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.
Yea, the Chicago transportation network is a lot more extensive and has higher ridership especially pre-pandemic. Buses seem to go along a lot faster partially because of how straight the routes are, and I reckon we can probably find stats on average bus speeds if we dig deep enough. The L serves more people and places and for some reason seemingly goes faster than the T which in the last few years seems to be plodding along slowly and somewhat infrequently on every single visit on every single ride. It's also nuts the Blue Line still has not connected to the Red Line. A lot of what makes a transit system work is the network aspect, and it's crazy that with so very few lines, Boston hasn't managed to connect them all.
The percentage doesn't matter that much in this comparison. We both know that Chicago the municipality is a much larger and more populous than the municipality of Boston and that Chicago includes quite a bit of suburban area, but its urban, built up expanse is larger than that of the Boston area and that what functions as Boston goes well outside the municipal boundaries of Boston. The percentage hides that difference in scale, so it's not really meaningful. It's like saying everyone knows Jacksonville is a bigger city than Boston. Technically true, but we all know just saying that would generally leave an impression that's not actually true.
The bit about Chicago cultural offerings being greater and more influential has already been discussed before. If all you see still is Lollapalooza, then I don't think revisiting that conversation goes anywhere.
Again, it's really how much greater in all these categories NYC is to both Boston and Chicago that it essentially changes the entire scale of measurement. It's like when you plot graphs to fit the range of values and it's adjusting to that range--as soon as you put in NYC, it just makes what formerly looked like substantial differences into minuscule ones. I don't think Chicago is *right in the middle* as that would imply splitting the distance between Boston and New York City. Chicago is much closer overall to Boston. This doesn't mean Boston or Chicago are bad cities or lacking in stature. It's just that it's a comparison to what's arguably the wrong tier.
Buses going faster …it’s a much larger area. Is the commute shorter? And that’s the biggest difference- size. But size and usage is a factor (bigger factors) between Chicago and NYC
The thing is the lifestyle and scale of Chicago neighborhoods and the beat of life per se is far more in line with Boston than New York City but the land area covered is much more in line with New York City. Kind of. Not really when it comes to public transit
Boston has 68 miles of subway
Chicago has 103
New York has 248
Boston has 388 miles of commuter rail
Chicago has 487
NYC has 1565
If we stepped outside of the stage managed "only metro areas" criteria, someone might have the freedom to think thoughts like" wow, it looks like Chicago is a single entity that is jammed with world class architecture and amenities on a scale nearly 5X that of Boston at the same density."
When you go to metro area, you're intentionally diluting things. Now we have to talk about Braintrees and Schaumburgs and Napervilles. Now everything is just one big homogenized everycity.
So in this case, the insistence on the metro area is clearly to water things down to make Chicago look smaller (image, not just population) and more like every other place.
If we stepped outside of the stage managed "only metro areas" criteria, someone might have the freedom to think thoughts like" wow, it looks like Chicago is a single entity that is jammed with world class architecture and amenities on a scale nearly 5X that of Boston at the same density."
When you go to metro area, you're intentionally diluting things. Now we have to talk about Braintrees and Schaumburgs and Napervilles. Now everything is just one big homogenized everycity.
So in this case, the insistence on the metro area is clearly to water things down to make Chicago look smaller (image, not just population) and more like every other place.
I’m sincerely asking - have you been to both?
Forget the metro area.
Just look at the high density core and urban surroundings. No that wouldn’t include Braintree. Yes, it would include Cambridge or Somerville. Both of which are significantly more urban than most Chicago neighborhoods, let alone suburbs.
You’d say, unequivocally, Boston and Chicago feel more similar, because they are more similar.
If you’ve ever spent more than a day in New York City, and you’ve been around Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens. It’s a different planet than the other two.
It’s pretty clear which side has been more objective, and which has been more subjective. Which is fine. If your answer is simply Chicagoland feels more like New York Metro than Greater Boston, that’s fair.
Just look at the high density core and urban surroundings. No that wouldn’t include Braintree. Yes, it would include Cambridge or Somerville. Both of which are significantly more urban than most Chicago neighborhoods, let alone suburbs.
You’d say, unequivocally, Boston and Chicago feel more similar, because they are more similar.
If you’ve ever spent more than a day in New York City, and you’ve been around Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens. It’s a different planet than the other two.
.
Haven't been to Boston outside of the airport. It would cost a small fortune to go there given Boston's hotel prices and airfares.
Not sure why that would matter, since things like "stature" (in the thread title) are typically gauged from afar, not within. That and the overwhelming majority of the thread is back and forths about about statistical minutiae (recall there were like five pages arguing about transit accommodations at the Paris airport).
If the litmus test is "you need to go spend a week in Boston to realize what a big deal it REALLY is", would that enhance its stature? I think it does the opposite.
I"ve never been to Tokyo, but when people tell me what a big deal it is, based on a lifetime of popular culture consumption, I have zero reason to question them.
Boston is not represented in pop culture as having the stature being implied in this thread. If I"m wrong, tell me how.
And you ain’t even been! Maybe that really is a sign I should tap out. That’s crazy…
But my dude- a small fortune? Do yourself a favor a fly out, grab an airbnb 10 minutes from Downtown Boston for $65 after tax tomorrow night: https://abnb.me/vY1Hh1rS6Eb and let’s rehash then
Did you read the thread title? Why would it matter?
I wonder if the Chicago side of this cares if people have been there or not when assessing its stature?
That’s crazy you talkin you really know things. You know way less than we do is the thing.
Stature outside of this question is a mix of importance and reputation not just pop culture —-by that measure. Yea it’s certainly right in between Boston and NYC but really leans Boston.
Within this question metro Boston is certainly more on a tier with metro Chicago more than metro NYC. Metro Boston is a juggernaut in terms of importance and cultural output. And yeah, at a metro level, Boston rapidly begins to close ground on Chicago.
That’s crazy you talkin you really know things. You know way less than we do is the thing.
Stature is a mix of importance and reputation not just pop culture —-by that measure. Yea it’s certainly right in between Boston and NYC but really leans Boston.
Look at the OP criteria though.....cultural influence can ONLY be measured from the outside, right? I'm right in assuming he meant the broader culture?
For questions like that, people who haven't been there would arguably be better judges than people who have.
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.
