no city has anything even remotely close to what Manhattan is, the closest thing probably being Chicago's immediate north shore, but even that is 2 levels below.
1 point for "closer to Boston".
Economically, I would say Boston again. NY is #1 GDP, Chicago #5 on CSA level, #3 on MSA (I think?). Boston is #6 on CSA and probably the same on MSA level. But the difference between Chicago and NY is way larger, something like 3x iirc?
1 point for "closer to Boston".
And now...culture. I think I said it in another thread already, but I think many of you guys are overrating Chicago's recognition outside of the US, and I admit it painfully, it being my favorite city (obviously there are some guys here who do the opposite and pretend something like Seattle or even San Diego are more influential than Chicago, but they are, fortunately, a minority). Also, you underrate LA's stature. As a non-American, I assure you, NY and LA are on a different level. These 2 and London are the big 3 when it comes to "popularity". People here know more about NY and LA than they do about Berlin, Madrid or, yes, believe me, Paris. And I'm in EUROPE. As far as Chicago and Boston, yeah, they are very well known, you'd have to be close to illiterate not know what and where (approximately) they are and most could say few facts about each, maybe a couple more about Chicago. On a side note, Chicago Bulls are by far and away the most popular American sports team here, not the Yankees, not the Cowboys, Lakers or whatever. My mom knows about them. Then again, there is a difference between being popular and what an average person would say if you ask them "which of these is more important?". In that case, I believe at least 90% would still know Chicago is bigger and has a larger economy than Boston.
This one is close, but still, 1 point for "close to Boston".
So, 3-0. No matter where the art thing goes, I think it's closer to Boston in stature. Also, I believe art is the least important here.
Just an interesting thing, not that it proves anything, the other day me and my friends were playing that stupid 5 second guess game where you have to name 3 of something in 5s and my friend drew a card that said "3 American cities". The weirdest thing, he is actually an American citizen and has been to the US many times (never lived though) and he had some brain freeze and all he could stutter was Chicago and New York in that order. It surprised me. He obviously knows more lol.
This is a spot-on post and provides great perspective! As you mention, the drop-off between New York and Chicago is substantially bigger in most categories than the drop off between Chicago and Boston (and there are certain categories where Boston is ahead of Chicago). Chicago is clearly closer in scale to Boston.
This is a spot-on post and provides great perspective! As you mention, the drop-off between New York and Chicago is substantially bigger in most categories than the drop off between Chicago and Boston (and there are certain categories where Boston is ahead of Chicago). Chicago is clearly closer in scale to Boston.
Yes, agreed 100%!!!
My favorite cities, probably NYC, Chicago, and Boston in that order.
I don't know what the point of this is, Chicago is definitively in the middle, but second runner up to NYC in most facets. When I'm in downtown Chicago and look up, I'd be far more likely to make the mistake of thinking I'm in NYC than Boston.
Chicago and Boston are similar in sports, arts, to a large extent blue collar culture.
Economically it's in the middle, I wouldn't even say closer to either. Bigger than Boston, smaller than NYC.
For culture, I'd say Chicago is closer to Boston. Economically it's in the middle, or a toss up. Big city feel/urbanity? NYC 100%.
I don't know what the point of this is, Chicago is definitively in the middle, but second runner up to NYC in most facets. When I'm in downtown Chicago and look up, I'd be far more likely to make the mistake of thinking I'm in NYC than Boston.
Chicago and Boston are similar in sports, arts, to a large extent blue collar culture.
Economically it's in the middle, I wouldn't even say closer to either. Bigger than Boston, smaller than NYC.
For culture, I'd say Chicago is closer to Boston. Economically it's in the middle, or a toss up. Big city feel/urbanity? NYC 100%.
Show me one number that says Chicago economically is in the middle? If you think Chicago is closer to nyc’s urbanity you have not spent much time in nyc..nyc is wayyy more urban than Chicago..Chicago is closer in urbanity to Boston..regardless of what you see when you look up in the loop
Nyc metro - 20 million people
Chicago metro - 11000 square miles and 9.5 million people
Boston metro 3400 sq miles 4.9 million people
Boston csa 9700 sq miles 8.2 million
Nyc has nearly as many people in its 300 sq miles as Chicago does in its entire metro of 11000 sq miles..
Manhattan population - 1.6 million in 22 square miles
Queens population - 2.2 million
Brooklyn population 2.6 million
Bronx population - 1.5 million
Nyc population density - 27000 people per sq mile
Chicago population density - 11900 people per sq mile
Boston population density 13000 people per sq mile
Show me one number that says Chicago economically is in the middle? If you think Chicago is closer to nyc’s urbanity you have not spent much time in nyc..nyc is wayyy more urban than Chicago..Chicago is closer in urbanity to Boston..regardless of what you see when you look up in the loop
Nyc metro - 20 million people
Chicago metro - 11000 square miles and 9.5 million people
Boston metro 3400 sq miles 4.9 million people
Boston csa 9700 sq miles 8.2 million
In Chicago, about 9.1 million people live in 2600 square miles . That's more than Boston's entire CSA in about 25% of the land area.
In Chicago, about 9.1 million people live in 2600 square miles . That's more than Boston's entire CSA in about 25% of the land area.
Nice argument - 9.1 milllion people live where people live...So what’s in the other 75% of the land area water? Is it mountains? Desert? Is it uninhabitable? Probably a good amount of farmland which is integral to society..doesn’t mean you can just get rid of it...The urban areas in Boston’s csa cover 3600 square miles (dominant urban areas of Boston, worcester and providence)...that’s 8.2 million in 3600 square miles if you get rid of forests and trees... Nyc is a different animal..it has nearly Chicago’s msa in its 300 sq miles city border..its msa is 20 million....Chicago is very far from nyc in all things urban...I admit Boston is much smaller than Chicago and Chicago’s metro maintains higher population densities connected for longer distances than Boston ..it’s harder for just a few from Chicago to admit chicago is so much smaller compared to ny
Last edited by Ne999; 04-27-2020 at 08:59 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.
