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.
Whats you're point? Nobody in this forum debates cities based on their municipal boundaries as those are arbitrary in the context of how they function on the ground in real life.
The boroughs of NYC are their own counties so again, you're weakening your own argument.
Parts of Boston proper lie, north of the river.
The point is that every major city has inner ring urban suburbs, but only some of them have forum members getting worried about whether they're figured into the perception of the core city.
The fact that NYC removed one of the three boundaries I mentioned helps my argument, it doesn't weaken it. Its an official recognition that those parts do function as one city.
I get that people like to take the notoriety of a city (which was forged during a time when metro areas were not recognized) and then use statistical areas to ratchet that population number up as high as they can get it, but I like to take a more careful approach where the city can be considered by itself and with its suburbs.
I don't think resisting to go along with what "everyone" thinks puts me in the wrong here.
The point is that every major city has inner ring urban suburbs
This is not even true. I live in Baltimore- no such place exists. Towson's density is a whopping 4,200ppsqmi. Not 19,000 ppsqmi. Its also 15 miles from downtown not .2 miles.
Boston does indeed punch well above its weight and is an important city. The fact that you have to mention its weight is sort of an admission that its obviously recognized as the underdog who's outclassed in the first place though.
NY is so extra over the top Chicago's probably closer in stature to Boise let alone Boston. However, having said that no two cities benefit more from 'metro' and 'CSA' than Boston and San Francisco. On the flip side probably no major city receives as little elevation from their metro and CSA than Chicago.
If Fulton Market somehow wasn't Chicago proper I'd absolutely include it as belonging to Chicago which is similar to Cambridge and other areas. It does get a little disingenuous though when saying city limits are just imaginary political lines that don't reflect the reality on the ground. Evanston as one example uses those very real political lines to distance and distinguish itself from Chicago as much as possible and on the ground those differences are why Evanston doesn't have an expansive skyline with a handful of skyscraper peaks as they have denied multiple proposals for new tallest towers. They're perfectly content remaining a laid-back, small-town/family friendly community with no major transformational aspirations.
Chicago's metro area has never been a cohesive body which works together economically, politically, educationally and culturally for the regional well-being. It has always been an adversarial relationship where something like landing a corporate office in a suburb is viewed as a win against the city or fighting off the city's effort to establish an airport in their suburb is a victory. Theses stories on here where metro Boston and the Bay Area function as singular entities with shared identities is simply not the case with Chicago as the city and suburbs are diametrically opposed. Look at the relocation of the Bears as evidence of this works. If Chicagoland was one large collaborative effort its potential would be limitless. So I fail to see how comparing metros or CSA is any more valid than cities.
This is not even true. I live in Baltimore- no such place exists. Towson's density is a whopping 4,200ppsqmi. Not 19,000 ppsqmi. Its also 15 miles from downtown not .2 miles.
Well, it looks like i"ve finally painted myself into a corner here (assuming no one goes and looks at the Wikipedia entry for Dundalk, MD).
Boston does indeed punch well above its weight and is an important city. The fact that you have to mention its weight is sort of an admission that its obviously recognized as the underdog who's outclassed in the first place though.
NY is so extra over the top Chicago's probably closer in stature to Boise let alone Boston. However, having said that no two cities benefit more from 'metro' and 'CSA' than Boston and San Francisco. On the flip side probably no major city receives as little elevation from their metro and CSA than Chicago.
If Fulton Market somehow wasn't Chicago proper I'd absolutely include it as belonging to Chicago which is similar to Cambridge and other areas. It does get a little disingenuous though when saying city limits are just imaginary political lines that don't reflect the reality on the ground. Evanston as one example uses those very real political lines to distance and distinguish itself from Chicago as much as possible and on the ground those differences are why Evanston doesn't have an expansive skyline with a handful of skyscraper peaks as they have denied multiple proposals for new tallest towers. They're perfectly content remaining a laid-back, small-town/family friendly community with no major transformational aspirations.
Chicago's metro area has never been a cohesive body which works together economically, politically, educationally and culturally for the regional well-being. It has always been an adversarial relationship where something like landing a corporate office in a suburb is viewed as a win against the city or fighting off the city's effort to establish an airport in their suburb is a victory. Theses stories on here where metro Boston and the Bay Area function as singular entities with shared identities is simply not the case with Chicago as the city and suburbs are diametrically opposed. Look at the relocation of the Bears as evidence of this works. If Chicagoland was one large collaborative effort its potential would be limitless. So I fail to see how comparing metros or CSA is any more valid than cities.
Thank you for putting this into words more eloquently than I could.
A simple look at a map shows unbroken street grids from Kenosha to the Indiana Dunes surrounding Chicagoland. Yet, as you pointed out, Chicago gets very little "extra credit" for the over 6 million in its exogenous metro area.
Then you look at Greater Boston on the map and see a drastically different situation that we are somehow supposed to reflexively accept as one entity.
Another way of saying "5000 ppsm" is "nearly as dense as Baltimore."
Disingenuous. Baltimore has lost 40% of its population. Dundlak is structurally intact and growing.
Most of your arguments here are disingenuous- It takes about .5 seconds to see through them.
Obviously, Dundalk doesn't and cant be compared to Somerville MA or Cambridge MA or Everett MA. Places 3x denser than it and denser than Boston itself.....It's a planned suburb akin to a Levittown.... not an urban inner-ring community like Jersey City. Obviously.
Its also very far from Downtown Baltimore in comparison to many of the MA cities we've mentioned. Multitudes further.
Boston does indeed punch well above its weight and is an important city. The fact that you have to mention its weight is sort of an admission that its obviously recognized as the underdog who's outclassed in the first place though.
NY is so extra over the top Chicago's probably closer in stature to Boise let alone Boston. However, having said that no two cities benefit more from 'metro' and 'CSA' than Boston and San Francisco. On the flip side probably no major city receives as little elevation from their metro and CSA than Chicago.
If Fulton Market somehow wasn't Chicago proper I'd absolutely include it as belonging to Chicago which is similar to Cambridge and other areas. It does get a little disingenuous though when saying city limits are just imaginary political lines that don't reflect the reality on the ground. Evanston as one example uses those very real political lines to distance and distinguish itself from Chicago as much as possible and on the ground those differences are why Evanston doesn't have an expansive skyline with a handful of skyscraper peaks as they have denied multiple proposals for new tallest towers. They're perfectly content remaining a laid-back, small-town/family friendly community with no major transformational aspirations.
Chicago's metro area has never been a cohesive body which works together economically, politically, educationally and culturally for the regional well-being. It has always been an adversarial relationship where something like landing a corporate office in a suburb is viewed as a win against the city or fighting off the city's effort to establish an airport in their suburb is a victory. Theses stories on here where metro Boston and the Bay Area function as singular entities with shared identities is simply not the case with Chicago as the city and suburbs are diametrically opposed. Look at the relocation of the Bears as evidence of this works. If Chicagoland was one large collaborative effort its potential would be limitless. So I fail to see how comparing metros or CSA is any more valid than cities.
At least on the MSA level, Boston really isn’t remarkable. Its Downtown is a significantly stronger Job center than Sat Center City Philly, Downtown Houston, Downtown Dallas, Downtown Atlanta or Downtown Miami. Its center city population is significantly denser than DC, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta and Miami.
While MSA’s (and UA’s) may be aggressive they’re a fair bit better than city limits.
Because you could argue Chicago is a much bigger city based on city limits alone but on the flip side you could say Chicago has far less influence on its region based on the fact Boston net receives more intercity commuters than Chicago. This is the flip side of the exact same fact Revere and Quincy are not Boston while comparable areas of the Chicagoland area are part of Chicago
The CSA is kind of a joke.
Unless you’re going to turn around and tell me Winnetka is some sort of world class economic engine based on its household income. You would recognize metro area is clearly the smarter way to compare cities. Because it’s a consistent standard vs a quirk of local politics.
The point is that every major city has inner ring urban suburbs, but only some of them have forum members getting worried about whether they're figured into the perception of the core city.
The fact that NYC removed one of the three boundaries I mentioned helps my argument, it doesn't weaken it. Its an official recognition that those parts do function as one city.
I get that people like to take the notoriety of a city (which was forged during a time when metro areas were not recognized) and then use statistical areas to ratchet that population number up as high as they can get it, but I like to take a more careful approach where the city can be considered by itself and with its suburbs.
I don't think resisting to go along with what "everyone" thinks puts me in the wrong here.
No, most cities don't have inner ring urban suburbs let alone something like Cambridge. Those that did, annexed them and made them part of the city proper (LA, Atlanta, Houston, Chicago, NYC). DC is about the only other cities that has a cohesive urban interior suburb that are politically distinct from the primary city.
Places like Miami, St. Louis, Baltimore, SD, Seattle, etc.. have large edge cities but thats not the same thing as an inner ring suburb in the context of this thread.
Statistical areas is the only way to compare them at objective parity unless you think Jacksonville is larger than Miami, Baltimore & Boston. If land isn't being equalized then it's a inherently skewed comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade
This is not even true. I live in Baltimore- no such place exists. Towson's density is a whopping 4,200ppsqmi. Not 19,000 ppsqmi. It's also 15 miles from downtown not .2 miles.
Did York Rd disappear or something? Towson is a shade over 8 miles from DT Baltimore. That being said, Towson is Baltimore's version of Bethesda or Silver Spring.
Last edited by Joakim3; 12-02-2023 at 04:44 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.
